DOCSLIB.ORG

Demystifying the Saint

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Demystifying the Saint DEMYSTIFYING THE SAINT: JAY L. GARFIELDʼS RATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION OF NĀGĀRJUNAʼS MĀDHYAMAKA AS THE EPITOME OF CONTEMPORARY CROSS-CULTURAL PHILOSOPHY TIINA ROSENQVIST Tampereen yliopisto Yhteiskunta- ja kulttuuritieteiden yksikkö Filosofian pro gradu -tutkielma Tammikuu 2011 ABSTRACT Cross-cultural philosophy approaches philosophical problems by setting into dialogue systems and perspectives from across cultures. I use the term more specifically to refer to the current stage in the history of comparative philosophy marked by the ethos of scholarly self-reflection and the production of rational reconstructions of foreign philosophies. These reconstructions lend a new kind of relevance to cross-cultural perspectives in mainstream philosophical discourses. I view Jay L. Garfieldʼs work as an example of this. I examine Garfieldʼs approach in the context of Nāgārjuna scholarship and cross-cultural hermeneutics. By situating it historically and discussing its background and implications, I wish to highlight its distinctive features. Even though Garfield has worked with Buddhist philosophy, I believe he has a lot to offer to the meta-level discussion of cross-cultural philosophy in general. I argue that the clarity of Garfieldʼs vision of the nature and function of cross-cultural philosophy can help alleviate the identity crisis that has plagued the enterprise: Garfield brings it closer to (mainstream) philosophy and helps it stand apart from Indology, Buddhology, area studies philosophy (etc). I side with Garfield in arguing that cross- cultural philosophy not only brings us better understanding of other philosophical traditions, but may enhance our self-understanding as well. I furthermore hold that his employment of Western conceptual frameworks (post-Wittgensteinian language philosophy, skepticism) and theoretical tools (paraconsistent logic, Wittgensteinian epistemology) together with the influence of Buddhist interpretative lineages creates a coherent, cogent, holistic and analytically precise reading of Nāgārjunaʼs Mādhyamaka philosophy. CONTENTS PART 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 5 1.1 CROSS-CULTURAL PHILOSOPHY...................................................................................... 5 1.2 NĀGĀRJUNA ......................................................................................................................10 1.3 JAY L. GARFIELD................................................................................................................ 12 1.4 OBJECTIVES AND GOALS................................................................................................. 14 PART 2: NĀGĀRJUNA IN CONTEXT.......................................................... 18 2.1 BUDDHISM........................................................................................................................... 18 2.1.1 CATEGORIZING BUDDHISM..................................................................................... 19 2.1.2 SHAKYAMUNI AND THE BIRTH OF BUDDHA-DHARMA......................................... 20 2.1.3 SECTARIAN BUDDHISM AND EARLY MAHĀYĀNA.................................................. 22 2.2 LOCATING NĀGĀRJUNA.................................................................................................... 25 2.2.1 THE LEGEND(S) OF NĀGĀRJUNA........................................................................... 25 2.2.2 NĀGĀRJUNA THE MAHĀYĀNIST: A CRITICAL VIEW.............................................. 27 2.3 SOME MĀDHYAMAKA DEVELOPMENTS.......................................................................... 29 2.3.1 THE MĀDHYAMAKA SPLIT: PRĀSAṄGIKA AND SVĀTANTRIKA............................. 30 2.3.2 CHINESE AND TIBETAN ELABORATIONS............................................................... 31 PART 3: AN OVERVIEW OF NĀGĀRJUNAʼS PHILOSOPHY...................... 34 3.1 MULAMĀDHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ ........................................................................................... 34 3.2 THE PHILOSOPHY OF EMPTINESS................................................................................... 36 3.2.1 EMPTINESS AS THE DENIAL OF INTRINSIC EXISTENCE..................................... 36 3.2.2 EMPTINESS AS DEPENDENT ARISING................................................................... 38 3.2.3 THE EMPTINESS OF EMPTINESS AND THE THEORY OF TWO TRUTHS............ 