Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Bhartrhari on What Cannot Be Said

Bhartrhari on What Cannot Be Said Department of Philosophy, University of California at Los Angeles Introduction In a seminal work, Hans G. Herzberger and Radhika Herzberger argue for the following points: 1. Bhartrhari discusses claims that certain relations cannot be signified. ExamÇ ples are supposed to be the signification relation itself, and the inherence relation. 2. Bhartrhari was aware of the paradoxical nature of these claims. Ç 3. Bhartrhari actually endorses these paradoxical claims. Ç 4. These claims can be supported by twentieth-century arguments.1 My goal is to clarify what Bhartrhari actually claims, to improve on the Herzbergers' Ç arguments in support of Bhartrhari, and to note some limitations on the extent to Ç which the claims under discussion may be supported by twentieth-century developments. I will follow the following outline: Clarification of the claims under discussion. The Herzbergers' twentieth-century defense of the claims. Qualm a1: Gaps in the reasoning. Qualm a2: Semantic paradox versus ontological paradox. An improvement on the Herzbergers' argument about signification. . Qualm a3: A difficulty about thatness. . Qualm a4: Limitations on what can be shown. . Qualm a5: Inherence is different! . Qualm a6: Are we misinterpreting Bhartrhari? Ç Bhartrhari's text is long and complicated, and one cannot http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Philosophy East and West University of Hawai'I Press

Bhartrhari on What Cannot Be Said

Parsons, Terence
Philosophy East and West , Volume 51 (4) – Jan 10, 2001
Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/bhartrhari-on-what-cannot-be-said-cpg05UALYM

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1529-1898
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Department of Philosophy, University of California at Los Angeles Introduction In a seminal work, Hans G. Herzberger and Radhika Herzberger argue for the following points: 1. Bhartrhari discusses claims that certain relations cannot be signified. ExamÇ ples are supposed to be the signification relation itself, and the inherence relation. 2. Bhartrhari was aware of the paradoxical nature of these claims. Ç 3. Bhartrhari actually endorses these paradoxical claims. Ç 4. These claims can be supported by twentieth-century arguments.1 My goal is to clarify what Bhartrhari actually claims, to improve on the Herzbergers' Ç arguments in support of Bhartrhari, and to note some limitations on the extent to Ç which the claims under discussion may be supported by twentieth-century developments. I will follow the following outline: Clarification of the claims under discussion. The Herzbergers' twentieth-century defense of the claims. Qualm a1: Gaps in the reasoning. Qualm a2: Semantic paradox versus ontological paradox. An improvement on the Herzbergers' argument about signification. . Qualm a3: A difficulty about thatness. . Qualm a4: Limitations on what can be shown. . Qualm a5: Inherence is different! . Qualm a6: Are we misinterpreting Bhartrhari? Ç Bhartrhari's text is long and complicated, and one cannot

Journal

Philosophy East and West – University of Hawai'I Press

Published: Jan 10, 2001

There are no references for this article.