Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Caoimhghín »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:08 amYou are missing the point.
I disagree. I never mentioned the "point" of the tetralemma, merely that it uses a two-valued logic.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Malcolm »

Caoimhghín wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:36 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:08 amYou are missing the point.
I disagree. I never mentioned the "point" of the tetralemma, merely that it uses a two-valued logic.
My point, which everyone seems to either ignore or miss, is that these negations referred to real positions people held. That's all. Therefore, discussing them as if they are any more than simple negations is mistaken.

Other than the dispute between Sakya and Geluk over whether two or four negations are appropriate with respect to ascertaining the ultimate, you will not find, in Indian Buddhist texts, a treatment of the so-called tetralemma as a logical device on its own, unlike say syllogisms, and so on.
Si-va-kon
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:49 pm
Location: Central Asia

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Si-va-kon »

The concept of "European logic" is really too broad and vague. And Indian logic (Malcolm is completely right)
is just a syllogism. Completely reducible to the first figure of Aristotle.

Tetralema has a Sanskrit equivalent - Catuṣkoṭi.
All possible combinations of duals, contents of simple syllogisms.

And yet, the main difference between ind logic and the euro is the presence another reality,
which is beyond the competence of logic, "discriminating knowledge".

Nagarjuna showed "illustrative examples"
using all theoretically possible resources dual knowledge.
Logic is incompetent, any dual statement reducible to absurdity.

Dignaga and Dharmakirti:
Logic is competent only in our everyday life, empirical level.
That only seems to be true or false to the unenlightened look of an "ordinary person".
Empirical reality is inherently illusory, always
false with respect to the level of True Reality.

Pudgals, pots, cows exist only in a conditional
sense, playing by the rules true/false exclusively on the level of our empirical reality (vyavaharika),
Which hides a different, higher level of Reality.
Pudgals, pots, cows, kings and chariots always stay false for The True Reality.


We are right or wrong only on our profane level (vyavahara) confusing a snake with a rope.
But any variant of the outcome of this event (the whole tetralem) always false c. Absolute.
Si-va-kon
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:49 pm
Location: Central Asia

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Si-va-kon »

‘Acela Sutta’ (SN12.17) [15, p. 546] in the ‘Samyutta Nikaya’.
The English translation reads:
Q1: Master Gotama, is suffering created by oneself?
A1: Not so, Kassapa.
Q2: Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?
A2: Not so, Kassapa.
Q3: Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created both by oneself and by another?
A3: Not so, Kassapa.
Q4: Then, Master Gotama, has suffering arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another?
A4: Not so, Kassapa.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Malcolm »

Si-va-kon wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:34 pm
And yet, the main difference between ind logic and the euro is the presence another reality,
Not necessarily.
User avatar
Javierfv1212
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:39 am
Location: South Florida

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Javierfv1212 »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:10 pm
Caoimhghín wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:36 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:08 amYou are missing the point.
I disagree. I never mentioned the "point" of the tetralemma, merely that it uses a two-valued logic.
My point, which everyone seems to either ignore or miss, is that these negations referred to real positions people held. That's all. Therefore, discussing them as if they are any more than simple negations is mistaken.

Other than the dispute between Sakya and Geluk over whether two or four negations are appropriate with respect to ascertaining the ultimate, you will not find, in Indian Buddhist texts, a treatment of the so-called tetralemma as a logical device on its own, unlike say syllogisms, and so on.
who held a view rejected in the fourth corner?
It is quite impossible to find the Buddha anywhere other than in one's own mind.
A person who is ignorant of this may seek externally,
but how is it possible to find oneself through seeking anywhere other than in oneself?
Someone who seeks their own nature externally is like a fool who, giving a performance in the middle of a crowd, forgets who he is and then seeks everywhere else to find himself.
— Padmasambhava

Visit my site: https://sites.google.com/view/abhayajana/
Daizan
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:26 pm

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Daizan »

Conclusion in the article linked in the OP:
Buddhist thought, and Asian thought in general, has often been written off by Western philosophers.
Rather, it seems to be the case that Western philosophers have been written off by Buddhists. Fortunately for them, Western philosophers don't need to be validated by Buddhists.
How can contradictions be true?
A contradiction can be true by being truly contradictory.
What’s all this talk of ineffability?
Difficult.
The constructions I have described show how to make precise mathematical sense of the Buddhist views.
Perhaps he could build an app with these equations to instantly solve any koan. :twothumbsup:
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Malcolm »

Javierfv1212 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:00 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:10 pm
Caoimhghín wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:36 am I disagree. I never mentioned the "point" of the tetralemma, merely that it uses a two-valued logic.
My point, which everyone seems to either ignore or miss, is that these negations referred to real positions people held. That's all. Therefore, discussing them as if they are any more than simple negations is mistaken.

