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.
Jesse
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Jesse »

I found this to be a really good read.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/beyo ... ket-newtab

Western philosophers have not, on the whole, regarded Buddhist thought with much enthusiasm. As a colleague once said to me: ‘It’s all just mysticism.’ This attitude is due, in part, to ignorance. But it is also due to incomprehension. When Western philosophers look East, they find things they do not understand – not least the fact that the Asian traditions seem to accept, and even endorse, contradictions. Thus we find the great second-century Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna saying:

The nature of things is to have no nature; it is their non-nature that is their nature. For they have only one nature: no-nature.

An abhorrence of contradiction has been high orthodoxy in the West for more than 2,000 years. Statements such as Nagarjuna’s are therefore wont to produce looks of blank incomprehension, or worse.
The notion that some things might be both true and false is much more unorthodox. But here, too, we can find some plausible examples. Take the notorious ‘paradoxes of self-reference’, the oldest of which, reputedly discovered by Eubulides in the fourth century BCE, is called the Liar Paradox. Here’s its commonest expression:

This statement is false.
It was the leader of these efforts, Bertrand Russell, who in 1901 discovered the most famous such paradox (hence its name, Russell’s Paradox). And it goes like this:

Some sets are members of themselves; the set of all sets, for example, is a set, so it belongs to itself. But some sets are not members of themselves. The set of cats, for example, is not a cat, so it’s not a member of the set of cats. But what about the set of all the sets that are not members of themselves? If it is a member of itself, then it isn’t. But if it isn’t, then it is. It seems that it both is and isn’t. So, goodbye Principle of Non-Contradiction. The catuskoti beckons.
Image
Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
User avatar
oryoki
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:27 pm

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by oryoki »

Jesse wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 12:30 am I found this to be a really good read.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/beyo ... ket-newtab

Western philosophers have not, on the whole, regarded Buddhist thought with much enthusiasm. As a colleague once said to me: ‘It’s all just mysticism.’ This attitude is due, in part, to ignorance. But it is also due to incomprehension. When Western philosophers look East, they find things they do not understand – not least the fact that the Asian traditions seem to accept, and even endorse, contradictions. Thus we find the great second-century Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna saying:

The nature of things is to have no nature; it is their non-nature that is their nature. For they have only one nature: no-nature.

An abhorrence of contradiction has been high orthodoxy in the West for more than 2,000 years. Statements such as Nagarjuna’s are therefore wont to produce looks of blank incomprehension, or worse.
The notion that some things might be both true and false is much more unorthodox. But here, too, we can find some plausible examples. Take the notorious ‘paradoxes of self-reference’, the oldest of which, reputedly discovered by Eubulides in the fourth century BCE, is called the Liar Paradox. Here’s its commonest expression:

This statement is false.
It was the leader of these efforts, Bertrand Russell, who in 1901 discovered the most famous such paradox (hence its name, Russell’s Paradox). And it goes like this:

Some sets are members of themselves; the set of all sets, for example, is a set, so it belongs to itself. But some sets are not members of themselves. The set of cats, for example, is not a cat, so it’s not a member of the set of cats. But what about the set of all the sets that are not members of themselves? If it is a member of itself, then it isn’t. But if it isn’t, then it is. It seems that it both is and isn’t. So, goodbye Principle of Non-Contradiction. The catuskoti beckons.
I did look up the Russell's Paradox on Wiki:
Informal presentation:
Most sets commonly encountered are not members of themselves. For example, consider the set of all squares in the plane. This set is not itself a square in the plane, thus it is not a member of itself. Let us call a set "normal" if it is not a member of itself, and "abnormal" if it is a member of itself. Clearly every set must be either normal or abnormal. The set of squares in the plane is normal. In contrast, the complementary set that contains everything which is not a square in the plane is itself not a square in the plane, and so it is one of its own members and is therefore abnormal.

Now we consider the set of all normal sets, R, and try to determine whether R is normal or abnormal. If R were normal, it would be contained in the set of all normal sets (itself), and therefore be abnormal; on the other hand if R were abnormal, it would not be contained in the set of all normal sets (itself), and therefore be normal. This leads to the conclusion that R is neither normal nor abnormal: Russell's paradox.
It seems to me that the above "problem" lies in the fact that the shape of the plane is undefined. Is the shape of the plane square or circle, or what shape is it? We clearly do not ascribe specific characteristics of shape to some plane which can contain all sort of stuff.