41 PART 4: TRENDS AND SHIFTS IN NĀGĀRJUNA SCHOLARSHIP............ 46 4.1 UNFOUNDED ANTIPATHIES: NĀGĀRJUNA THE NIHILIST.............................................. 46 4.2 ALONG KANTIAN LINES: NĀGĀRJUNA THE ABSOLUTIST............................................ 48 4.3 ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHERS: NĀGĀRJUNA THE DIALECTICIAN................................... 51 4.4 POST-WITTGENSTEINIAN PERSPECTIVE: NĀGĀRJUNA THE THERAPIST................. 55 PART 5: GARFIELDʼS INTERPRETATION OF NĀGĀRJUNA..................... 60 5.1 PREJUDICES REVEALED.................................................................................................. 60 5.2 NĀGĀRJUNA THE SKEPTIC............................................................................................... 63 5.2.1 SKEPTICISM EAST AND WEST................................................................................ 64 5.2.2 THE SKILLFUL SKEPTIC.......................................................................................... 70 5.2.3 SKEPTICISM AND VIEWS......................................................................................... 73 5.2.3.1 Nāgārjunaʼs Right View................................................................................................... 74 5.2.3.2 Conventionalist Regularism and the Emptiness of Causation .........................................75 5.2.3.3 Conventions as the Foundation of Ontology ................................................................... 78 5.2.4 GARFIELDʼS ANTI-ESSENTIALIST THERAPY.......................................................... 79 5.3 NĀGĀRJUNA AND THE ULTIMATE.................................................................................... 83 5.3.1 MYSTICISM REVISITED............................................................................................ 83 5.3.2 NĀGĀRJUNA AND THE LIMITS OF REASON.......................................................... 86 5.3.2.1 Paraconsistency and Dialetheism ................................................................................... 86 5.3.2.2 Nāgārjuna the Dialetheist ................................................................................................88 5.3.3 GONE, GONE, GONE BEYOND: DIRECT AWARENESS......................................... 92 5.4 THE LAUNDRY: NĀGĀRJUNA, GARFIELD AND PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE.......... 97 PART 6: PHILOSOPHY ACROSS CULTURES.......................................... 101 6.1 CROSS-CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING........................................................................... 101 6.1.2 WHAT GOES ON IN INTERPRETATION.................................................................. 102 6.1.2 GADAMERʼS PHILOSOPHICAL HERMENEUTICS................................................. 106 6.1.3 CROSS-CULTURAL HERMENEUTICS.................................................................... 110 6.2 BOUNDARIES AND POLITICS.......................................................................................... 116 6.3 GARFIELD: FROM COMPARATIVE TO CROSS-CULTURAL.......................................... 121 6.4 APPROACHES TO NĀGĀRJUNA RECONSIDERED....................................................... 124 PART 7: CONCLUSIONS............................................................................ 132 7.1 NĀGĀRJUNA SCHOLARSHIP AND CROSS-CULTURAL INTERPRETATION............... 132 7.2 GARFIELDʼS PROJECT..................................................................................................... 136 7.3 WHERE TO GO FROM HERE?.......................................................................................... 138 REFERENCES............................................................................................. 139 1 PART 1: INTRODUCTION This thesis operates on two levels. For one, it attempts to provide a general overview of the task of approaching, interpreting, and working with culturally distant philosophical systems. This involves asking questions concerning hermeneutics, metaphilosophy, methodology and the philosophy of (cross-cultural) scholarship. The second level, which is more specific, examines the recent trend of self-conscious scholarship in cross-cultural philosophy, as represented and personified by Jay L. Garfield, whose philosophical projects have bridged the gap between cross-cultural philosophy and the act of philosophizing, i.e., doing philosophy by creating new perspectives. I believe that Garfield’s holistic take on the issue, together with his lucid arguments for the necessity of cross- cultural philosophy, epitomizes the current maturation process of the enterprise and can provide the much-needed momentum for bringing cross-cultural perspectives from the margins of philosophy to the center stage. 