[INDOLOGY] some thoughts about modality, vyaapti and `eva'

[Franco]

Dear Alex,
Thank you, but I’m not sure that this formulation counts as modus tollens. It is usually stated in the form: if a, then b. Not b, therefore not a.
Thus:
If there would have been smoke on the mountain, there would have been fire there. But there is no smoke, therefore ...
Best wishes,
Eli


Sent from my iPad

> On 01.07.2021, at 13:49, Alex Watson <alex.watson at ashoka.edu.in> wrote:
> 
> Dear Eli
> 
> Let's take as an example of modus tollens:
> 
> Major premise: wherever there is smoke there is fire
> Minor premise: there is no fire on the mountain
> Conclusion: there is no smoke on the mountain
> 
> I don't think Indian logicians would see this as a prasaṅga, 
> nor western philosophers as a case of reductio ad absurdum, 
> as it doesn't conclude something absurd or undesirable, 
> therefore we are not compelled to reject one of the premises.
> 
> Yours Alex
> 
> -- 
> Alex Watson
> Professor of Indian Philosophy
> Ashoka University
> https://ashokauniversity.academia.edu/AlexWatson
> 
> > Dear friends,
> I have been wondering about something that is perhaps only tangent to 
> the discussion. Can one distinguish between reductio ad absurdum 
> (prasanga) and modus tollens (also prasanga?) in the Indian tradition? 
> I am not sure that the distinction between the two is clear in the 
> Western tradition either.
> With best wishes,
> Eli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20210701/9bdf605d/attachment.htm>