It seems to me, that this has a connection with Nagarjuna's philosophy because Nagarjuna refuses to ascribe any characteristic to All Inclusive Reality which includes all stuff, and therefore his philosophy appears also paradoxical.
Jesse
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Jesse »

There is an interesting set of paradigms that at least seem to touch on the logical differences discussed in the article. For anyone who is familiar with Binary logic.

In Binary logic you have two possible states: 0, and 1 - notations that pretty much mean: On, or Off ; Or True and False;

In computer science this is known as a Bit.

However in quantum computing you have something called a Qubit. It is a Quantum Superposition of both states: 0 and 1 Simultaneously. (However, more states are possible.)

This sort of reminded me of the logical shift required when switching between the two kinds of logic. So it at least does seem there is a natural representation of this Buddhist logic that is found in nature.

For anyone who's interested here's a link with more information:
https://www.educba.com/qubits-vs-bits/
Image
Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
User avatar
oryoki
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:27 pm

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by oryoki »

Jesse wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:20 pm There is an interesting set of paradigms that at least seem to touch on the logical differences discussed in the article. For anyone who is familiar with Binary logic.

In Binary logic you have two possible states: 0, and 1 - notations that pretty much mean: On, or Off ; Or True and False;

In computer science this is known as a Bit.

However in quantum computing you have something called a Qubit. It is a Quantum Superposition of both states: 0 and 1 Simultaneously. (However, more states are possible.)

This sort of reminded me of the logical shift required when switching between the two kinds of logic. So it at least does seem there is a natural representation of this Buddhist logic that is found in nature.

For anyone who's interested here's a link with more information:
https://www.educba.com/qubits-vs-bits/
Western logic tries to fit everything into the "either-or" logic. By "either-or" logic I mean the logic of the law of excluded middle, which is really the Binary logic.

Buddhism teaches Middle Way, which I think uses the "neither-nor" logic that does not exclude the "middle", where, by the "middle", I mean something that is common to the opposites.

For example, the fact is, that the plane is the common characteristic which all the stuff (squares, circles, etc.) in the plane has.
To define the characteristic of the plane as "square" would be unusual; but to define the characteristic of the plane as "not-square" is also unusual, because it is also a definition of characteristic of the plane. The characteristic of the plane itself should remain completely undefined, as far as its content is concerned, i.e. the plane is neither square nor not-square. The "neither-nor" logic should therefore apply.

I wonder if the "neither-nor" is the Qubit. :crazy:
Jesse
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Jesse »

I am actually a little bit confused by the russels paradox. I tried writing it out in pseudo-code.
Some sets are members of themselves; the set of all sets, for example, is a set, so it belongs to itself. But some sets are not members of themselves. The set of cats, for example, is not a cat, so it’s not a member of the set of cats. But what about the set of all the sets that are not members of themselves? If it is a member of itself, then it isn’t. But if it isn’t, then it is. It seems that it both is and isn’t. So, goodbye Principle of Non-Contradiction.

Code: Select all

* = denotes self reference

set1 = [item1, item2, item3]
set2 = [item3, item4, item5]
set3 = [item6, item7, item8]


SetsOfAllSets = [set1, set2, set3, *setsofsets, SetsOfAllSetsThatAren'tMembersOfThemselves]

SetsOfAllSetsThatAren'tMembersOfThemselves = [set, set2, set3]
Writing it out this way (Using arrays/lists to represent sets), I am a bit confused as to this bit of logic: If it is a member of itself, then it isn’t. But if it isn’t, then it is. It seems that it both is and isn’t.

It seems to me that it's simply resolved by leaving out the sets which reference themselves? No? Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that solution?

I kind of see that it depends on whether or not you add the self reference, if the SetOfAllSets references itself, it's a set of all sets, but if you add the logical condition "Set of all Sets that are not members of themselves" .. then it can no longer have a self reference, and it still seems to satisfy the condition specified.

Yea, this is breaking my brain. I'm confused now.

Edit: Okay I finally got it. In my example, the moment I excluded the self reference in the (SetsOfAllSetsThatAren'tMembersOfThemselves) it then again qualified to be in the set again, but once you add it, it again is disqualified. I see why it's a paradox now.

:thinking:
Image
Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17090
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

This is even better in psychology, where Buddhist ideas directly address some of the major questions in the field, but get excluded due to their "philosophical" nature. Hilariously, some textbooks on psychology will do things like start with Descarte as the first person to examine subjectivity and existence.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Dan74
Former staff member
Posts: 3403
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Dan74 »

The resolution of Russell's Paradox is not to accept contradictions and this is well-understood in Mathematical Logic. It's because the set of all sets that don't include itself is not a well-defined set. The notion of defining a collection of objects with arbitrary characteristics is not self-evident and bears careful examination. If one relies on the usual intuition of us putting together objects, then one must adopt a constructivist approach - can we create an algorithm to list all the elements of this set we want to define? Or at least a weaker constructivist approach - can we verify for every element if it belongs to the set or not? Now try to construct a set that is a member of itself, with strict constructivist rules you can't. I think this is called the Axiom of Regularity in the Zermelo-Frankel Set Theory, which is the usual formulation.

