365bet娱乐

There are two different explanations of the fallacy of viruddha. According to the Nyaya-sulra and Bhasya, the fallacy of the viruddha consists in the opposition of one doctrine to a previously accepted doctrine, both belonging to the same system of thought. It is a contradiction between the different parts or doctrines of a system of philosophy. As an example of this Vatsyayana cites two contradictory statements from the Yoga-bhasya, namely, (i) that the world ceases from manifestation because it is not eternal, and (ii) that even then it exists because it cannot be destroyed. 2 In the above sense the viruddha as a fallacy means the contradictions and inconsistencies involved in any school of philosophy. As such, however, it is not an inferential fallacy, but the fallacy of self-contradiction in which any theory or philosophy may be involved. Hence the first explanation of the viruddha as given above does not appear to me to be acceptable. According to the later Naiyayikas, from Uddyotakara downwards, the hetu or the reason is called viruddha when it disproves the very proposition which it is meant to prove.* This happens when a middle term exists, not in the objects in which the major exists, but in those in which the major does not exist. That is, the viruddha or the contradictory middle is that which is pervaded by the absence of the major term.* The result is that such a middle term instead of proving the existence of the major in the minor term, which is intended by it, proves its non-existence therein. It contradicts and ... Siddhantamabhyupetya tadvirodhi viruddhah, Nyaya-sutra, 1. 2. 6. 2 Vide Nyaya-Bhasya, 1. 2. 6. 3 Pratijnahetvorva virodhah etc., Nyaya-varttika, 1. 2. 6. * Sadhyabhavavyapto heturviruddhah etc., Tarkasamgraha, p. 57.

sublates the pratijna or the proposition which it is employed to prove and establish. Thus if one argues 'sound is eternal, because it is caused,' we have a fallacy of viruddha or the contradictory middle. The middle term 'caused' does not prove the eternality of sound, but its non-eternality, because all that is caused is non-eternal. Hence the distinction between the fallacies of the savyabhicara and the viruddha is that while in the former the middle term is universally related neither to the existence of the major nor to its non-existence, in the latter the middle term is universally related to the non-existence of the major term. As a consequence of this, the savyabhicara or the irregular middle only fails to prove the conclusion, whereas the viruddha or the contradictory middle disproves it or proves the contradictory proposition.