Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Dharmakīrti's apoha doctrine confirms that even conceptual overlays on perception presuppose a causally efficacious present-moment particular (svalakṣaṇa).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Apoha may operate through relational contrast among conceptual contents themselves, not requiring grounding in causally unique particulars independently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates two distinct questions: what causally triggers concepts versus what makes conceptual exclusions logically determinate or referentially stable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Buddhist phenomenalism about svalakṣaṇa as 'present-moment' faces the regress problem: prior moments were also particulars but are now causally inert.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Apoha requires excluding what something is not, which presupposes prior causal contact with determinate particulars, not abstract universals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Conceptual exclusion (apoha) of irrelevant properties depends on perceptual discrimination of unique causal features only svalakṣaṇa possess.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If concepts arose without anchoring to causally efficacious particulars, apoha would be arbitrary projection rather than epistemically grounded negation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.