[Buddha-l] The arrow: its removal and examination

[Alberto Todeschini]

Richard Hayes wrote:

> The prasanga argument, as you rightly point out, does not 
> usually show that a claim is absurd, but rather that it leads to conclusions 
> that the person making the claim would not accept. I've never heard that 
> called ad hominem. I've never been sure what to call a prasanga;

I am afraid I can't help you. Maybe it is better not to translate it 
rather than simply saying that it is a reductio ad absurdum, as I have 
seen several times. I was taught that a reductio ad absurdum is the same 
as an indirect proof or proof by contradiction: you assume P, derive a 
contradiction, and this allows you to infer not-P.(see Barwise and 
Etchemendy, _Language, Proof and Logic_ pp. 136ff). Informally, we do 
this all the time. The example given by Barwise and Etchemendy is this: 
assume that you will go to Hawaii for spring break; calculate the impact 
on your finance and ability to finish term papers; conclude that you 
can't make the trip.

I have a
> feeling that if it were described as an ad hominem, that characterization 
> would be misunderstood by most people these days.

I think you are right.

> I've never been sure what to call a prasanga; it's one of 
> the many Sanskrit terms that I remain unsure how best to translate.

While on the subject of translating, how would you translate 
'kulaputra'? I know what it means and I have looked it up in 
dictionaries, but I haven't quite found a stylish, satisfying rendering.

Regards,

Alberto Todeschini