Abstract

Abstract:Unlike previous comparisons between Nāgārjuna and the later Wittgenstein, this article denies that either philosophy intends to replace ontological pluralism with holism (see, e.g., Streng 1967, Hudson 1973, Gudmunsen 1974 and 1977, Waldo 1975 and 1978, and Katz 1981). Instead, employing a "therapeutic" reading of the Philosophical Investigations associated with the later Gordon Baker, it is proposed that Nāgārjuna and the later Wittgenstein claim that an ontology consisting of discrete particulars is pictorially indeterminate, visible under either aspect of parts or a whole. What Nāgārjuna and Wittgenstein share is an understanding of contrary positions like pluralism and holism as interchangeable Gestalten rather than matters of fact. As a result, I argue that Nāgārjuna's philosophy may be understood in terms of a broader non-dualism employed as a skill-in-means (upāyakauśalya). Akin to Wittgenstein's notion of an "object of comparison" (PI §131), Nāgārjuna's chief insight amounts to a useful perspective rather than a philosophical thesis.