Averting Arguments: Nagarjuna’s Verse 29 Essay -- Nagarjuna Verse 29 E

Averting Arguments Nagarjunas Verse 29ABSTRACT I examine Nagarjunas forbid an opponents argument (Verse 29 of Averting the Arguments), capital of Minnesota Sagals general rendition of Nagarjuna and especi solelyy Sagals conception of averting an argument. Following Matilal, a distinction is worn-out between locutionary negation and illocationary negation in order to avoid errant interpretations of verse 29 (If I would make any proposition whatever, then by that I would confound a uniform error. But I do not make a proposition therefore, I am not in error.) The argument is handle as representing an ampliative or inductive inference rather than a deductive one. As Nagarjuna says in verse 30 That denial of mine in verse 29 is a non-apprehension of non-things and non-apprehension is the averting of arguments or the turn over of all views. Not making a proposition P would be not speaking P or silence with witness to P (where P is some opposing view) and, as Sagal argues, not meanin g a global linguistic silence (where P stands for any proposition whatsoever). such(prenominal) an interpretation would cut to attributing wholesale irrationalism to Nagarjuna-something I wish to avoid. In this paper I examine Nagarjuna averting an argument of an opponent (Verse 29 of Averting the Arguments), Paul Sagals general interpretation of Nagarjuna, (1) and the formers conception of averting an argument. Since I focus my discussion around verse 29, we shall begin with it, then possible interpretations of it, and finally move to considerations of how to beat characterize Nagarjunas situation (for lack of a better word) given that verse.Verse 29If I would make any proposition whatever P, then by that I would exhaust a logical error E... ...ent way (83).(5) See The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way Nagarjunas Mulamadhyamkakarika, translation and commentary by Jay L. Garfield (New York Oxford University Press, 1995).(6) Consult, e.g., J. N. Mohanty, Indian Theories of Tr uth Thoughts on Their Common Framework, Philosophy East and West, vol. 30, no. 4 (October, 1980) 439-451, esp. 441.(7) Garfield (note 5), 352 Verse 30. I prostrate to Gautama/Who through compassion/Taught the true doctrine,/Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.(8) Reprinted in taking into custody Non-Western Philosophy, 180-181 and World Philosophy, 107-110.(9) David Michael Levin has an interesting, recent interpretation along these lines see his Liberating Experience from the Vice of Structuralism The Methods of Merleau-Ponty and Nagarjuna, Philosophy Today, vol. 41, no. 1 (Spring 1997) 96-111. Averting Arguments Nagarjunas Verse 29 Essay -- Nagarjuna Verse 29 EAverting Arguments Nagarjunas Verse 29ABSTRACT I examine Nagarjunas averting an opponents argument (Verse 29 of Averting the Arguments), Paul Sagals general interpretation of Nagarjuna and especially Sagals conception of averting an argument. Following Matilal, a distinction is drawn between locuti onary negation and illocationary negation in order to avoid errant interpretations of verse 29 (If I would make any proposition whatever, then by that I would have a logical error. But I do not make a proposition therefore, I am not in error.) The argument is treated as representing an ampliative or inductive inference rather than a deductive one. As Nagarjuna says in verse 30 That denial of mine in verse 29 is a non-apprehension of non-things and non-apprehension is the averting of arguments or the relinquishing of all views. Not making a proposition P would be not speaking P or silence with regard to P (where P is some opposing view) and, as Sagal argues, not meaning a global linguistic silence (where P stands for any proposition whatsoever). Such an interpretation would lead to attributing wholesale irrationalism to Nagarjuna-something I wish to avoid. In this paper I examine Nagarjuna averting an argument of an opponent (Verse 29 of Averting the Arguments), Paul Sagals general i nterpretation of Nagarjuna, (1) and the formers conception of averting an argument. Since I focus my discussion around verse 29, we shall begin with it, then possible interpretations of it, and finally move to considerations of how to best characterize Nagarjunas stance (for lack of a better word) given that verse.Verse 29If I would make any proposition whatever P, then by that I would have a logical error E... ...ent way (83).(5) See The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way Nagarjunas Mulamadhyamkakarika, translation and commentary by Jay L. Garfield (New York Oxford University Press, 1995).(6) Consult, e.g., J. N. Mohanty, Indian Theories of Truth Thoughts on Their Common Framework, Philosophy East and West, vol. 30, no. 4 (October, 1980) 439-451, esp. 441.(7) Garfield (note 5), 352 Verse 30. I prostrate to Gautama/Who through compassion/Taught the true doctrine,/Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.(8) Reprinted in Understanding Non-Western Philosophy, 180-181 and World Philosophy, 107-110.(9) David Michael Levin has an interesting, recent interpretation along these lines see his Liberating Experience from the Vice of Structuralism The Methods of Merleau-Ponty and Nagarjuna, Philosophy Today, vol. 41, no. 1 (Spring 1997) 96-111.