The Legitimacy of Inference: Argumentation Strategy in ırti’s ¯ Ratnak¯ Iśvaras¯ adhanad¯ us .an . am Sara L. Uckelman s.l.uckelman@durham.ac.uk @SaraLUckelman 02 December 2015 Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 1 / 18
Introduction ¯ Iśvaras¯ adhanad¯ us .an . am , written by the Buddhist logician and philosopher Ratnak¯ ırti (ca.990–1050). Arguments for and against the existence of “¯ Iśvara”, the Hindu concept of god. Two part-text, each part structured as a dialogue. ◮ First part: Proponent (an unnamed Naiyayika Hindu) argues for the existence of ¯ Iśvara. ◮ Second part: Opponent (Ratnak¯ ırti) argues against the existence of ¯ Iśvara. We focus on the formal/structural aspects of the arguments, not their content. Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 2 / 18
Background: Ratnak¯ ırti ca.990–1050. Buddhist monk and scholar in Vikramaś¯ ıla Monastery (Bengal). Student of Jñ¯ anaśr¯ ımitra. Important religious and philosophical leader, teacher of many Buddhist missionaries to Tibet. Author of 10 (known) works, which fall into two types: ◮ siddhi : (1) thesis endorsed by R.; (2) attacks by opponent; (3) criticism of the attacks ◮ d¯ us .an . a : (1) thesis endorsed by opponent; (2) arguments pro by opponent; (3) attacks by R. Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 3 / 18
Background: The text A d¯ us .an . a text. Arguments for the positive thesis (held by Naiyayika) are directed against (1) an opponent whose identity is not specified, but who is probably Buddhist, as well as (2) specific Mimamsaka Hindu opponents who are identified. Dialogue as a framing structure. Not a real dialogue. Two-level disputation: (1) Does ¯ Iśvara exist? (2) Do your arguments demonstrate that he does? Argumentation about the scope of argumentation: What type of arguments are allowed in what contexts? Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 4 / 18
Background: ¯ Iśvara Properties of ¯ Iśvara: single ( eka ) omnipresent ( vibhu ) omniscient ( sarvavid ) a basis for intelligence ( buddhisam¯ aśraya ) eternal ( ś¯ aśvatta ) creator ( vidh¯ atr . ) Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 5 / 18
The central inference 1 Thesis ( pratijñ¯ a ): That subjected to dispute has something with awareness as its cause, 2 Reason ( hetu ): because it is an effect. 3 Example ( dr .s .t .¯ anta ) and pervasion ( vy¯ apti ): What is an effect has something with awareness as its cause, like a pot. 4 Application ( upanaya ): And this [thing subjected to dispute] is an effect. 5 Conclusion ( nigamana ): Therefore it has something with awareness as its cause. Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 6 / 18
Defects of the hetu The central inference follows a standard argumentation form in Indian logic, and the opponent’s arguments are focused on showing that none of the five defects of the hetu (reason) occur: having deviation ( savyabhic¯ ara ) or inconclusive ( anaik¯ antika ) opposed/contradictory ( viruddha ) a rival for the subject ( prakaran . asama ) equivalent to the property to be proved ( s¯ adhyasama ) mis-timed ( at¯ ıtak¯ ala ). (The details of these defects do not matter for the current purposes.) Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 7 / 18
Argumentation strategy and probative force Neither the Opponent nor Ratn¯ akirti attack arguments by showing that they are not valid or that they are logically problematic. Instead, they attack the arguments on the basis of probative force. Certain types of arguments are not allowed because they violate certain norms about discursive commitments. The applicability of inference: The interlocutors come from competing schools which agree on some principles and have some overlap in their logical theory, but not completely. Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 8 / 18
Discursive commitments Determination of discursive commitments. Determination of the “success” of an argument. Arguments for parallel discursive commitments: “If you doubt/accept/reject X , you must also doubt/accept/reject Y ”. Arguments about conflict between discursive commitments and actions. Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 9 / 18
Determination of discursive commitments How do we determine which positions an interlocutor is committed to? Explicit: ◮ Interlocutors are committed to positions that they advance positive arguments for. ◮ Signals in the text: “Even others agree”, “We both agree”,. . . Implicit: ◮ Argument structure: When the topic changes, take the preceding conclusion as implicitly accepted. Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 10 / 18
Determination of success How do we determine when an argument is “successful”? When the opponent cannot/does not respond. When it is the right type of argument in the right context. Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 11 / 18
Determination of success How do we determine when an argument is “successful”? When the opponent cannot/does not respond. When it is the right type of argument in the right context. What is “right”? It is precisely this which is being hashed out. Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 11 / 18
A closer look 33.21ff: The Opponent argues that the hetu ‘being an effect’ is not viruddha (opposed/contradictory) by providing an example where the hetu exists along with the property to be proved ( sadhya ) O Pots are effects, and they are caused by makers who have intelligence. ¯ O Three counterarguments: 1 If what is to be proved is ‘being caused by an intelligent maker’, then the argument fails because of the fallacy of “establishing what is [already] established. For others too assume that all kinds of effect originate in activity; and because activity has the nature of consciousness, or has consciousness as its cause, also the world has that [i.e., consciousness] as its cause”. O No response: He agrees that ‘being caused by an intelligent maker’ is not what’s to be proved here. 2 If what is to be proved is ‘being caused by an omniscient maker’, then the example of pots actually proves the opposite, since all pot-makers are non-omniscient. O No response: We take him to be committed to potmakers being a counterexample to the pervasion between ‘being caused by an omniscient maker’ and ‘being an effect’. 3 How do you get from the inference from ‘being an effect’ to ‘being caused by something intelligent’ to proving special properties of the intelligent maker (e.g., omniscience, omnipresence, being single, etc.) Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 12 / 18
The scope of inference (1) Is inference only able to prove general claims? Or is it able to prove specifics? Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 13 / 18
The scope of inference (2) The Opponent’s Opponent (¯ O): If this specific quality is not the object of the reason, how is this then established from it? Or, if it is established, how is it not the object? If [it is] the object, how does it not touch on the error of not having a positive concomitance? How does the Opponent (O) establish the required properties of the intelligent maker? If he doesn’t do it via inference, then how are they established? If he does do it via inference, how does he do it, since ‘being omniscient’ is not included in ‘being an intelligent maker’? If ‘being omniscient’ is included in ‘being an intelligent maker’, then pots and potmakers cannot be used as an example to establish positive concomitance. Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 14 / 18
The scope of inference (3) The Opponent (O): There really is an inference that has a specific quality as its object, because, even when there is a pervasion by a universal in general, one infers [something] about that having the property to be established, in virtue of the fact that a universal that contains a specific quality/particular species is a quality of the instance [under dispute]; for otherwise all inference is cut off. . . the inference of fire too does not have the mere universal as its object, because that is established already before. Neither is its object the hill qualified by this [mere universal], because its being qualified by the universal fireness is impossible since there is no connection with [that universal]. Otherwise, in the same way that spotted cows, etc., are cows because of the inherence of cowness, a mountain too would follow as fire because of the inherence of fire. The Opponent appeals to an analogous inference (“there is fire on the hill, because there is smoke. Where there is smoke, there is fire, as in a kitchen. And there is smoke on the hill. Therefore, there is fire on the hill”) which is accepted by Buddhists, and says that if ¯ O wants to reject O’s argument, he will also have to reject the analogous inference about fire. . . . The paks .adharmat¯ a method. Sara L. Uckelman Argumentation Strategy 02 Dec 2015 15 / 18
Recommend
More recommend
