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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The argument from neither-one-nor-many is a valid argument according to the triple criteria of valid reasoning

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The triple-criteria (trairūpya) framework presupposes a bivalent logical structure that Madhyamaka's own catuṣkoṭi logic explicitly rejects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A valid reason under trairūpya requires determinate positive and negative instances, but śūnyatā-based arguments dissolve the very ontological categories needed to identify such instances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Using trairūpya to validate a conclusion that undermines the identity conditions trairūpya requires is self-vitiating, as Candrakīrti's critics like Candragomin effectively charged.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dharmakīrti's apoha theory establishes that absence of unity and absence of plurality are conceptual exclusions, not real properties that can serve as genuine hetu in an inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'neither-one-nor-many' names only a double negation rather than a positive characteristic, it fails the pakṣadharmatā condition, since no real locus can instantiate what is purely apophatic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All instances of the subject (the intrinsic identities of entities asserted by Buddhist and non-Buddhist opponents) are entities which are neither singular nor plural, satisfying the first criterion of a valid reason
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All phenomena being neither singular nor plural (the reason) is an instance of phenomena which lack identity (the predicate), satisfying the second criterion of forward entailment (anvayavyāpti)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There are no instances of phenomena which lack identity (the predicate) that are not also instances of phenomena being neither singular nor plural (the reason), satisfying the third criterion of counter entailment (vyatirekavyāpti)
      ?

      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.