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.