I am not a logician or a set theorist. All I did was two units on Set Theory many years ago and some readings on logic on my own. The above seems to me to be accurate but I am old and slow now. If we allow anything to define a set, what does this definition actually mean? Does this set exist? What can it mean for a set to exist? It turns out that we do need some limits as to how a set may be defined otherwise we allow nonsense sets like the one above, sets that are too big, like the set of all sets, which must contain itself, etc, etc...

As for Nagarjuna, a lot of his logic does not need a new mathematical logic. He is attacking a seemingly common sense but actually nonsensical notion that things possess some inherent thingyness. Then his tetralemma seems to me to imply that whatever state of affairs we want to claim is not true because the attribute does not apply to the subject. It's like asking is zebra black or is zebra white? Well, it is not black, nor it is not black, nor is it white, nor is it non-white. Are the words you see on the screen real? Is this just a voice in your head? All these statements appear to be possessed of some truth, as are their negations, but the true state of affairs is captured neither by them, not by their negations, nor by their opposites, not by the negations of their opposites.
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 »

Multiplicity is an indicator, a general characteristic.
The members of this set are unique specimens.
For DD (Dignaga & Dharmakirti) the connection between them artificial, exists only as a mental image.
According to opponents (nyaya, vaisesika, mimamsa ...) the connection (relationship) between them really exists,
(paramārthataḥ).
Dan74 wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:34 pm If we allow anything to define a set, what does this definition actually mean? Does this set exist? What can it mean for a set to exist? It turns out that we do need some limits
This is a question of centuries of debate between the currents of Indian thought.
The answer depends on "Does this set exist?"

"what does this definition"
Indicators and what they mean = named set & its members = words and their referents, function in the same way as
a relationship between a logical sign (hetu, linga) and deducible (sadhya).

If the signifier and the signified really exist (paramārtha-sat),
so is their relationship.
Opponents of DD consider all this to be real (paramārthataḥ).


DD assert that the names of the sets are conditional agreements for the convenience of verbal communication.
Artificial constructions that do not exist "realistically" (as paramartha-sat).
Valid only at the Vyavahara level - everyday reality of non-samyak-jnana "ordinary" of people.
In which there are chariots, pots, pudgals.

Disregard for European logic is very important here Buddhist kshanikatva - momentarity "is real existing objects" (vastu, paramartha-sat).
And at the same time, the theory of perception is presented by DD with tz. allowing for a certain duration of objects.

If Nagarjuna postulated unfitness, inconsistency of logic,
then DD rehabilitated it laws regarding vyavahara - the one around us everyday world.
In which we can act purposefully (pour milk into a jug and drink from it) thanks to how once the logic.

Nagarjuna considered any system to be inevitably self-contradictory.
DD believed that it was possible to create a consistent system,
distinguishing between levels of reality, incl. and limits the competence of the links between them.
User avatar
Mitra-Sauwelios
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:41 pm

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by Mitra-Sauwelios »

I come to Buddhism from what Laurence Lampert calls "a Nietzschean history of [Western] philosophy", which is to say the Straussian dis-covery of philosophic esotericism from Homer(!) to Nietzsche, and beyond. You guys may find the following passages to be of interest:

"The loosening of the Parmenidean knot began at least as early as Plato's The Sophist with its idea of a hybrid kind of Being, the Being of nonbeing/the nonbeing of Being, a triton genos or third modality of Being that Plato calls an 'intertwining' or symplōke (Sophist 240c). Such anomalous states of Being mark the limits of knowledge and keep a space open for the unthought. While the genealogy of Parmenidean Being leads through Aristotle's notion of the 'prime mover' as 'thought thinking itself' (noesis noeseos) (Metaphysics 1074b34) and dominates much of the spiritual history of the West, the Heraclitean-Anaximanderian genealogy of the names for time's namelessness [...] would constitute a kind of counterhistory, a strange kind of 'bastard reasoning', as Plato calls it in the Timaeus, neither muthos ["myth"] nor logos ["reason"]. This is what Plato says about the khōra touton, the receptacle of all becoming (49b): 'A third kind [triton genos] is ever-existing Place [khōras] which admits not of destruction, and provides room for all things that have birth, itself being apprehensible by a kind of bastard reasoning by the aid of non-sensation, barely an object of belief' (52b); 'of a kind that is invisible and unshaped [amorphon], all-receptive, and in some most perplexing and most baffling way [aporētatā¹] partaking of the intelligible' (51b)." (Ned Lukacher, Time-Fetishes, pp. 19-20.)

