Answering the contemptible consequence problem

Hi all, this is Szymon. In previous posts, I presented the Dharmakīrtian approach to the liar paradox and introduced the contemptible consequence problem. Today, I will give five answers to this problem and tell you what I plan to do Continue reading Answering the contemptible consequence problem

The contemptible consequence problem

Hello again, this is Szymon, a PhD student researching the Dharmakīrtian approach to liar paradox. According to this approach—you can find more about it in my previous post—the liar sentence is ambiguous, unbelievable, and cannot express a warranted belief. There’s Continue reading The contemptible consequence problem

Dharmakīrti and liar paradox

Hello again, this is Szymon, a PhD student working on Buddhist logic. In my last post, I talked about the methodological background of my project. Today, I will tell you what Dharmakīrti says about liar-like sentences and how we can Continue reading Dharmakīrti and liar paradox

My project on Buddhist epistemology of logic—First guest post by Szymon Bogacz

Note by EF: This post is part of our series dedicated to younger colleagues presenting themselves and their research, like Manasicha Akepiyapornchai did here and Anusha Rao did here. For more on Szymon, see here. Hello everyone, my name is Continue reading My project on Buddhist epistemology of logic—First guest post by Szymon Bogacz

How to define valid cognition if you are Śālikanātha (analysis of various criteria)?

Śālikanātha discusses the definition of a source of knowledge (pramāṇa) at the beginning of his Pramāṇapārāyaṇa and analyses various criteria. First of all, he discusses the criterion of avisaṃvāditva ‘non deviation’ (used by Dharmakīrti and his school) and shows how Continue reading How to define valid cognition if you are Śālikanātha (analysis of various criteria)?

How to define valid cognition (against Buddhists) if you are Śālikanātha?

The beginning of Śālikanātha’s Pramāṇapārāyaṇa is dedicated to a discussion of how to define pramāṇa ‘instrument of valid cognition’. As it was custom since Dignāga’s innovation in the philosophical style, Śālikanātha quotes and refutes several positions. The first ones are Continue reading How to define valid cognition (against Buddhists) if you are Śālikanātha?

Pacific APA in Vancouver (April 17-20): Indian Philosophy and More

The Pacific Meeting of the American Philosophical Association (APA) is taking place this week (April 17-20) in Vancouver, Canada.  You can find more information, including the schedule, here. There are two sessions focusing mainly on Indian philosophy. Wed. 9am-12pm APA Continue reading Pacific APA in Vancouver (April 17-20): Indian Philosophy and More

Again on omniscience: Why talking about it, God’s omniscience and some reasons to refute it

Why is the topic of omniscience relevant in Indian philosophy? Because of at least two concurring reasons. On the one hand, for schools like Buddhism and Jainism, it is a question of religious authority. Ascribing omniscience to the founders of Continue reading Again on omniscience: Why talking about it, God’s omniscience and some reasons to refute it

First thoughts on omniscience in Indian thought

“Omniscience” (sārvajñya) assumes many different meanings in the various Indian philosophies. The understanding possibly most common in European and Anglo-American thought, which sees omniscience as including the knowledge of any possible thing in the past, present and future, is neither Continue reading First thoughts on omniscience in Indian thought

The significance of ethics to Candrakīrti’s metaphysics

As I noted last time, I think the disregard of ethics by Indian-philosophy scholars like Dan Arnold is a problem in itself: it’s a misconception of what philosophy is, and one that harmfully shrinks the field of the study of Continue reading The significance of ethics to Candrakīrti’s metaphysics