1.1 CROSS-CULTURAL PHILOSOPHY The terms ‘comparative philosophy’ and ‘cross-cultural philosophy’ are sometimes used interchangeably to denote a subfield of philosophy in which philosophical problems are approached by “intentionally setting into dialogue sources from across cultural, linguistic, and philosophical streams.”1 The stereotypical cross-cultural dialogue takes place across the East/West -axis: the “West” refers to the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Form Without Matter, Was an Essay in the Philosophy of Perception Written in the Medium of Historiography
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers Sympathy in Perception Mark Eli Kalderon i I focused at intervals as the great dome loomed up through the smoke. Glares of many fires and sweeping clouds of smoke kept hiding the shape. Then a wind sprang up. Suddenly, the shining cross, dome and towers stood out like a symbol in the inferno. The scene was unbelievable. In that moment or two I released my shutter. Herbert Mason Contents Preface iii Acknowledgements ix 1 Grasping 1 1.1 The Dawn of Understanding ...................... 1 1.2 Haptic Perception ............................ 4 1.3 The Protagorean Model ......................... 10 1.4 Assimilation ............................... 13 1.5 Shaping .................................. 21 1.6 Active Wax ................................ 27 1.7 A Puzzle ................................. 30 2 Sympathy 37 2.1 Haptic Metaphysics ........................... 37 2.2 The Dependence upon Bodily Awareness ............... 39 2.3 Against Haptic Indirect Realism .................... 44 2.4 Sympathy ................................. 46 2.5 Sensing Limits .............................. 52 2.6 TheStoics ................................ 58 2.7 Plotinus .................................. 61 2.8 The Principle of Haptic Presentation ................. 69 3 Sound 79 3.1 Moving Forward ............................. 79 3.2 The Berkeley–Heidegger Continuum ................. 82 3.3 The Bearers of Audible Qualities .................... 87 3.4 The Extent of the Audible ....................... 91 3.5 TheWaveTheory ............................ 95 3.6 Auditory Perspective .......................... 101 3.7 Phenomenological Objections ..................... 104 i ii CONTENTS 4 Sources 117 4.1 The Heideggerian Alternative ..................... 117 4.2 The Function of Audition ........................ 118 4.3 Sources and the Discrimination of Sound ............... 121 4.4 Sympathy and Auditory Presentation ................. 125 4.5 Listening ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Questions for Phil 251.501, Spring 2012 (Daniel)
    Reading Questions for Phil 251.501, Spring 2012 (Daniel) Class One: What is Philosophy? (Jan. 17) • How is philosophy different from mythology? • How is philosophy different from religion? • How is philosophy different from science? • What does it mean to say that the “love of wisdom” is concerned with the justification of opinions? • Why is giving reasons for your beliefs important regarding the main areas of philosophy (e.g., metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and logic)? Class Two: Philosophical Tools (Jan. 19) • What is “logical consistency”? Give some examples. • What is the difference between logical possibility and causal possibility? • What is the difference between lexical and real definitions? • What is the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions? • What are thought experiments? • In philosophy, what is an argument? • What is the difference between a deductive vs. and inductive argument? Class Three: Knowledge and Skepticism (Jan. 24) • What distinguishes propositional knowledge, “knowing how,” and “knowledge by acquaintance”? • How does Clifford’s insistence on having evidence highlight the moral significance of distinguishing belief and knowledge? • What are the three necessary conditions for knowledge? Give an example of a Gettier- case exception—that is, a case of meeting these conditions that is still not knowledge. • How are skepticism, empiricism, and rationalism different? • What is the difference between global and local skepticism? • What is Descartes’ method of doubt, and why does he adopt it? • For Descartes, why can’t we trust knowledge based on sense experience? • For Descartes, how are doubts raised by dreaming more profound than doubts about sensations? • How are the thought experiments of the evil demon, the brain in the vat, or the matrix even more profound than doubts about sense experience or dreaming? • How are skepticism, solipsism, and fallibilism possible responses to Descartes’ doubts? Class Four: Huemer on Skepticism (Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialectic, Rhetoric and Contrast the Infinite Middle of Meaning