I very much associate this khōra with the "openness" that is sunyata.

"In Tibetan Buddhism, emptiness is often symbolized by and compared to the open sky which is associated with openness and freedom."
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śūnyatā#/ ... ladesh.JPG)

Now this "Parmenidean" Being was actually only Parmenides' exoteric teaching, as Lampert shows in his latest book, How Socrates Became Socrates. In fact, the "Western philosophers" (scholars!) mentioned in Jesse's article have, on the whole, regarded the actual thought of the Western philosophers from Homer to Nietzsche with at least as little enthusiasm as Buddhist thought! As another exception among Western scholars writes;

"It would be difficult indeed to point to another institution that offends us in so many different ways [as philosophic esotericism does].
Still, if the institution in question concerned the historical activities of kings, aristocrats, generals, or businessmen, then its extreme offensiveness would not necessarily incline us intellectuals to deny its reality. Quite the contrary. But esotericism concerns the intellectual life—our life. And many of us pursue that life precisely in the hope of finding something more honest, something purer and loftier. Thus to charge philosophers, of all people, with esotericism—with behavior that we find so childish, cowardly, deceitful, elitist, inauthentic, and so forth—strikes us intellectuals as both demeaning and implausible in the extreme. Surely esotericism is a practice to be expected of mystics, astrologers, and alchemists, not genuine philosophers." (Arthur M. Melzer, Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing, p. 106.)

There you have it: "mystics"...

¹ Compare "aporia".
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 »

There is not enough information here for a flawless identification.
Mitra-Sauwelios wrote: Sat Aug 21, 2021 6:12 amever-existing ... admits not of destruction and provides room for all things that have birth ... the aid of non-sensation ... of a kind that is invisible and unshaped
in Samkhya it will be Prakriti in the unmanifest condition.
In Vedanta (Shankara), nyaya, yoga, it will be Brahman.
In Mahayana Buddhism:
yogacara - alaya-vijnana.
madhyamaka - samskaras, the most difficult to remove,
incl. and not related to consciousness.
The activity of this very "elusive" remains the cause of future births in the samsaric worlds;
neutralized only in nirodha-samapatti.

Comparison with the sky should not be overestimated.
The first of the 4 dhyanas of the world without-form (Arupya)
achieved by keeping the mind on the object "space without center and borders".

In many Western systems, whole fragments are easily visible,
coinciding with the positions of ind systems.
And at the same time, any western at some points is obligatory
will contradict any of the Indian, in which yoga is used.

The Indian Absolute is in many ways similar to khōras,
but take a look at the contradictions:
1. The Absolute is not the cause of anything (and no one's effect).
2. There are no eternal causes.

Created by reasons is empty.
And what is the absence of cause / effect to our mind
only available as mental holograms created by with the same mind.

Absolut in technical terms is defined as cessation of all feelings and mental activities.
Absolut (nirvana) is "an the object of mind" only in the nirodha-samapatti

) We cannot imagine how we do not exist - we ourselves will imagine
User avatar
frantisek
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:50 pm

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by frantisek »

I'm going to be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of portrayals of Buddhist logicians and their tradition as somehow standing contra Western logic, as it seems a lot of what is done in the comparison between the two is a misunderstanding of what 'Western' logic is—logic nowadays is a lot more humble in it's approach to things in that it doesn't claim to be anything other than a formal language with a set rules of inference by which we can proceed like a calculus. I think people confuse the common notion of an argument being 'logical', i.e. making sense to them and the study of logic itself which is a bit divorced from that surprisingly enough

Idk if it's been done before, but one of my favorite logicians and philosophers, Catarina Dutilh-Novaes has a really interesting book reconstructing Medieval and Scholastic logic, and I think it would be really cool if there was something like that w some of the different Buddhist logics that have been formulated
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by PeterC »

frantisek wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:11 am I'm going to be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of portrayals of Buddhist logicians and their tradition as somehow standing contra Western logic, as it seems a lot of what is done in the comparison between the two is a misunderstanding of what 'Western' logic is—logic nowadays is a lot more humble in it's approach to things in that it doesn't claim to be anything other than a formal language with a set rules of inference by which we can proceed like a calculus. I think people confuse the common notion of an argument being 'logical', i.e. making sense to them and the study of logic itself which is a bit divorced from that surprisingly enough

