Bhartṛhari on What Cannot Be Said

Bhartṛhari claims that certain things cannot be signified--for example, the signification relation itself. Hans and Radhika Herzberger assert that Bhartṛhari's claim about signification can be validated by an appeal to twentieth-century results in set theory. This appeal is unpersuasive in esta...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Philosophy east & west 2001-10, Vol.51 (4), p.525-534
Main Author: Parsons, Terence
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bhartrhari
Bhartrhari (570?-651?)
Communication
Contradictories
Criticism
Inherence
Liars paradox
Mathematical relations
Mathematical set theory
Paradoxes
Philosophical thought
Philosophy
Philosophy of language
Predicates
Reasoning
Semantics
Set theory
Signification
Words
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Bhartṛhari claims that certain things cannot be signified--for example, the signification relation itself. Hans and Radhika Herzberger assert that Bhartṛhari's claim about signification can be validated by an appeal to twentieth-century results in set theory. This appeal is unpersuasive in establishing this view, but arguments akin to the semantic paradoxes (such as the "liar" paradox) come much closer. Unfortunately, these arguments are equally telling against another of his views: that the thatness of the signification relation can be signified. Bhartṛhari also claims that the relation of inherence cannot be signified--a quite different view that is not borne out by twentieth-century results. Finally, further research is needed to investigate what Bhartṛhari's own reasons might have been for these views.
ISSN:0031-8221
1529-1898
1529-1898
DOI:10.1353/pew.2001.0058