[Buddha-l] Re: Dependent arising variants

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 16:14 -0500, curt wrote:

> (1) The generalization that "all living things must die" is invalid, and
> (2) The notion of "birth", both as the Buddha used it and as it being 
> used in this discussion, is hopelessly underdetermined.

I agree completely with the second point. 

On the first point I would add only one minor technical quibble. The
customary taxonomy of arguments is that there are two kinds: deductive
and inductive. Deductive arguments are those the formal structure of
which is such that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the
conclusion. Inductive arguments are those that can only provide reasons
for thinking that a conclusion is probable. Only arguments that are
presented as deductive arguments can be classified as valid or invalid.
Inductive arguments are neither valid nor invalid. One usually says of
them that they are either strong or weak. 

The generalization "all living things must die" is the conclusion of an
inductive argument, and so is neither valid nor invalid. As an inductive
argument the reasons usually given are quite strong. It is a safe bet
that if you were born a human being, you'll eventually either croak,
kick the bucket, buy the farm, give up the ghost, or shuck your mortal
coil. No matter which form of exit you take, you'll most likely end up
pushing up the daisies, feeding the worms, feeding the fish or going up
in smoke.  

For what it's worth, early Indian philosophy was almost completely
lacking any notion of deductive reasoning. The arguments given at the
time of the Buddha (and by all Buddhists until the time of Dharmakirti)
are all of the inductive variety. Don't even look for validity or
soundness in them. Do look for strength (but don't be too bitterly
disappointed if you can't find it).

> The real lesson - don't argue from biology.

The lesson I have reached is somewhat different: don't argue with anyone
who doesn't already agree with you, for it's a waste of time and breath.
(You can save us both a lot of grief by agreeing with me on that one.)

-- 
Richard
***
"This homely game of life we play covers, under what seem foolish details,
principles that astonish."                     (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803-1882)