 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contradiction in Buddhist Argumentation |
|
|
|
| Author |
Siderits, Mark (著)
|
|---|
| Source |
Argumentation
|
|---|
| Volume | v.22 n.1 |
|---|
| Date | 2008.03 |
|---|
| Pages | 125 - 133 |
|---|
| Publisher | Springer |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://link.springer.com/
|
|---|
| Location | Dordrecht, the Netherlands [多德雷赫特, 荷蘭] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Keyword | Contradiction; Dialetheism; Nagarjuna; Madhyamaka; Tetralemma; Reduction |
|---|
| Abstract | Certain Buddhist texts contain statements that are prima facie contradictions. The scholarly consensus has been that such statements are meant to serve a rhetorical function that depends on the apparent contradictions being resolvable. But recently it has been claimed that such statements are meant to be taken literally: their authors assert as true statements that are of the form ‘p and not p’. This claim has ramifications for our understanding of the role played by the principle of non-contradiction in Buddhist argumentation. I argue that these make the claim less plausible. |
|---|
| Table of contents | References 133 |
|---|
| ISSN | 0920427X (P); 15728374 (E) |
|---|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10503-007-9073-8 |
|---|
| Hits | 502 |
|---|
| Created date | 2008.03.25 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2022.03.22 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
