Nagarjuna's Skeptical Regress

[@normalhuman6260]

This is one of the best philosophical ideas for modern times.

[@_VISION.]

I agree. I think it provides humility but also may provide chaos.

[@watchfuleagleson]

"How do I know it's true?" is an unsettling question which will put you in the same camp with the greatest thinkers, because they probably all went through at least a phase of asking it. For example, when consulting a historian or biographer, even if I consulted all his sources, I still wouldn't check the sources of the sources of his sources ad infinitum. The answer can't be definitive, but consists in an approach which repeatedly sets aside old paradigms & tries new ones.

[@kevincurrie-knight3267]

This problem is precisely why I am most at ease with Jamesian/Rortyan pragmatism. It doesn't care a fig about justification but also doesn't see rejection of justification as grounds for skepticsim. When we claim knowledge, we do it because belief that we have knowledge is a human need. We need to act in the world, and to do that, we need to base our beliefs on something, and something that we think is correct. So, we claim knowledge. What 'grounds' our claims of knowledge? That the beliefs we have work. That's all. It's all we can ever do, but do it we must.

[@_VISION.]

I agree which is why I have pragmatism in my philosophical stack right after classical skepticism as well as rhetoric. I mentioned that after finding this out it seems that we still have to deal with he problem of self-preservation. Though I think a pyrrhonian skeptic would say that you don't need to believe in anything in order to act. The process of active investigation is all you need. I don't need to believe that a light will turn on once I flip the switch. I have no idea if it will in that instance so I investigate and it turns out the light comes on. Which was my goal.

[@躄蟹座右衞門]

interesting! Nagarujuna had a strong influence on Japanese buddhism philosophy.

[@dubbelkastrull]

9:33 bookmark

[@englishlearningzone2835]

Very Professuonal, Prof !

[@danielhopkins296]

I dont think he nemtioned that the 'rope imagined to be a snake' motif is put in the mouth of both Sextus and Nagarjuna's disciple Aryadeva at a similar time

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

@@danielhopkins296 The Catuhsataka is terrific, and seriously underrated.

[@iruleandyoudont9]

if we accept the fallibilist claim that no justification can ever guarantee the truth of a proposition, does it matter if chains of justification are infinite? also, even if we presume the human mind is finite and thus cannot contain an infinite chain of justification, say we were 13 steps of justification removed from the original knowledge claim and I no longer know the justification for the 13th justification, that doesn't imply that therefore no justification exists, it just implies I don't know it. so why must I know the infinite chain to know part of the chain?

[@_VISION.]

Because how could you justify justification 12 if you are not aware of justification 13?

[@davidzuilhof2272]

What are the sources used in this video? What is the text in which nagarjuna discusses this argument?

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Nagarjuna, Averting the Arguments, in Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning. New York: Abingdon Press, 1967, 222-227; a translation of Vigrahavyavartani: Averting the Arguments.

[@bilosophy1504]

@@PhiloofAlexandria I have been discussing Nagarjuna's skeptical argument in my Buddhist class, but Nagarjuna's skeptical regress argument seems to be either just Aggripa's trilemma or neither my teacher, nor my classmates, nor I, understand your exposition of it. Nagarjuna's skeptical regress argument is not just Aggripa's trilemma if Nagarjuna attacks externalist conceptions of justification. Externalists say to avoid the trilemma because they claim to be justified because their perception (for example) is a reliable source, but claim to not need a reason for believing that perception is reliable in order for this fact to justify their perceptual beliefs. So an infinite regress argument doesn't matter for externalists w.r.t. justification, so Nagarjuna's argument is based upon a confused conception of the position it's trying to attack. Nagarjuna's opponent can say that perception is a reliable source and therefore provides externalist justification, even if they cannot give a reason/internalist justification for believing this!

[@audunstolpe7408]

If this talk is about the Mulamadyamikakarika, I think it misses the point. That work says little about knowledge and justification, and is not about epistemology. It may rather be classified as a work of ontology that questions the very concept of objecthood. Nagarjuna is saying that identifying, reidentifying and tracking objects is arbitrary without an ultimate foundation. There is no such thing as given objects, in the sense of being ultimate constituents of reality. This goes for abstract objects as well (in a sense, on Nagarjuna's analysis all objects are abstract) such as, famously, the very concept of emptiness. Skepticism is not the issue, and Nagarjuna never questions the validity of ordinary ways of comportment to the world.

[@die_schlechtere_Milch]

Love that you have a picture of J S Bach on your table!

[@jonwesick2844]

Would you please discuss Dharmakirti next?

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Good idea. I'll try to do that soon!

[@jonwesick2844]

@@PhiloofAlexandria Thanks. Looking forward to it.

