Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:22:51.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicates, parts, and impermanence: a contemporary version of some central Buddhist tenets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2017

MATTHEW McKEEVER Open the ORCID record for MATTHEW McKEEVER [Opens in a new window]
MATTHEW McKEEVER*
Affiliation:
Arché, University of St Andrews, 17-19 College Street, St Andrews, Fife, UK
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I argue that recent work in analytic philosophy on the semantics of names and the metaphysics of persistence supports two theses in Buddhist philosophy, namely the impermanence of objects and a corollary about how referential language works. According to this latter package of views, the various parts of what we call one object (say, King Milinda) possess no unity in and of themselves. Unity comes rather from language, in that we have terms (say, ‘King Milinda’) which stand for all the parts taken together. Objects are mind- (or rather language-)generated fictions. I think this package can be cashed out in terms of two central contemporary views. The first is that there are temporal parts: just as an object is spatially extended by having spatial parts at different spatial locations, so it is temporally extended by having temporal parts at different temporal locations. The second is that names are predicates: rather than standing for any one thing, a name stands for a range of things. The natural language term ‘Milinda’ is not akin to a logical constant, but akin to a predicate.

Putting this together, I'll argue that names are predicates with temporal parts in their extension, which parts have no unity apart from falling under the same predicate. ‘Milinda’ is a predicate which has in its extension all Milinda's parts. The result is an interesting and original synthesis of plausible positions in semantics and metaphysics, which makes good sense of a central Buddhist doctrine.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 475 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, Arif (2015) ‘Hume and the independent witnesses’, Mind, 124, 1013–1044.Google Scholar
Boolos, George (1984) ‘To be is to be a value of a variable (or to be some values of some variables)’, The Journal of Philosophy, 81, 430–449.Google Scholar
Burge, Tyler (1973) ‘Reference and proper names’, The Journal of Philosophy, 425–439.Google Scholar
Dunne, John D. (2004) Foundations of Dharmakirti's Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster).Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul D. (2005) Situations and Individuals (Cambridge MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Fara, Delia Graff (2015) ‘Names are predicates’, Philosophical Review, 124, 59–117.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit (2003) ‘The non-identity of a material thing and its matter’, Mind, 112, 195–234.Google Scholar
Garfield, Jay (1995) The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Garfield, Jay L. (2015) Engaging Buddhism: Why It Matters to Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Garfield, Jay L. & Graham, Priest (2003) ‘Nagarjuna and the limits of thought’, Philosophy East and West, 53, 1–21.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan (1975) ‘Contingent identity’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4, 187–221.Google Scholar
Haslanger, Sally (1989) ‘Endurance and temporary intrinsics’, Analysis, 49, 119–125.Google Scholar
Hawley, Katherine (2001) How Things Persist (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hawley, Katherine (2015) ‘Temporal parts’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2015 <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/temporal-parts/>..>Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Uwe, Reyle (1993) From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory (Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media).Google Scholar
Koslicki, Kathrin (2003) ‘The crooked path from vagueness to four-dimensionalism’, Philosophical Studies, 114, 107–134.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul (1980) Naming and Necessity (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1983) ‘Postscripts to “Survival and Identity” ’, in Philosophical Papers, I (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 73–77.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1986) On the Plurality of Worlds (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Lowe, Ernest (1988) ‘The problems of intrinsic change: rejoinder to Lewis’, Analysis, 48, 72–77.Google Scholar
Magidor, Ofra (2015) ‘Endurantism vs. perdurantism? A debate reconsidered’, Noûs, 50, 509–532.Google Scholar
Markosian, Ned (1994) ‘The 3D/4D controversy and non-present objects’, Philosophical Papers, 23, 243–249.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora (2008) ‘On the linguistic complexity of proper names’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 573–627.Google Scholar
McKeever, Matthew (2016) ‘Against Type E’, PhD thesis, University of St Andrews.Google Scholar
Oliver, Alex & Timothy, Smiley (2013) Plural Logic (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Oppy, Graham (2016) ‘Ontological arguments’ in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2016, <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/ontological-arguments/>..>Google Scholar
Pesala, Bhikku (n.d.) ‘The debate of King Milinda’, Bhikku Pesala (ed.), <www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/milinda.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul M. (2005) Events and Semantic Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Priest, Graham (2010) ‘The logic of the Catuskoti’, Comparative Philosophy, 1, 24–54.Google Scholar
Schoubye, Anders (forthcoming) ‘Type ambiguous names’, Mind.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore (2001) Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Siderits, Mark (1997) ‘Buddhist reductionism’, Philosophy East and West, 47, 455–478.Google Scholar
Siderits, Mark (2007) Buddhism as Philosophy (Farnham: Ashgate).Google Scholar
Siderits, Mark (2015) ‘Buddha’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2015, <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/buddha/>..>Google Scholar
Wasserman, Ryan (2003) ‘The argument from temporary intrinsics’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81, 413–419.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Ryan (2016) ‘Theories of persistence’, Philosophical Studies, 173, 243–250.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Ryan, Hawthorne, John, & Scala, Mark (2004) ‘Recombination, causal constraints and Humean supervenience: an argument for temporal parts?’, in Zimmerman, Dean (ed.) Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, I (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 301–318.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Dean W. (1996) ‘Persistence and presentism’, Philosophical Papers, 25, 115–126.Google Scholar