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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42