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
    The Buddha's use of conventional language does not commit... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Buddha's use of conventional language does not commit the Buddha to accepting the existence of selves or causally arising phenomena.

    Personal IdentityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Grammatically correct sentences require conventional words such as 'I', 'you', and 'self'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Grammatical correctness does not entail that the words used in sentences have referents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Buddha's insight was that there is no self, yet the Buddha used conventional language common among those who believe in a self.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Successful linguistic communication requires that speakers and hearers share referential commitments, not merely grammatical conventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Buddha's teachings produced transformative understanding in listeners, which presupposes that terms like 'self' and 'causation' tracked shared intentional objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A speaker who systematically uses terms without ontological commitment cannot ground the pragmatic success of those terms in actual communicative exchange.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege and Strawson establish that assertion, unlike mere utterance, carries a norm of truth that binds the asserter to the existence of what is predicated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Buddha's canonical teachings are presented as sincere first-person assertions about the path, suffering, and dependent origination, not as performative or merely therapeutic speech.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the Buddha's assertions carry the standard norm of truth, then the Buddha's use of causal and personal terms constitutes at minimum a defeasible ontological commitment to their referents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityPhilosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    A speaker who systematically uses terms without ontological commitment cannot gr...Frege and Strawson establish that assertion, unlike mere utterance, carries a no...Grammatical correctness does not entail that the words used in sentences have re...Grammatically correct sentences require conventional words such as 'I', 'you', a...
    +5 moreShow less
    If the Buddha's assertions carry the standard norm of truth, then the Buddha's u...Successful linguistic communication requires that speakers and hearers share ref...The Buddha's canonical teachings are presented as sincere first-person assertion...The Buddha's insight was that there is no self, yet the Buddha used conventional...The Buddha's teachings produced transformative understanding in listeners, which...

    Similar

    Using language at all commits the speaker only to conventional presupp...82%The Buddha's insight was that there is no self, yet the Buddha used co...80%All languages are conventional by nature79%Only conventional truth is capable of being articulated in language78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: madhyamaka
    View source passageHide passage
    After showing that there cannot be any intelligible account of the arising of phenomena, Candrakīrti acknowledges that in everyday experience we encounter phenomena coming into being all the time. This leads to a discussion of the two truths. The ultimate truth—that is, truth concerning the highest goal—is that phenomena do not come into being; the conventional transactional truth, on the other hand, is that things do come into being and that their arising is conditioned. This conventional truth
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit