I disagree. I never mentioned the "point" of the tetralemma, merely that it uses a two-valued logic.
Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western 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)
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)
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western 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.Caoimhghín wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:36 amI disagree. I never mentioned the "point" of the tetralemma, merely that it uses a two-valued logic.
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.
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
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.
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.
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
‘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.
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.
- Javierfv1212
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:39 am
- Location: South Florida
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
who held a view rejected in the fourth corner?Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:10 pmMy 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.Caoimhghín wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:36 amI disagree. I never mentioned the "point" of the tetralemma, merely that it uses a two-valued logic.
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.
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/
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/
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
Conclusion in the article linked in the OP:
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.Buddhist thought, and Asian thought in general, has often been written off by Western philosophers.
A contradiction can be true by being truly contradictory.How can contradictions be true?
Difficult.What’s all this talk of ineffability?
Perhaps he could build an app with these equations to instantly solve any koan.The constructions I have described show how to make precise mathematical sense of the Buddhist views.
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
Eel-wrigglers.Javierfv1212 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:00 pmwho held a view rejected in the fourth corner?Malcolm wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:10 pmMy 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.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.
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.
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
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.
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
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).
The names you’re looking for are frege, russel, wittgenstein, cs peirce and many more.
(With the exception of historical work).
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
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.
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
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.
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 1:54 pmI 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
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
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.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.
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
The most complex formulas from all kinds of systems of all European circle - can be executed, carried out on computer?iskaral wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:52 amThere’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.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.
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?
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
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.
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.
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
Rarely denotes these operations in their simplest form,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.
configuring propositional constructions from them.
All these "functionality of the argument to show ..." are summarized in tables,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.
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
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
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.
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)
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)
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
That sounds like modal logic, which itself is a family of systems of logic rather than just one axiomatic system.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.
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".
Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic
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.
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.