    Dialectic, Rhetoric and Contrast The Infinite Middle of Meaning Richard Boulton St George’s, University of London; Kingston University Series in Philosophy Copyright © 2021 Richard Boulton. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Vernon Art and Science Inc. www.vernonpress.com In the Americas: In the rest of the world: Vernon Press Vernon Press 1000 N West Street, Suite 1200 C/Sancti Espiritu 17, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 Malaga, 29006 United States Spain Series in Philosophy Library of Congress Control Number: 2021931318 ISBN: 978-1-64889-149-6 Cover designed by Aurelien Thomas. Product and company names mentioned in this work are the trademarks of their respective owners. While every care has been taken in preparing this work, neither the authors nor Vernon Art and Science Inc. may be held responsible for any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information contained in it. Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition. Table of contents Introduction v Chapter I Method 1 Dialectic and Rhetoric 1 Validating a Concept Spectrum 12 Chapter II Sense 17 Emotion 17 Rationality 23 The Absolute 29 Truth 34 Value 39 Chapter III Essence 47 Meaning 47 Narrative 51 Patterns and Problems 57 Existence 61 Contrast 66 Chapter IV Consequence 73 Life 73 Mind and Body 77 Human 84 The Individual 91 Rules and Exceptions 97 Conclusion 107 References 117 Index 129 Introduction This book is the result of a thought experiment inspired by the methods of dialectic and rhetoric.
    [Show full text]
  • Forthcoming In: Episteme Why Disagreement-Based Skepticism
    Forthcoming in: Episteme Why Disagreement-Based Skepticism Cannot Escape the Challenge of Self-Defeat Thomas Grundmann, University of Cologne penultimate version Abstract. Global meta-philosophical skepticism (i.e. completely unrestricted skepticism about philosophy) based upon disagreement faces the problem of self-defeat since it undercuts its motivating conciliatory principle. However, the skeptic may easily escape this threat by adopting a more modest kind of skepticism, that will be called “extensive meta-philosophical skepticism”, i.e., the view that most of our philosophical beliefs are unjustified, except our beliefs in epistemically fundamental principles. As I will argue in this paper, this kind of skepticism is well-motivated, does not undercut the conciliatory principle, but still poses a radical challenge to philosophy as a cognitive discipline. Moreover, I will argue that non-global skepticism that is still extensive undermines itself as well. The deeper reason for this is that this more modest kind of skepticism can only be motivated by the assumption that disagreement with philosophical peers is abundant and that we can identify peers only by relying on track-record arguments. But then one can argue for extensive meta-philosophical skepticism only if one presupposes that those philosophical beliefs that form the basis of track-record evaluations are justified. Here, the threat of self-defeat looms again. I will proceed by first defending the premises of this new anti- skeptical argument against standard objections from the literature. Second, I will show in more detail where the epistemic inconsistency arises in the argument for extensive meta-philosophical skepticism. I conclude with an assessment of the scope and the limits of my argument.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary %E History of Skepticism
