Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A person who makes no claims — either that anything exist... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The Mādhyamika cannot be refuted

    A person who makes no claims — either that anything exists or that something does not exist — cannot be refuted

    Philosophy of LanguageSkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismPhilosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The Mādhyamika cannot be refutedThe Mādhyamika has no position to defend

    Similar

    Āryadeva wrote that a person who makes no claims cannot be refuted89%There can be no singular proposition about a non-existent individual78%The man Socrates, just as such, is not even competent to make it true ...78%If a person does not regard a proposition as true, that person cannot ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: madhyamaka
    View source passageHide passage
    As was discussed above (section 4.2), Bhāvaviveka criticized Buddhapālita for failing to state and defend the thesis of the Mādhyamikas. In the first chapter of his commentary to MMK, Candrakīrti comes to Buddhapālita’s defense and offers a sustained criticism of Bhāvaviveka, and of the tradition of Dignāga on whom Bhāvaviveka had based much of his approach. Bhāvaviveka’s call for an independent argument in favor of a conclusion accepted by Mādhyamikas, says Candrakīrti, is diametrically oppos

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective