To its great credit analytic metaphysics is unabashedly wacky. What I like about this is that it makes clear that the fully spelled out consequences of rejecting Nāgārjuna are actually considerably less plausible than accepting universal emptiness. E.g.:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11229-017-1410-3 …
-
Can you say what you see as a rejection of Nāgārjuna?! I mean, this looks wacky, but I seem to have missed something
Of the 3 background premises my sense is that (1) believing in fundamentally normative properties is a rejection of universal emptiness, and (2) believing in grounding is a rejection of various elements of Nāgārjuna. My credence in (1) is about .7 and in (2) about .6.
-
-
Yeah, fundamentalia are definitely off limits for mādhyamikas, but there’s a nearby view that’s not obviously at odds with Nāgārjuna: everything depends on everything else, everything is normative and nothing is, and whatever normativity there is will be dependently arisen
-
I think I’ve been reading too much Tiantai...everything pushed to its max becomes its opposite
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.