[@BenReillySpydr1962]

@@PhiloofAlexandria Howdy Im a programmer and work with A.I. so I may be biased but I'm curious about how a consequentialist would resolve the issues of the *"Horizon Effect"* so if you could shed some light on that it'd be great thanks👍🖖

[@robertstevens1287]

This is why parents get annoyed when kids serially ask, "why?" haha I think there's something here about utility. It's useful and natural to assume some basic perception is true, and to build a set of knowledge off of it. Nature deals in utility; Nature discards useless things. But, is there a disparity between this (perhaps unconscious) basic assumption about your perception, and the truth? Well, here's skepticism's ugly head again, because to evaluate that question, you have to know something about the nature of truth. Whence the skeptic's insight? But, is there a disparity between ultimate truth and terrestrial nature? Isn't it equally likely that your perception is useful on Earth, yet false, as it is useful and true? In other words, is it true to define truth as unknowable? Is it possible to evaluate the claim, "it's true that truth is unknowable?" And that claim? So here's another infinite regress.

[@_VISION.]

Depends on what skeptic you're talking to. A pyrrhonian skeptic is making no assertion just like Nagarjuna. My question has been where do you go from here because we do have things to do while we are here like self-preservation. So I agree with you, it's about utility after that. From there it seems like rhetoric and pragmatism are the obvious tools to reach whatever goal we have. One to articulate and one to achieve a logistical aim.

[@SrValeriolete]

Nagarjuna had no problem with utility, he had a problem with people clinging to views and thinking they hold ultimate truth about things. And why he held this view? Because not understanding the effemeral nature of our frameworks leads to suffering when our worldview and assumptions inevitably gets detroyed and also leads to conflict with others because we can't inhabit their conceptual framework, we just assume they are crazy, so clinging to views is not a safe refuge, so he as a pragmatist. This reasoning goes back to the Pali Canon. The same is true of the moral precepts, clinging to moral precepts as absolutes without realizing their contextual aplication leads to remarkable suffering. There is how he could defend buddhist practice. That goes deeper as to seems things as relative allows for trainning the mind to not cling to egotistical desires and to accept and overcome suferring, achieving equanimity in a maner similar to stoicism. It also has conotations of our relative and interdependent nature and the arbitrariness of putting our own suffering or happiness as more importat than others. Another great motivation for attacking objective things and essences was to attack the cast system who held casts as sort of platonic forms ordained/emanated by God/godhead instead of mere social conventions likebuddhists argued. I think it is important to state those motivations since the very nature of the buddhist pragmatism means that whatever we are studying, has to have a reason for it. As the Buddah puts it in tha parable of the arrow or of the raft to cross the river, but not to cling to it, every teaching is a remedy for a disease. Actually is not even that there is no ultimate truth that is acessible to us, our even notion of an ultimate truth that is objective, independent and permanent is incoherent, so we shouldn't be looking for ultimate things to begin with, it was just a crazy idea. The buddhist tradition in general is pragmatic. When you hear buddhists talking about ultimate things it is generally either a guide to achieve certain meditative atainements or is poetic refering to the lack of ultimates or to the freedom of the mind that experiences it. After Nagarjuna, Dignaga and Dharmakirt lay down an incredible development in logic and epistemology of conventional reality. Conventional reality is of incredible importance to practice and ethical action, actually, it's all that we have. That is not to say material reality of course, people are so traped in materialistic paradigm, that when people hear skeptcism and pragmatism, they think materialism, and secular buddhism has captalized on that, but traditionaly that includes all those realms of rebirth and beings that were acessed via yogic and shamanic means. And well, you have to grant that they are at least real mental states, and since they argue materialism is ilogical (hard problem of consciousness, etc) and harmfull (pragmatic arguments for moral motivation), and mental states are always caused by other mental states we should take those experiences as conventionaly real aswell. The whole thing makes a lot of sense.

[@_VISION.]

My question is, after coming to these conclusions. What then? Sure, I feel liberated by this but is this a kind of absurdism? Where since there is no inherentism that I should live as freely as possible? This is a big responsibility. What does one do with it or what is suggested if there is a suggestion?

[@jacquin8511]

Nagarjuna actually linked the apprehension of emptiness with the development of bodhicitta, the compassionate intention to save all beings from their suffering. Essentially one might say the opposite of living for one's "self"! Try his commentary Bodhicitta-vivāraṇa-nāma, found here: www.markwebber.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Nagarjuna-Bodhicittavivarana-3-translations-spreadsheet-1.pdf

[@dariomiric2958]

Madhyamaka is wonderful. Dharma is on one hand cold scientific and analytical, but also very deep, insightful and poetic. May everyone find peace. P.S. Do you have Croatian origin? 😀

[@alankuntz6494]

Yeah this is just went wrong when you start talking about belief it's not it's not a matter of believing anything.

[@agrgt8969]

Are there any reading materials that you can suggest, in relation to this? Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way is a bit above my paygrade.

[@ichtube]

This needs some mathematics. Too wordy like this.

[@buffstraw2969]

You want some mathematics? Here you go: 42!!!! "It was a tough assignment." - Deep Thought