FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2592587680> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2592587680 endingPage "171" @default.
• W2592587680 startingPage "132" @default.
• W2592587680 abstract "Tsong kha pa and the Myth of the Given Edward Falls My thesis is that Tsong kha pa’s distinction between the methodological approaches of Svātantrika-Mādhyamikas and Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamikas has been widely misinterpreted.1 As the distinction is usually construed, it is taken to turn on the different appraisals, by Svātantrikas and Prāsaṅgikas, of the epistemological and ontological costs and benefits of foundationalism. The standard interpretation of Tsong kha pa’s distinction ascribes to him the claim that Svātantrikas underestimate the ontological costs of foundationalism, in particular the cost of ontological commitment involved in accepting a form of the Given, as Svātantrikas seem to do in their use of svalakṣanas to claim authority for observation reports. A lemma in my argument here is that Sellars’s famous critique of foundationalism is misunderstood when taken as a total rejection of empiricist foundationalism. Sellars’s critique of the Given does not bear on the sort of foundationalism concerned with the authority of particular observation reports, such as are needed to block the inferential regress that lends significance to the metaphor of foundations. Sellars’s critique is concerned rather with the question of entitlement, which has to do, more fundamentally, with the kind of normativity associated with the very notion of ascribing justificational authority to any observation reports whatsoever. In light of this understanding of Sellars’s critique of the Given, I argue that Tsong kha pa’s Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction turns on what he sees as a divergence [End Page 132] in the therapeutic efficacy of their respective methodologies, and that it does not imply a difference in the two schools’ ontological commitments. For Tsong kha pa, the crux of the matter is that it is impossible for a Mādhyamika and a non-Mādhyamika to have commensurable perceptual apprehensions of the logical subject of an inference in any debate about intrinsic existence. Svātantrikas take one approach to dealing with this inevitable incommensurability, while Prāsaṅgikas take a different approach. The Prāsaṅgika approach involves the use of opponent acknowledged inferences (gzhan grags kyi rjes su dpag pa, or gzhan grags kyi sbyor ba), which, as I shall show, operate on the presupposition that even where total commensurability is impossible, partial commensurability, at the level of observation reports, is a necessary condition for the possibility of rational discourse between two individuals (or between opposing perspectives within a single individual’s divided consciousness). So, Tsong kha pa’s account of opponent-acknowledged inferences, as worked up in the final section of my paper, is relevant, more broadly, to the contemporary discussion of the foundations of rationality as evinced in the work of such figures as Habermas and Brandom. The doxographic distinction between Svātantrika-Mādhyamikas and Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamikas is a topic that is of central importance for Tibetan Buddhist philosophers, with differences between the main “schools” or “sects” of Tibetan Buddhism finding expression in distinct interpretations of how to understand the difference between the two sub-schools of Madhyamaka philosophy. The basic difference between the two sub-schools arises from a procedural difference classically delineated in the works of Bhāvaviveka and Candrakīrti. Svātantrikas follow Bhāvaviveka in countenancing the use, by Mādhyamikas in debate with non-Mādhyamikas, of certain types of inferences which require both parties to the debate to agree as to the mode of presentation or ontological status of the parts of the inference (subject, predicate, reason, and so forth). Prāsaṅgikas, on the other hand, following Candrakīrti, insist that Mādhyamikas in debate with non-Mādhyamikas cannot use such inferences because it is precisely the mode of presentation and ontological status of the subject of debate that is in dispute for Mādhyamikas and non-Mādhyamikas. In the Tibetan context, there are, speaking generally, two basic types of interpretation of the significance of this procedural disagreement between Svātantrikas and Prāsaṅgikas. On one interpretation, the difference between Svātantrikas and Prāsaṅgikas is thought to involve no significant consequences for the way in which..." @default.
• W2592587680 created "2017-03-16" @default.
• W2592587680 creator A5081535629 @default.
• W2592587680 date "2016-01-01" @default.
• W2592587680 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2592587680 title "Tsong kha pa and the Myth of the Given" @default.
• W2592587680 cites W1539384251 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W1550762332 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W1557525163 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W1570331196 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W1954732515 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W1996491332 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W2033773351 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W2041984916 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W2159866583 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W2166088380 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W2895086698 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W2895107177 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W564216506 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W581700380 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W583853724 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W617026762 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W631097890 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W655063880 @default.
• W2592587680 cites W758363688 @default.
• W2592587680 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/jbp.2016.0007" @default.
• W2592587680 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2592587680 type Work @default.
• W2592587680 sameAs 2592587680 @default.
• W2592587680 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2592587680 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2592587680 hasAuthorship W2592587680A5081535629 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConcept C177076380 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConcept C36790819 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConcept C519517224 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConceptScore W2592587680C111472728 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConceptScore W2592587680C138885662 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConceptScore W2592587680C177076380 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConceptScore W2592587680C185592680 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConceptScore W2592587680C27206212 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConceptScore W2592587680C36790819 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConceptScore W2592587680C519517224 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConceptScore W2592587680C55493867 @default.
• W2592587680 hasConceptScore W2592587680C98184364 @default.
• W2592587680 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2592587680 hasLocation W25925876801 @default.
• W2592587680 hasOpenAccess W2592587680 @default.
• W2592587680 hasPrimaryLocation W25925876801 @default.
• W2592587680 hasRelatedWork W1984053555 @default.
• W2592587680 hasRelatedWork W2044327925 @default.
• W2592587680 hasRelatedWork W2099437242 @default.
• W2592587680 hasRelatedWork W2104345594 @default.
• W2592587680 hasRelatedWork W2349213987 @default.
• W2592587680 hasRelatedWork W2353755302 @default.
• W2592587680 hasRelatedWork W2367543636 @default.
• W2592587680 hasRelatedWork W2395588272 @default.
• W2592587680 hasRelatedWork W3094546236 @default.
• W2592587680 hasRelatedWork W3208129588 @default.
• W2592587680 hasVolume "2" @default.
• W2592587680 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2592587680 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2592587680 magId "2592587680" @default.
• W2592587680 workType "article" @default.