How convincing is Nyaya-Vaisesikas analysis of reality as an ontology of seven categories of things that exist (padarthas)? [Feel free to address what you wish of this theory, e.g. their theory of substances and qualities/actions, their theory of universals and particularities, their theory of the relation of inherence (samavaya), viz. identity-in-difference, (and whether inherence is both coherent and sufficient to integrate their pluralistic ontology into a unified whole).]
Examine and assess Nyaya-Vaisesikas theory of the self (atman) and of what constitutes liberation (moksa).
Examine and assess Nyaya-Vaisesikas doctrine that the effect does not exist in its cause (asatkaryavada). You may wish to consider here their mereological arguments claiming that wholes are ontologically distinct from their parts.
Examine and assess Nyaya-Vaisesikas theory of the realism of universals (samanya) and/or their theory of the realism of nonexistences (abhava).
Assess Nyayas theory of valid inference (anumana), including whether their doctrine of the invariable concomitance/pervasion of properties solves the problem of induction.
Assess the debate between Nyayas doctrine of four valid means of knowledge (pramana) and the Materialist (Carvaka) Schools doctrine that perception is the only valid means of knowledge (pramana).
Does Nyaya theory of the valid means of knowledge (pramana) give a satisfactory account of what knowledge is, of what establishes what knowledge is, and of. how we know that we know?
Main sources:
Hiriyanna, M. (1932) Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass.
Radhakrishnan, S. & Moore, C. A. (eds.) (1957) A Source Book in Indian Philosophy, Princeton, Princeton University Press, referred to below as SB
Will provide extra info based on topic chosen
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|