    Summary %e History of Skepticism. In Search of Consistency e book is devoted to the reconstruction of the history of the idea of philosophical skepticism from ancient to present time. It is also an attempt to present the recent state of research in the 'eld of both history of philosophical skepticism (recent interpretations) and epistemology of skepticism (recent discussions and opinions). e thesis of the book is that the basic problem for the skeptical position throughout history is the problem of inconsistency (self-refutation). Since antiquity skeptics were forced to answer to this charge, they invented many ways to avoid it. But the result was either not e0ective or too costly. Sextus Empiricus took his own words as the description of his feelings without any assertion. However, his skepticism is not a thesis at all and it cannot be accepted as true. Hume weakened the assertion for all beliefs and for his skeptical thesis. Such view in contemporary vocabulary is fallibilism rather than skepticism. In contemporary philosophy the skeptical thesis No one ever knows anything about anything or No one is ever justi(ed in believing anything is treated as a clear paradox. e main result of the book is the thesis that skeptical inconsistency is a pragmatic inconsistency. It is not a logical inconsistency, because there is no clear contradiction here. Pragmatic inconsistency is also a contradiction between two propositions, but only one of them is overtly stated; the second is tacitly presupposed in the act of assertion of the skeptical thesis. When skeptics assert No one ever knows anything about anything they presuppose that they have some reasonable ground for such assertion.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Questions for Phil 251.200, Fall 2012 (Daniel)
    Reading Questions for Phil 251.200, Fall 2012 (Daniel) Class One: What is Philosophy? (Aug. 28) How is philosophy different from mythology? How is philosophy different from religion? How is philosophy different from science? What does it mean to say that the “love of wisdom” is concerned with the justification of opinions? Why is giving reasons for your beliefs important regarding the main areas of philosophy (e.g., metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and logic)? Class Two: The Activity of Philosophy and The Life of Reason [two readings] (Aug. 30) How is the appeal to reason different from an appeal to authority, emotion, and self- interest? What are the criteria for determining whether your reasons for doing or believing something are justified (i.e., “good” reasons)? According to Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living”: why?—especially since it is obvious that human beings are not essentially or inherently rational. How can reason be used to resolve conflicts in feelings and among different people? Why is appealing to reason preferable to relying on authority or allowing people to believe whatever they want about the world? Class Three: Knowledge and Skepticism (Sept. 4) What distinguishes propositional knowledge, “knowing how,” and “knowledge by acquaintance”? How does Clifford’s insistence on having evidence highlight the moral significance of distinguishing belief and knowledge? What are the three necessary conditions for knowledge? Give an example of a Gettier- case exception—that is, a case of
    [Show full text]
  • A Unifying Field in Logics: Neutrosophic Logic. Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Set, Neutrosophic Probability and Statistics
    FLORENTIN SMARANDACHE A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS (fourth edition) NL(A1 A2) = ( T1 ({1}T2) T2 ({1}T1) T1T2 ({1}T1) ({1}T2), I1 ({1}I2) I2 ({1}I1) I1 I2 ({1}I1) ({1} I2), F1 ({1}F2) F2 ({1} F1) F1 F2 ({1}F1) ({1}F2) ). NL(A1 A2) = ( {1}T1T1T2, {1}I1I1I2, {1}F1F1F2 ). NL(A1 A2) = ( ({1}T1T1T2) ({1}T2T1T2), ({1} I1 I1 I2) ({1}I2 I1 I2), ({1}F1F1 F2) ({1}F2F1 F2) ). ISBN 978-1-59973-080-6 American Research Press Rehoboth 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005 FLORENTIN SMARANDACHE A UNIFYING FIELD IN LOGICS: NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC. NEUTROSOPHY, NEUTROSOPHIC SET, NEUTROSOPHIC PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS (fourth edition) NL(A1 A2) = ( T1 ({1}T2) T2 ({1}T1) T1T2 ({1}T1) ({1}T2), I1 ({1}I2) I2 ({1}I1) I1 I2 ({1}I1) ({1} I2), F1 ({1}F2) F2 ({1} F1) F1 F2 ({1}F1) ({1}F2) ). NL(A1 A2) = ( {1}T1T1T2, {1}I1I1I2, {1}F1F1F2 ). NL(A1 A2) = ( ({1}T1T1T2) ({1}T2T1T2), ({1} I1 I1 I2) ({1}I2 I1 I2), ({1}F1F1 F2) ({1}F2F1 F2) ). ISBN 978-1-59973-080-6 American Research Press Rehoboth 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005 1 Contents: Preface by C. Le: 3 0. Introduction: 9 1. Neutrosophy - a new branch of philosophy: 15 2. Neutrosophic Logic - a unifying field in logics: 90 3. Neutrosophic Set - a unifying field in sets: 125 4. Neutrosophic Probability - a generalization of classical and imprecise probabilities - and Neutrosophic Statistics: 129 5. Addenda: Definitions derived from Neutrosophics: 133 2 Preface to Neutrosophy and Neutrosophic Logic by C.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORIA SCEPTYCYZMU Monografie Fundacji Na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej
