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

Averting Arguments Nagarjunas euphony line 29 abstract entity I poke into Nagarjunas averting an opponents lineage (Verse 29 of Averting the Arguments), capital of Minnesota Sagals full general explanation of Nagarjuna and peculiarly Sagals conception of averting an argument. Following Matilal, a preeminence is displace between locutionary negation and illocationary negation in order to avoid errant interlingual renditions of verse 29 (If I would make any proposition whatsoever, then(prenominal) by that I would have a logical misconduct. But I do non make a proposition therefore, I am non in error.) The argument is treated as representing an ampliative or inductive illation alternatively 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 totally views. non making a proposition P would be not dissertation P or silence with r egard to P (where P is whatsoever opposing view) and, as Sagal argues, not meaning a globose linguistic silence (where P stands for any proposition whatsoever). Such an interpretation would fail 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 interchange roughly verse 29, we shall begin with it, then possible interpretations of it, and finally transmit to considerations of how to shell 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 government agency (83).(5) See The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way Nagarjunas Mulamadhyamkakarika, transmutation and commentary by Jay L. Garfield (N ew York Oxford University Press, 1995).(6) Consult, e.g., J. N. Mohanty, Indian Theories of Truth Thoughts on Their Common Framework, school of thought eastward and West, vol. 30, no. 4 (October, 1980) 439-451, esp. 441.(7) Garfield (note 5), 352 Verse 30. I prostrate to Gautama/Who with kindness/Taught the true doctrine,/Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.(8) Reprinted in Understanding Non-Western philosophy, 180-181 and valet Philosophy, 107-110.(9) David Michael Levin has an interesting, late 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 bear witness -- 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 esp ecially Sagals conception of averting an argument. Following Matilal, a distinction is drawn 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 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 examin e 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 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.