Indian Logic Forum

Plamen

Aristotle and Gautama on Logic and Physics
Author: Subhash Kak
Subj-class: General Physics; History of Physics

The question of the origins of logic as a formal discipline is of special interest to the historian of physics since it represents a turning inward to examine the very nature of reasoning and the relationship between thought and reality. In the West, Aristotle (384-322 BCE) is generally credited with the formalization of the tradition of logic and also with the development of early physics. In India, the Rigveda itself in the hymn 10.129 suggests the beginnings of the representation of reality in terms of various logical divisions that were later represented formally as the four circles of: "A", "not A", ":A and not A", and "not A and not not A''. According to Puranic accounts, Medhatithi Gautama and Aksapada Gautama (or Gotama), which are perhaps two variant names for the author of the early formal text on Indian logic, belonged to about 550 BCE. The Greek and the Indian traditions seem to provide the earliest formal representations of logic, and in this article we ask if they influenced each other. We are also interested in the scope of early logic, since this gives an idea to us of the way early thinkers thought about nature and change. We will show that Greek and Indian logical traditions have much that is distinctive and unique and that they must have emerged independently.

Mukund Dhaygude · Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 8:18 am Post subject: Dear Sirs And Ma'ms and peoples'

Professor Subhash Kak has always been an inspring resourceful writer. It is wonderful to type his name on Google and see the no of hits that come about.
Regarding the current topic under discussion, rather that looking at the chronology of logic and applications into physics and metaphysics, we need to corerelate if these historical matters will generate something new for us. Is it only putting things in perspectives over centuries or is it a birth of a new science/ knowledge discipline ? Rigveda has been highly resourceful and also gives one different insights very time one reads it. But as research people we need to see the relevance of it to present times.
With best wishes and regards
Mukund Dhaygude

Plamen · Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 9:42 am Post subject:

Most astounding is yet the correlation between Aristotle and Vaisesika as far as categoriology is concerned. Here is a first, very uncritical juxtaposition

substance - dravya
quantity - samkhya
quality - guna
relation - bhava (samanya and visesa being examples of how qualities distribute)
space - dik
time - kala
place - desa (paksa)
posession - samavaya
action - karma
passion - as in Atmanepada

Mary · Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 4:09 am Post subject: Relevancy

Mukund Dhaygude · Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject: Science and reductionism etc

Dear Mary,

I am taking a liberty to write to you on the same topic having posted one view. Very often the second time I write, my mind/intelligence discovers a new view. See if it interests you.

Modern Science or Ancient Science or Science for that matter at any time, represented natures processes as understood by humans at that time. The atomism / reductionism was an analytical mind set which helps us to understand. The integral mind set recreates or tries to recreate the nature's processes or controls the nature's processes to human advantage. But Rigveda warns scientists that if we cross the line of discrimination (i.e how far to play with nature) then nature does have us . It is simply said that Sham no Mitrah, Sham Varunh, Sham no Bhavattvarymam, Sham no Vishnu.. etc. It alerts us every time that Mother Nature is thy part and thou art a part of mother nature. Beware else you would had it. In advanced nations we seen the effects on environment of scinetific experiments. Many of them are irreversible.

Also , under science we do sell analytical mind sets (so called clever, dicplomatic, intelligent people) that the integral mind sets are never developed. These analytical people are so lopesided persons that they are shattered themselves. How can they ever recontruct the world ? they are more like Vishwamitras of ancient Indian Myths.

In Indian Ethos, most of these are sold as Information technology mind sets. If one studies their behavioural patterns one discovers a new psychology that they display.

Anyway thanks for being patient to read uptill now, lets postpone it to next session on the forum.

Mukund Dhaygude

Mary

Apologies for taking so long to reply to Mukund's thoughtful post.

Mukund, you speak of the 'analytical' and the 'integral' mindsets almost as if they are mutually exclusive, though it is obvious that is not your intent. But, in general, I think perhaps they are considered to be mutually exclusive, or at least individuals often attempt to develop one type of mindset over another and, in today's world, the 'analytical' mindset is seen as 'superior' in that it seems to be the mindset called for in the marketplace. As you noted, 'packaged and sold'.

Yet, at the same time, the marketplace of employers bemoans that there is a severe shortage of potential employees who have been taught 'how to think'. In short, they are asking for problem solving abilities. And it seems, to me, that such abilities call for more than 'analytical' abilities, although analysis is certainly part of problem solving. But, as you said, "These analytical people are so lopsided persons that they are shattered themselves. How can they ever recontruct the world?" 'Reconstructive' or 'integrational' abilities are also needed. Analysis can pinpoint the 'problem', but 'integration' outlines the 'solution'.

Now, I will attempt a huge leap to 'integrate' this discussion back toward Plamen's original post regarding Aristotelian and Indian categoriology and inject a new element from discussions Plamen and I are having elsewhere regarding what is 'paramartha'; specifically, paramartha-dharmas.

Plamen's post here refers to "relation" as being equated with "bhava (samanya and visesa being examples of how qualities distribute)." Being not an expert in formal logic nor in Sanskrit, I am unsure as to the extent to which 'bhava' can be equated with ''relation', but am willing to accept this as a point of departure.

What we are calling 'mindsets' would seem to be examples of 'universal' (samanya) properties or qualities. There are some elements of thought that we tend to associate with 'analytical' and elements of thought that we tend to associate with 'integral' 'mindsets'. Are the specific 'elements' of such 'mindsets' the visesa, the 'particulars', or are these elements in fact 'qualities' that might have both particular and universal distributions?

Perhaps Plamen or someone might help out here by going into a bit more detail about the differences, in the categoriology of Indian Logic, between the particular (visesa) and universal (samanya) and how they relate to the 'individual' as the bearer of both.

Plamen · Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject:

Relation is either sambandha or bhava, like in dharma-dharmi-bhava.