    HISTORIA SCEPTYCYZMU monografie fundacji na rzecz nauki polskiej rada wydawnicza prof. Tomasz Kizwalter, prof. Janusz Sławiński, prof. Antoni Ziemba, prof. Marek Ziółkowski, prof. Szymon Wróbel fundacja na rzecz nauki polskiej Renata Ziemińska HISTORIA SCEPTYCYZMU W POSZUKIWANIU SPÓJNOŚCI toruń 2013 Wydanie książki subwencjonowane przez Fundację na rzecz Nauki Polskiej w ramach programu Monografie FNP Redaktor tomu Anna Mądry Korekty Ewelina Gajewska Projekt okładki i obwoluty Barbara Kaczmarek Printed in Poland © Copyright by Renata Ziemińska and Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika Toruń 2013 ISBN 978-83-231-2949-3 WYDAWNICTWO NAUKOWE UNIWERSYTETU MIKOŁAJA KOPERNIKA Redakcja: ul. Gagarina 5, 87-100 Toruń tel. +48 56 611 42 95, fax +48 56 611 47 05 e-mail: [email protected] Dystrybucja: ul. Reja 25, 87-100 Toruń tel./fax: +48 56 611 42 38, e-mail: [email protected] www.wydawnictwoumk.pl Wydanie pierwsze Druk i oprawa: Abedik Sp. z o.o. ul. Glinki 84, 85-861 Bydgoszcz Spis treści wstęp ......................................................................................................... 9 część i. pojęcie i rodzaje sceptycyzmu rozdział 1. genealogia terminu „sceptycyzm” ........................... 15 rozdział 2. ewolucja pojęcia sceptycyzmu .................................. 21 Starożytny sceptycyzm jako zawieszenie sądów pretendujących do prawdy .......................................................................................... 21 Średniowieczny sceptycyzm jako uznanie słabości ludzkich sądów wobec Bożej wszechmocy
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy of Mathematics: a Study of Indispensability and Inconsistency
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2016 The hiP losophy of Mathematics: A Study of Indispensability and Inconsistency Hannah C. Thornhill Scripps College Recommended Citation Thornhill, Hannah C., "The hiP losophy of Mathematics: A Study of Indispensability and Inconsistency" (2016). Scripps Senior Theses. Paper 894. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/894 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Philosophy of Mathematics: A Study of Indispensability and Inconsistency Hannah C.Thornhill March 10, 2016 Submitted to Scripps College in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Philosophy Professor Avnur Professor Karaali Abstract This thesis examines possible philosophies to account for the prac- tice of mathematics, exploring the metaphysical, ontological, and epis- temological outcomes of each possible theory. Through a study of the two most probable ideas, mathematical platonism and fictionalism, I focus on the compelling argument for platonism given by an ap- peal to the sciences. The Indispensability Argument establishes the power of explanation seen in the relationship between mathematics and empirical science. Cases of this explanatory power illustrate how we might have reason to believe in the existence of mathematical en- tities present within our best scientific theories. The second half of this discussion surveys Newtonian Cosmology and other inconsistent theories as they pose issues that have received insignificant attention within the philosophy of mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • A Non-Contextual Rule for Epistemic Contextualism.1
    SKÉPSIS, ISSN 1981-4194, ANO VIII, Nº 15, 2017, p. 52-61. A Non-contextual Rule for Epistemic Contextualism.1 Gustavo Almeida de Azevedo (Universidade Estadual de Campinas) E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Our idea here is to offer a version of epistemic contextualism that can respond to skeptical doubts. More precisely, we believe we can combine the theories of DeRose (1992) and Feldman (1988, 2004) in order to invert the burden of proof for the skeptical side. That is, what we call rule of reasonableness requires that the skeptic has to provide reasons why we should take their doubt into account, what I am calling here 'relevant alternative'. Thus, we claim that two clauses need to be reached, in order to such doubt be taken into account, namely, (i) S has evidence to believe R; and (ii) given the contextual standards of justification to which S is submitted, it is required that the possibility of R occurs remains excluded. Key words: Contextualism; Evidence; Skeptical Doubt. 