Other than the dispute between Sakya and Geluk over whether two or four negations are appropriate with respect to ascertaining the ultimate, you will not find, in Indian Buddhist texts, a treatment of the so-called tetralemma as a logical device on its own, unlike say syllogisms, and so on.
who held a view rejected in the fourth corner?
Eel-wrigglers.
Si-va-kon
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:49 pm
Location: Central Asia

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Si-va-kon »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:59 pm
Si-va-kon wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:34 pm
And yet, the main difference between ind logic and the euro is the presence another reality,
Not necessarily.
OK. There are no discrepancies regarding "our" level of reality.
There are many ramifications, but all are based on the first figure of Aristotle.
Everything is reducible to her, everything is checked by her

Eurologics does not consider itself capable of proving the existence of a soul, an entity that does not have a material substrate.
In erologics, Samkhya's favorite proof of the existence of a purely psychic agent is invalid.

The systems of logic of all schools that recognize karma and samsara invariably imply a different level of reality,
completely ignored in the euro.
Euro does not prove the existence of atman or isvara

As for the empirical level, you are absolutely right - syllogisms are co-coordinated, taken from different systems, reducible to one another.
iskaral
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by iskaral »

If you think contemporary western logic has anything to do with Aristotle you have no business commenting on the subject.

The names you’re looking for are frege, russel, wittgenstein, cs peirce and many more.

(With the exception of historical work).
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Malcolm »

Si-va-kon wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:17 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:59 pm
Si-va-kon wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:34 pm
And yet, the main difference between ind logic and the euro is the presence another reality,
Not necessarily.
OK. There are no discrepancies regarding "our" level of reality.
I was responding to your assertion that Buddhist logic points to another level of reality—it does not. There is only conventional truth. Ultimate truth, in Buddhadharma, is the simple absence of inherent existence (svabhāva) of conventional entities, despite TRV Murti's complete and total misunderstanding of Candrakirti.
Si-va-kon
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:49 pm
Location: Central Asia

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Si-va-kon »

iskaral wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:43 am If you think contemporary western logic has anything to do with Aristotle you have no business commenting on the subject.

The names you’re looking for are frege, russel, wittgenstein, cs peirce and many more.

(With the exception of historical work).
I am not familiar with the immensity.
Logic developed from the first figure of Aristotle.
To discuss the similarities between Western and Indian logic is possible only in the field of syllogism.
There is no point in discussing the rest simply because there is nothing to compare with - in the Indian system there is only a syllogism.

Any logical operation is reducible to a statement.
And in Indian logic, a statement is a syllogism, expressed only partially.
Si-va-kon
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:49 pm
Location: Central Asia

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Si-va-kon »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 1:54 pm
Si-va-kon wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:17 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:59 pm

Not necessarily.
OK. There are no discrepancies regarding "our" level of reality.
I was responding to your assertion that Buddhist logic points to another level of reality—it does not. There is only conventional truth. Ultimate truth, in Buddhadharma, is the simple absence of inherent existence (svabhāva) of conventional entities, despite TRV Murti's complete and total misunderstanding of Candrakirti.

Ultimate truth, in Buddhadharma, is the same 'another level'.
Ultimate truth in western logic will be only conventional truth in Buddhist logic.
This is the difference

The Buddhist Absolute Truth is not being filled with content.
Technically - the separation of external indriyas from objects and the cessation of the activity of manas
iskaral
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by iskaral »

I am not familiar with the immensity.
Logic developed from the first figure of Aristotle.
To discuss the similarities between Western and Indian logic is possible only in the field of syllogism.
There is no point in discussing the rest simply because there is nothing to compare with - in the Indian system there is only a syllogism.
There’s also no point in discussing aristotealian logic as if it has anything to do with contemporary logic. And so the comparison between “Indian” and “western” logic is a waste of time unless you’re doing a historical study.
Si-va-kon
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:49 pm
Location: Central Asia

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Si-va-kon »

iskaral wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:52 am
I am not familiar with the immensity.
Logic developed from the first figure of Aristotle.
To discuss the similarities between Western and Indian logic is possible only in the field of syllogism.
There is no point in discussing the rest simply because there is nothing to compare with - in the Indian system there is only a syllogism.
There’s also no point in discussing aristotealian logic as if it has anything to do with contemporary logic. And so the comparison between “Indian” and “western” logic is a waste of time unless you’re doing a historical study.
The most complex formulas from all kinds of systems of all European circle - can be executed, carried out on computer?
For this performance, they must be programmed, turned into "computer code"?

