Category Archives: language and linguistics
What was Dignaga’s theory of apoha? On PS 5.43
The sequence of opponents and discussants within the Pramāṇasamuccaya is difficult to reconstruct and one might need to gather informations from many different sources. In the following I will focus on a specific problem:
- is the example of the presence of horns as leading to “non-horse” an instance of the way apoha works (as with Yoshimizu, which supports in this way his analysis of Dignāga’s procedure as entailing a compositional analysis) or just an example about an inference, which works in a way similar as the apoha, i.e., does not need to exclude elements one by one (as with Kataoka, who thus supports his claim that Dignāga does not need any positive postulation).
What was Dignaga’s theory of apoha? On PS 5.41–42 SECOND UPDATE
The main point of departure for any inquiry into Dignāga’s theory of apoha is his Pramāṇasamuccaya, chapter 5. Unluckily enough, this text is only available as a reconstruction from the two (divergent) Tibetan translations and from Jinendrabuddhi’s commentary.
How exactly does one seize the meaning of a word? K. Yoshimizu 2011 (and Kataoka forthc.) on Dignāga and Kumārila UPDATED
We all know that for Dignāga the meaning of a word is apoha ‘exclusion’. But how does one seize it and avoid the infinite regress of excluding non-cows because one has understood what “cow” means? Kataoka at the last IABS maintained (if I understood him correctly) that Dignāga did not directly face the problem of how could one seize the absence of non-cows. He also explained that the thesis he attributes to Hattori and Yoshimizu, which makes the apoha depend on the seizing of something positive (e.g., one seizes the exclusion of non-cows because one seizes the exclusion of dewlap, etc.) contradicts the negative nature of apoha, since it indirectly posits positive entities, such as dewlaps. But this leaves the question of how apoha can take place in the worldly experience open.
First day at the IABS: Apoha in Dignāga according to Kataoka
I am at the end of the first day of the IABS conference in Vienna. I will try to keep the few of you who could not come updated through my impressions of the talks.
On the Indian lack of distinction between linguistic and external reality
In his contribution to a recent symposium (Does Asia think differently? –Symposium zu Ehre Ernst Steinkellners), as well as in many other publications of him (e.g., Langage et Réalité: sur un épisode de la pensée indienne, 1999), Johannes Bronkhorst answered that yes, there is a substantial difference between “our” thought and the Indian one, in so far as the latter does not distinguish between purely linguistic problems and genuine ones.
Kiyotaka Yoshimizu on “Semantics or Pragmatics?”
On September the 2nd and the 3rd, Kiyotaka Yoshimizu will be at the Austrian Academy of Sciences (Apostelgasse, 23, 1030, ground floor) for a workshop on “Semantics or Pragmatics?”. The workshop wil regard Dignāga’s and Kumārila’s distinction of semantics from pragmatics (an innovation both shared, if compared to Nyāya) and their different solutions to the issue (with Dignāga priviledging semantics and Kumārila focusing on pragmatics).
More in detail,
2.9: apoha in Dignāga (showing his focus on semantics over pragmatics)
3.9: Kumārila’s understanding of the grahakaikatvanyāya as an evidence of his focus on pragmatics
Texts to be read: PS and PSV 41-44; PS and PSV 50a (2.9). TV on 3.1.(7).13-15 (3.9).
References: Kiyotaka Yoshimizu “The Theorem of the Singleness of a Goblet (graha-ekatva-nyāya) : A Mīmāṃsā Analysis of Meaning and Context”, Acta Asiatica 90, 2006.
Kiyotaka Yoshimizu “How to Refer to a Thing by a Word: Another Difference between Dignāga’s and Kumārila’s Theories of Denotation”, in Journal of Indian Philosophy, 39(4-5), 2011.
Pāṇinian week in September with Saroja Bhate, M.P. Candotti, T. Pontillo
You can find here enclosed the provisional programme of the announced “Pāṇinian Week” which will be hosted at the Department of Philology, Literature, and Linguistics of the University of Cagliari (Faculty of Humanities, via Is Mirrionis, 1 – 09123 Cagliari).
We kindly ask to proceed with the registration not later than July 15th, 2014, by signalling the arrival date etc. to Dr. Pontillo (pontillo@unica.it).
I remind that no fee shall be requested but no financial assistance will be provided by the Department to support your travel or accomodation expenses.
Nevertheless, with regard to the accomodation, “Beni Benius” Bed and Breakfast (via Sassari 134, Cagliari) is under agreement with our University. For a Single Room with Bathroom (exclusive use), Breakfast, sheet and bad-towels, cleaning and Internet included, the Tarif is 30 Euros/per Night without breakfast, 35 breakfast included, double room 50/60 Euros, triple 75/65 Euros
http://www.benibenius.com/bb.html
http://www.bbplanet.com/bed-and-breakfast-beni-benius-cagliari_s35221/en/
Manager: Mr. Sergio BOCCHIERI
Hyphenation in transliterated Sanskrit texts
If you use a South Asian script like Devanāgarī, then you will follow its conventions for hyphenation. If not, you might find the following rules helpful:
Studio of Fedele Fischetti
Yes, with Michael Dummett’s death the “linguistic turn” in analytic philosophy has come to an end.
Yes, the new dominant trend is the move towards neurosciences, which are used to deal with issues in philosophy of mind, (cognitive) linguistics, (cognitive) semantics, morality, etc.
Andrew Ollett has just posted some interesting comments on K. Yoshimizu recent workshop and on the impact of his theories from a linguistic point of view. Andrew especially elaborates on the topic-comment opposition and on the possibility to read along these lines the vidheya–upadeya opposition found in Kumarila.
If you missed the workshop, you can read about it also here.