1 - Introduction The following lines over this paper intend to discuss the possibility of an epistemic contextualism based on a non-contextual rule. Such strategy is not a new one and it was developed, for example, by Blome-Tillman (2014). However, I disagree with his development. In order to state the foundations for this disagreement and consequently state my proposal, I should have to establish the framework problem I am considering here, namely, the general skeptic argument (SA), which any epistemologist must dare to. SA, since Descartes (1641) at least, can be represented by the below formulation: If one subject S knows P, then S knows that R is not the case (sKp → sK~r) because R implies not-P.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontological Trivialism? How to Meinong a Carnap-Quine
    grazer philosophische studien (2016) 1-31 brill.com/gps Ontological Trivialism? How to Meinong a Carnap-Quine Seyed N. Mousavian University of Gothenburg, Sweden, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (ipm), Iran [email protected] Abstract How hard is it to answer an ontological question? Ontological trivialism, (ot), inspired by Carnap’s internal-external distinction among “questions of existence”, replies “very easy.” According to (ot), almost every ontologically disputed entity trivially exists. (ot) has been defended by many, including Schiffer (1996; 2003; 2006) and Schaffer (2009). In this paper, I will take issue with (ot). After introducing the view in the context of Carnap-Quine dispute and presenting two arguments for it, I will discuss Hofweber’s (2005; 2007) argument against (ot) and explain why it fails. Next, I will introduce a modified version of ontological trivialism, i.e. negative ontological trivialism, (not), defended by Hofweber (2005), according to which some ontologically disputed enti- ties, e.g. properties, (almost) trivially do not exist. I will show that (not) fails too. Then I will outline a Meinongian answer to the original question, namely, ‘How hard is it to answer an ontological question?’ The Carnapian intuition of the triviality of internal questions can be saved by the Meinongian proposal that quantification and reference are not ontologically committing and the Quinean intuition of the legitimacy of inter- esting ontological questions can be respected by the Meinongian distinction between being and so-being. Keywords ontological commitment – meta-ontology – ontology – Carnap – Quine – Meinong 1 The Puzzle Let’s begin with the following meta-ontological question: © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi 10.1163/18756735-09303004 0002785279.INDD 1 301935 6/23/2016 5:52:16 AM 2 doi 10.1163/18756735-09303004 | Mousavian O: How hard is it to answer an ontological question? (An ontological question being a question of existence) Thomas Hofweber (2005) argues that (O) is puzzling.
    [Show full text]
  • Naïve Proof and Curry's Paradox
    Massimilano Carrara Naïve Proof and Curry’s Paradox 1 Introduction In classical first order logic (FOL), trivialism, the truth of all sentences, and explo- sion, the derivability of any sentence, are obtained using the rule ex contradictione quodlibet (ECQ): A, A B. The classical justification for ECQ rests on the alleged ¬ „ evidence that no contradiction can be true, evidence rejected in paraconsistent the- ories, in particular by dialetheists, who hold that there are dialetheiae, i.e. propo- sitions that are both true and false.1 Indeed, dialetheism maintains the thesis that there are true contradictions, i.e. true sentences of form (A A), called dialetheiae. ·¬ More generally, they call dialetheia any sentence that is both true and false. In an extensive series of papers and books (see for example, Priest [1979], Priest [2001], Priest [2002], Priest [2006a], Priest [2006b]), Priest claims that the paradoxical sen- tences obtained from self-reference are dialetheiae.2 In standard natural deduction of FOL, ECQ can be derived using reductio ad ab- surdum (RAA) and other apparently non-problematic rules. It is a standard derived rule of FOL. But if you hold that there are dialetheiae, in order to avoid trivialism, RAA should be immediately rejected. Unfortunately, banishing RAA is insufficient to avoid trivialism: Curry’s paradox, from which trivialism follows, can be gener- ated without using RAA,butwithjustmodus ponens (MP) and the derived rule of Absorption, i.e. ABS: (A (A B)) (A B). In order to save dialethe- æ æ „ æ ism from trivialism, Priest adopts in the Logic of Paradox (LP) (1979) the material conditional, for which he rejects the general validity of MP.
    [Show full text]