Suchergebnisse

2: The Problem of Sentential Unity -- 2.1 The Asymmetry Thesis -- 2.2 The Related Designation Theory -- 2.3 The Two Views Compared -- 3: The Sense-Reference Distinction -- 3.1 The Sense-Reference Distinction -- 3.2 The Sense-Reference Distinction In Pr?bh?kara -- 3.3 The Sense-Reference Distinction In Buddhist Philosophy Of Language -- 3.4 Related Designation And apoha Semantics -- 4: Talk About the Non-Existent -- 4.1 Are Absences Perceived Or Inferred? -- 4.2 Conceptual Constructions -- 4.3 Affirmation, Denial, And Reference -- 4.4 Talking About The Non-Existent -- 4.5 Objections And Replies -- 4.6 The Alternatives -- References.

hen we understand that something is a pot, is it because of one property that all pots share? This seems unlikely, but without this common essence, it is difficult to see how we could teach someone to use the word ?pot" or to see something as a pot. The Buddhist apoha theory tries to resolve this dilemma, first, by rejecting properties such as ?potness" and, then, by claiming that the element uniting all pots is their very difference from all non-pots. In other words, when we seek out a pot, we select an object that is not a non-pot, and we repeat this practice with all other items and express