Abstract
AbstractThis paper reconsiders the notion that Nagarjuna and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus may only be seen as comparable under a shared ineffability thesis, that is, the idea that reality is impossible to describe in sensible discourse. Historically, Nagarjuna and the early Wittgenstein have both been widely construed as offering either metaphysical theories or attempts to refute all such theories. Instead, by employing an interpretive framework based on a ‘resolute’ reading of the Tractatus, I suggest we see their philosophical affinity in terms of a shared conception of philosophical method without proposing theses. In doing so, this offers us a new way to understand Nagarjuna’s characteristic claims both to have ‘no views’ (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 13.8 and 27.30) and refusal to accept that things exist ‘inherently’ or with ‘essence’ (svabhāva). Therefore, instead of either a view about the nature of a mind-independent ‘ultimate reality’ or a thesis concerning the rejection of such a domain, I propose that we understand Nagarjuna’s primary aim as ‘therapeutic’, that is, concerned with the dissolution of philosophical problems. However, this ‘therapy’ should neither be confined to the psychotherapeutic metaphor nor should it be taken to imply a private enlightenment only available to philosophers. Instead, for Nagarjuna and Wittgenstein, philosophical problems are cast as a source of disquiet for all of us; what their work offers is a soteriology, a means towards our salvation.
Funder
University of East Anglia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Philosophy,Religious studies
Reference74 articles.
1. Garfield, J. L. (Ed.). (Trans.) (1995). The fundamental wisdom of the middle way, Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Siderits, M., & Katsura, S. (Eds.). (Trans.) (2013). Nāgārjuna’s middle way: Mūlamadhyamakārikā. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
3. Anscombe, G. E. M. (Ed.). (Trans.) (1997). Philosophical investigations. Oxford Blackwell.
4. Ogden, C. K. (Ed.). (Trans.) (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.
5. Anderson, T. (1985). Wittgenstein and Nāgārjuna’s paradox. Philosophy East and West, 35(2), 157–169.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献