Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The fallacies of Nagarjuna
While I recently read Frauwallner on Nagarjuna, he claimed that Nagarjuna`s logic is based on fallacies mostly. Courious what fallacies Nagarjuna is said to have committed, I stumbeled across a site that lists the fallacies of Nagarjuna.
What do you think about these fallacies? Are Frauwallner and the Logician getting Nagarjuna wrong or are they right?
What do you think about these fallacies? Are Frauwallner and the Logician getting Nagarjuna wrong or are they right?
0
Comments
To begin with, I would like to state that I know very little about Nagarjuna and his works. What I do know, however, leads me to believe that while Nagarjuna may have committed certain logical fallacies, he was not actually attempting to logically prove anything himself. Hence, no need for consistancy. In fact, what I believe Nagarjuna was doing was attempting to deconstruct all of the prevalent philosophical views of the time by using a combination of logical analysis and slight of hand in order to (i) show how these views were ultmately illogical from the standpoint of shunyata (this is especially true in regard to the Abhidhammika's idea that things exist by way of intrinsic characteristics), and more importantly, to (ii) free others from their clinging to views. I believe that clinging to views was what Nagarjuna considered to be the biggest obstacle on the path to awakening. In other words, he was using logic simply as a tool in order to help people realize shunyata, and consequentially, awakening.
I believe that this idea is supported by the verse, "When there is clinging perception, the perceiver generates being. When there is no clinging perception, he will be freed and there will be no being." (MMK XXVI:7). Essentially, my view is similar to that found in Derrida and Negative Theology, which sums it up by saying Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika, "offers a systematic analysis of all the important philosophical issues of its time, not to solve these problems but to demonstrate that any possible philosophical solution is self-contradictory or otherwise unjustifiable. This is not done to prepare the ground for Nagarjuna's own solution: "If I were to advance any thesis whatsoever, that in itself would be a fault; but I advance no thesis and so cannot be faulted." [Vigrahavyavartani, verse 29]" (232). Nevertheless, I am not an expert on the subject, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt. For a more detailed discussion, I suggest reading Critique of Nagarjuna, or does logic apply to what N says.
Jason
If his 'logic' is examined in Aristotelian terms, it is fallacious, of course, because it does not start from the same axiomatic base.
What he said.
-bf
Yeah man you tell it like it is. :S.
Logic seems to me an odd tool to use for that particular purpose.
P
Why use mathematical modelling when you can just go and look?
P
So please explain
First of all I do not know Nagarjuna ... but I checked out one argument about real vs unreal. And it is only illogical if you hold to two-valued logic.
So in at least there his conclusion is wrong.
Then I tried to read some of his other arguments but quickly lost interest. Sorry.
/Victor
Just an analogy. Why sit in a dark room working out logic when one can just go outside and look at nature?
P
They have virtually nothing to do with the original writings of Nagarjuna.
Going back to basics:
We have dependent arising, ie nothing arises or ceases independent of causes and conditions. So for example a plant grows ( "arises" ) in dependence on a seed, earth, water, light etc.
Does Nagarjuna's logic contradict this principle, and if so how does he explain a plant growing from a seed?
P
So what's your answer to the question I posed in the post #14?
P
This is a great debate among tibetians , and to some extent can only be verified experientally. But for the most part i will attempt to answer.
Nagarjuna's is one of refutation. he doesn't really say anything about a plant and a seed as a thesis. he refutes those with the ideas of its existence. Throughout the MMK he relates everything to Ontology (Exists from itself,from another, both or neither). Plants do grow from seeds, which would be both, yet they don't inherently come from both. Because as Nagarjuna states if they came from both at the same time there is no ending of the seed and beginning of the sprout. They don't come from neither , for that would posit that the sprout and the seed arise from random conditions and can be sprouts from shoes and seeds from bird feathers. They aren't inherently existent from themselves because they wouldn't be able to produce conditions to exist as both. Seeds if inherently seeds can't be anything other than seeds. Other is pretty much the same as Inherent existence but it posits that it comes from other and only other, there wouldn't be any conditions for the sprout to come from seed because the sprout as other could never mix with the seed.
This is what a reductio arguement focuses upon. The schools of buddhism in tibet use these ontological extreemes for thier tenets of thier systems.Nagarjuna was all about the refutation of these extremes to the point that he said if a person doesn't understand dependent origination they don't understand anything. And if they do understand DO they understand everything. Even the most subtle of teachings.
So to answer your basis
Dependent arising is this but it's important to understand that the plant isn't seperate from seed,earth,water,light etc. This requires a view of the Two Truths. With this framework everything clicks. the two truths is why the buddha said one thing to one shravaka and another to a bodhisattva. It is all true but based upon what. True isn't some unified thing that can be independent from false. Exists would not need to be examined without its cessation. These are some of the subtleties of Madhyamaka.
(im open to correction from anyone because this is important stuff, if indeed your not trying to be just antagonistic, i will examine what you say with great patience and humility)
Yes, they're all aspects of a process.
P
This reminds me of a debate between a zen master and tibetian master. They were about to debate and the zen master holds up an orange and asks "what is this"?
The tibetian didn't understand the language so his translator made a translation of this statement. The tibetian master Kalu Rinpoche said someting in response to the translator concerning the answer to the zen master's original question. And then the tibetians started laughing.
Wondering what was happening the zen master questioned the response and Kalu Rinpoche's translator said " rinpoche says , what ? Don't they have oranges where he comes from"?
This is the reason why a debate about the two truths are in relation to its conventional and ultimate terms.