IF 0.4 2区 哲学 0 ASIAN STUDIES
Chris Rahlwes
{"title":"Nāgārjuna’s Negation","authors":"Chris Rahlwes","doi":"10.1007/s10781-022-09505-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The logical analysis of Nāgārjuna’s (c. 200 CE) <i>catuṣkoṭi</i> (tetralemma or four-corners) has remained a heated topic for logicians in Western academia for nearly a century. At the heart of the <i>catuṣkoṭi</i>, the four corners’ formalization typically appears as: A, Not A (¬A), Both (A &amp;¬A), and Neither (¬[A∨¬A]). The pulse of the controversy is the repetition of negations (¬) in the <i>catuṣkoṭi</i>. Westerhoff argues that Nāgārjuna in the <i>Mūlamadhyamakakārikā</i> uses two different negations: <i>paryudāsa</i> (nominal or implicative negation) and <i>prasajya-pratiṣedha</i> (verbal or non-implicative negation). This paper builds off Westerhoff’s account and presents some subtleties of Nāgārjuna’s use of these negations regarding their scope. This is achieved through an analysis of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Madhyamaka commentarial tradition and through a grammatical analysis of Nāgārjuna’s use of <i>na</i> (not) and <i>a</i>(<i>n</i>)- (non-) within a diverse variety of the <i>catuṣkoṭi</i> within the <i>Mūlamadhyamakakārikā</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":51854,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-022-09505-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

近一个世纪以来,对Nāgārjuna(约公元200年)catuṣkoṭi(四联体或四角体)的逻辑分析一直是西方学术界逻辑学家的热门话题。在catuṣkoṭi的中心,四个角的形式化通常表现为:A、非A (A)、两者(A & & A)和两者都不是(¬[A∨¬A])。争议的脉搏是catuṣkoṭi中反复出现的否定。韦斯特霍夫认为Mūlamadhyamakakārikā中的Nāgārjuna使用了两种不同的否定:paryudāsa(名义或隐含否定)和prasajya-pratiṣedha(言语或非隐含否定)。本文以韦斯特霍夫的叙述为基础,提出了Nāgārjuna在使用这些否定的范围方面的一些微妙之处。这是通过对梵语和藏语中经注释传统的分析,以及对Nāgārjuna在Mūlamadhyamakakārikā中的catuṣkoṭi的各种变体中使用na (not)和a(n)- (non-)的语法分析来实现的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nāgārjuna’s Negation

The logical analysis of Nāgārjuna’s (c. 200 CE) catuṣkoṭi (tetralemma or four-corners) has remained a heated topic for logicians in Western academia for nearly a century. At the heart of the catuṣkoṭi, the four corners’ formalization typically appears as: A, Not A (¬A), Both (A &¬A), and Neither (¬[A∨¬A]). The pulse of the controversy is the repetition of negations (¬) in the catuṣkoṭi. Westerhoff argues that Nāgārjuna in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā uses two different negations: paryudāsa (nominal or implicative negation) and prasajya-pratiṣedha (verbal or non-implicative negation). This paper builds off Westerhoff’s account and presents some subtleties of Nāgārjuna’s use of these negations regarding their scope. This is achieved through an analysis of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Madhyamaka commentarial tradition and through a grammatical analysis of Nāgārjuna’s use of na (not) and a(n)- (non-) within a diverse variety of the catuṣkoṭi within the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The Journal of Indian Philosophy publishes articles on various aspects of Indian thought, classical and modern. Articles range from close analysis of individual philosophical texts to detailed annotated translations of texts. The journal also publishes more speculative discussions of philosophical issues based on a close reading of primary sources.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信