On Garfield and Priest’s interpretation of the use of the catuskoti in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

Asian Philosophy 34 (3):199-219 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

According to Garfield and Priest’s interpretation, the positive use of the catuskoti by Nāgārjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) shows that he endorses a four-valued semantics similar to that of Belnap’s First-Degree Entailment (FDE), while the negative use of the catuskoti by Nāgārjuna in MMK indicates that what he really has in mind is a plurivalent five-valued semantics. This paper argues that their interpretation suffers from a number of problems: adequate logic, collapse of kotis, lack of literature support, and a suitable explanation of the third koti. The final part of the paper combines insights from Westerhoff, Cotnoir, Garfield and Priest together and describes the right interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s use of the catuskoti in MMK with the right semantics and the right logic of MMK. The authors argue that Nāgārjuna’s ‘rebuttal’ of all four kotis in a catuskoti should be understood as a mere denial or a mere rejection of these kotis.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,486

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-02-07

Downloads
41 (#582,892)

6 months
12 (#239,387)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Outline of a theory of truth.Saul Kripke - 1975 - Journal of Philosophy 72 (19):690-716.
Principia Mathematica.A. N. Whitehead & B. Russell - 1927 - Annalen der Philosophie Und Philosophischen Kritik 2 (1):73-75.
On the Very idea of a Conceptual Scheme.Donald Davidson - 1984 - In Inquiries Into Truth And Interpretation. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press. pp. 183-198.
Spandrels of truth.Jc Beall - 2010 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 16 (2):284-286.

View all 7 references / Add more references