Any programming language, executable program in it as a result, they are reduced to assembler code, executable sequentially, step by step.
Any algorithm, any logical expression is just a set of these simplest step-by-step operations, consisting of assignment, as well as the logic itself,
its basic "cubes" - "AND", "OR", "NOT".

Again deduced from the first figure of Aristotle and verified only by it.
Do you admit the thought that somewhere, in conditional Africa or Europe, this is not the case?
iskaral
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by iskaral »

This is absolutely not the case.

1) Aristotle explicitly didn’t include conditionals (if... then...), this was known and developed by the stoics in their hypothetical syllogism.

https://philarchive.org/archive/EBRWAT

2) Aristotle’s logic is a predicate logic while modern logic is overwhelmingly propositional (although there are modern predicate logics) and is of minimal use when taking about and, or, xor, etc.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... cially-wit

3) we don’t prove validity by reducing to Aristotle’s figures. We determine validity through the truth functionality of the argument to show that if the premises are true the conclusion cannot be false. Which is typically done through reduction of an argument to a series of truth tables.

https://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga ... bles36.png

Anyway I’m beating a dead horse so peace out.
Si-va-kon
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:49 pm
Location: Central Asia

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Si-va-kon »

iskaral wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:42 pm 1) Aristotle explicitly didn’t include conditionals (if... then...), this was known and developed by the stoics in their hypothetical syllogism.
2) Aristotle’s logic is a predicate logic while modern logic is overwhelmingly propositional (although there are modern predicate logics) and is of minimal use when taking about and, or, xor, etc.
Rarely denotes these operations in their simplest form,
configuring propositional constructions from them.

iskaral wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:42 pm 3) we don’t prove validity by reducing to Aristotle’s figures. We determine validity through the truth functionality of the argument to show that if the premises are true the conclusion cannot be false. Which is typically done through reduction of an argument to a series of truth tables.

Anyway I’m beating a dead horse so peace out.
All these "functionality of the argument to show ..." are summarized in tables,
the cells of which are filled in according to the simplest operations - AND OR NOT.

This is the only reason why any such structure can be programmed.
Any programming language is easy to remember and work writing the simplest assembler operations,
which the essence of the assignment and processing of data (creation of tables similar to the one given by you) with operations AND NOT OR.

Bring me any logical system (any "propositional"), which is not programmable, those. is not converted to assembly code.


Everything that is programmed consists of arithmetic/mathematical and logical operations.
Any of the latter are a combination of the simplest AND OR NOT.
You are arguing that the logic in Africa is different, because indicated by other characters in a different system.
This your thesis is a dead horse
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

I had a friend that was a graduate student in math. He was taking a logic course where there were multiple shades of grey between true and false. I think the title of the course was Multivariate Logic.

Anyway, included in the course was a mathematical definition of “truth”. I think it was called “Tarski’s Definition of Truth”.

But I wasn’t the one taking the course. So don’t get mad at me if I got any of that wrong.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by PeterC »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 8:30 pm I had a friend that was a graduate student in math. He was taking a logic course where there were multiple shades of grey between true and false. I think the title of the course was Multivariate Logic.

Anyway, included in the course was a mathematical definition of “truth”. I think it was called “Tarski’s Definition of Truth”.

But I wasn’t the one taking the course. So don’t get mad at me if I got any of that wrong.
That sounds like modal logic, which itself is a family of systems of logic rather than just one axiomatic system.

The reason I don't generally read articles on "western vs. buddhist logic" is they're generally written by people who don't have a particularly deep understanding of either, and to say anything intelligent, they would need a very deep understanding of both; and in any case "western logic" is not a monolithic system, nor is "buddhist logic".
Si-va-kon
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:49 pm
Location: Central Asia

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Si-va-kon »

1. Water remains H2O in any of its configurations - liquid, steam, ice...
2. Ice is not steam.

In the various logics that we distinguish according to point two,
there are only different configurations of the three basic logical operations,
which alone distinguish the logic from "impurities".

Like H2O from foreign particles.

Assembler is an impeccable distiller.
If one of the three basic operations (AND OR NOT) is executed step by step, then this is logic.
If some other operations are performed, then these are impurities.
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”