Idk if it's been done before, but one of my favorite logicians and philosophers, Catarina Dutilh-Novaes has a really interesting book reconstructing Medieval and Scholastic logic, and I think it would be really cool if there was something like that w some of the different Buddhist logics that have been formulated
Agree. People wave around terms like "western logic" and that means...what, exactly? Even in this thread you've had people throwing in Homer, Nietzsche, Russell...though with the possible exception of some of Russell's work, I wouldn't consider a lot of the names mentioned to really be logic, so perhaps they're talking about the tradition of western philosophy generally, which is so broad a term as to be almost completely meaningless.

"Buddhist philosophy" is a bit better-defined - we can talk about the pramanas, the objectives, the form of arguments advanced, etc. But it's a different project with different goals and different tools. Trying to contrast the two is a somewhat meaningless exercise.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by tobes »

Graham Priest has done some super interesting work in this area. From diatheism to Nagarjuna.....

https://historyofphilosophy.net/logic-buddhism-priest
iskaral
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:06 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by iskaral »

First post due to a pet peeve. There’s no such thing as “western logic”. There are many many western logics.

There’s the standard undergrad propositional logic sure, but there’s also TONNES of “non-classical logics” (I have a close to 600 page textbook on logics that challenge classical logic) - modal logics, intuisitionist logics, many valued logics (which allow for more values than just true and false), fuzzy logics and so on. And many of those logics are premised on the denial of either the principle of non contradiction (pnc), or the law of the excluded middle (lem), most notably the many valued logics. Logic is just a tool and which logic is the best tool depends on what you are trying to do with it.

As an aside nor is it even clear that nagarjuna denies the LEM or PNC either. It seems like what he does most of the time is reduce things to contradictions in order to reject them.
Last edited by iskaral on Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

I think the Buddha uses, in the tetralemma for instance, a simple two-valued logic largely identical to "Western logic." It has "true" as a valid input or "false" as a valid one. Things aren't truthy or falsish when it comes to the matter of their emptiness. I don't think that there's actually such a thing as Buddhist logic versus non-Buddhist 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 »

Dan74 wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:34 pm Then his tetralemma
Rejects actual positions people held in Ancient India, it is not a logical formula, as you correctly induce.
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: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:19 pm the tetralemma...
Rejects actual positions people held in Ancient India, it is not a logical formula in the modern sense.
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: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:22 pm
Caoimhghín wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:19 pm the tetralemma...
Rejects actual positions people held in Ancient India, it is not a logical formula in the modern sense.
IMO, it is precisely because the Buddha uses a simple two-valued logic that the tetralemma is not a logical proposition. In a system with more than two valid logical values, let's say with "true," "false," and "truthy-falsy;" the tetralemma can be construed as a logical proposition. It can't be construed so with simple 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)
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Beyond True and False Buddhist logic Vs Western Logic

Post by tobes »

iskaral wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:03 pm First post due to a pet peeve. There’s no such thing as “western logic”. There are many many western logics.

There’s the standard undergrad propositional logic sure, but there’s also TONNES of “non-classical logics” (I have a close to 600 page textbook on logics that challenge classical logic) - modal logics, intuisitionist logics, many valued logics (which allow for more values than just true and false), fuzzy logics and so on. And many of those logics are premised on the denial of either the principle of non contradiction (pnc), or the law of the excluded middle (lem), most notably the many valued logics. Logic is just a tool and which logic is the best tool depends on what you are trying to do with it.

As an aside nor is it even clear that nagarjuna denies the LEM or PNC either. It seems like what he does most of the time is reduce things to contradictions in order to reject them.
Agree. The history of logic in western philosophy is a massive labyrinth, and only gets more unruly (and interesting) when non-classical logics become more influential.
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 12:38 am
Malcolm wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:22 pm
Caoimhghín wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:19 pm the tetralemma...
Rejects actual positions people held in Ancient India, it is not a logical formula in the modern sense.
IMO, it is precisely because the Buddha uses a simple two-valued logic that the tetralemma is not a logical proposition. In a system with more than two valid logical values, let's say with "true," "false," and "truthy-falsy;" the tetralemma can be construed as a logical proposition. It can't be construed so with simple two-valued logic.
You are missing the point. Some proposed that existents arise from existent (Samkhya), others proposed they arose from nonexistents (Vaishesika), still other from existents and nonexistents, etc.
Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”