Candrakīrti's own use of logical inference to establish conventionalism is self-undermining: logical laws like non-contradiction appear to be metaphysically necessary, not merely conventional.

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

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Candrakīrti(as the main philosopher being discussed): An Indian Buddhist philosopher from around the 600s CE who wrote detailed commentaries on Buddhist logic and metaphysics, particularly focusing on the idea that nothing has a permanent, independent essence.
Metaphysically necessary(as used in modal metaphysics): Something that must be true in all possible ways the world could be; it's not just true in our world but couldn't possibly be false in any imaginable scenario.
Non-contradiction(as the basic principle dialetheism challenges but classical logic maintains): The fundamental rule of classical logic stating that nothing can be both true and false in the same way at the same time (also called the 'law of non-contradiction').
Self-undermining(in logic and argument): When an idea or rule contradicts itself or destroys the very thing it's trying to achieve.
conventionalism(Philosophy of language debate in Plato's Cratylus): The view that the correctness of names is determined by social consent and agreement rather than by natural resemblance or description
logical inference(Poincaré's critique of logical inference in mathematical proof): A topic-neutral inference from proposition p to proposition q, where in Tarski's conception every model of p is a model of q

2 topics