/lit/ - Literature

>>14733619
>Do you have a response to or an argument against Robinson's refutation of Nagarjuna's logic
Robinson doesn't refute Nagarjuna's logic (pic), he just classifies his method of refutation (prasanga) as absurd if it could be claimed to apply to all schools, which is what Nagarjuna was actually getting at according to CW Huntington. In other words the main point of prasanga was to show how svabhavic doctrines reduce to absurdity but would also 'absurdify' itself if it ran into problems that later schools rectify themselves in order to defend their arguments, eventually proving Nagarjuna's point. This isn't an excuse to counter-commonsense claims made by Nagarjuna, I'm just saying your claim that Robinson somehow 'BTFO' and 'Destroyed' Nagarjuna's logic is unfounded. Robinson even examines other logical operators within Nagarjuna's system without appealing to any apparent dissemination of his whole system, which can be found here:

>Some logical aspects of nāgārjuna's system by Richard H. Robinson
https://philpapers.org/rec/ROBSLA