Journal of Indian Philosophy 41 (2):195-219 (2013)

Authors
Giuseppe Ferraro
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Abstract
This paper proposes a critical analysis of that interpretation of the Nāgārjunian doctrine of the two truths as summarized—by both Mark Siderits and Jay L. Garfield—in the formula: “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth”. This ‘semantic reading’ of Nāgārjuna’s theory, despite its importance as a criticism of the ‘metaphysical interpretations’, would in itself be defective and improbable. Indeed, firstly, semantic interpretation presents a formal defect: it fails to clearly and explicitly express that which it contains logically; the previously mentioned formula must necessarily be completed by: “the conventional truth is that nothing is conventional truth”. Secondly, after having recognized what Siderits’ and Garfield’s analyses contain implicitly, other logical and philological defects in their position emerge: the existence of the ‘conventional’ would appear—despite the efforts of semantic interpreters to demonstrate quite the contrary—definitively inconceivable without the presupposition of something ‘real’; moreover, the number of verses in Nāgārjuna that are in opposition to the semantic interpretation (even if we grant semantic interpreters that these verses do not justify a metaphysical reconstruction of Nagarjuna’s doctrine) would seem too great and significant to be ignored
Keywords Nāgārjuna  Two truths  Semantic interpretation  Siderits  Garfield
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10781-013-9179-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,242
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 32 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

On the Nihilist Interpretation of Madhyamaka.Jan Westerhoff - 2016 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 44 (2):337-376.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington. [REVIEW]Jay L. Garfield - 2008 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 36 (4):507-527.
Nāgārjuna's Fundamental Doctrine of Pratītyasamutpāda.Ewing Chinn - 2001 - Philosophy East and West 51 (1):54-72.
Nāgārjuna as Anti-Realist.Mark Siderits - 1988 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 16 (4):311-325.
Nāgārjuna’s Arguments on Motion Revisited.Jan Westerhoff - 2008 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 36 (4):455-479.
Zeno and Nāgārjuna on Motion.Mark Siderits & J. Dervin O'Brien - 1976 - Philosophy East and West 26 (3):281-299.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-04-03

Total views
88 ( #120,927 of 2,444,812 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #122,865 of 2,444,812 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes