{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

philosophy study sheet test 2

philosophy study sheet test 2 - Abhidharma The Metaphysics...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Abhidharma: The Metaphysics of Empty Persons Argument only partless parts are real: 4 Options: 1. Wholes and parts are both real 2. Wholes are real, parts are unreal 3. Neither wholes nor parts are real 4. Wholes are unreal, only parts are real Criticism of 3: This would mean that nothing exists which isn’t true since the thought occurring right now exists Criticism of 2: This implies one big thing and one thing is ultimately real and one and indivisible. Criticism of 1: 2 ways in reading it: -Whole parts are both real and the whole is identical with the parts in relation *Problem: they are still saying there are only really parts, so it is the same as option 4 *Problem: Principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals… parts and wholes are identical. This would mean they have the same properties, but they differ in number so therefore they don’t. -Whole parts are both real and the whole is distinct from the parts in relation *The Principle of Lightness doesn’t have 100 percent probability of being right *The whole exists in each of the parts… can’t have a bike exist in something as small as the bike seat. *Only parts of the bike as a whole exist in each of the parts Rejection of Substance *substance as property-possessor *substance as something that endures The question is can dharmas last more than an instant? Theory of momentariness -Things go out of existence immediately upon coming into existence -We see something and it only lasts a moment then it is something new. Such as in one moment we see the color red and then the moment later we see a new color red. -All things come into existence depending on causes Problems: 1. An existing thing goes out of existence due to a cause 2. Going out of existence is spontaneous; it is a part of the nature of an existing thing to self-destruct. *Already argued absences aren’t real *If it happens spontaneous it either happens immediately or sometime later -Can’t change over time because that would require it to be a substance
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
-Nor could enough time cause it to pop out of existence, because nothing can cause an absence. Therefore nothing lasts longer than an instant Time Lag Argument: *Since a tiny gap exists between when the sense comes in contact with the external object and when there is sensory awareness, what we are aware of can’t be the external object that the senses were in contact with, since it no longer exists ~Is this true that by the time we are aware of it by our senses it no longer exists?
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}