NAME ADITI MANRAL

ROLL NO. 2022/1537

Textual Study of Indian Philosophy
Assignment

Define inference.
Give all the fallacies discussed in the text Nyaya
Manjari.
Discuss Nyaya’s refutation of Buddhist logic
with reference to law of identity.

Inference stands as a cornerstone of human cognition,

representing the cognitive process through which individuals
draw conclusions based on available evidence, logical
reasoning, and prior knowledge. It serves as the bridge
between observation and understanding, enabling individuals
to synthesize information and derive insights beyond explicit
data. In essence, inference empowers individuals to make
sense of their environment, anticipate future events, and
glean deeper insights into reality. This multifaceted process
operates on various levels, including deductive reasoning,
where specific conclusions are derived from general principles
or premises; inductive reasoning, which draws general
conclusions from specific observations or instances; and
abductive reasoning, which formulates educated guesses or
hypotheses to explain observed phenomena

Turning to the exploration of fallacies as outlined in Jayanta

Bhatta's "Nyaya Manjari," we encounter several common
logical fallacies that pose challenges to genuine philosophical
inquiry. These fallacies include:

1. The straw man fallacy, which involves misrepresenting an

opponent's argument to make it easier to refute. By
constructing a weakened or distorted version of the opposing
viewpoint, the arguer can then attack this misrepresented
version, thus avoiding engaging with the opponent's actual
stance. This fallacy undermines the integrity of the
argumentative process by sidestepping genuine debate and
mischaracterizing the opposing position.

2. The ad hominem fallacy, wherein the arguer attacks the

person making the argument rather than addressing the
argument itself. Instead of engaging with the substance of
the argument, the fallacious debater resorts to attacking the
character, motives, or background of the individual
presenting the argument. This fallacy diverts attention away
from the argument itself and focuses on personal attributes
rather than substantive issues

3. The false dilemma fallacy, which presents a situation as

having only two possible options when there are, in fact,
more alternatives available. By oversimplifying complex
issues into binary choices, the arguer ignores nuanced
alternatives or additional possibilities. This fallacy limits the
range of viable solutions and can lead to a misunderstanding
of the true complexity of the situation at hand.

4. The appeal to authority fallacy, occurring when an arguer

relies on the opinion or endorsement of an authority figure to
bolster their argument, regardless of the relevance or
expertise of the authority. Even if the authority lacks expertise
in the relevant subject matter, their opinion is presented as
evidence to support the argument. This fallacy undermines
the principles of logical reasoning by prioritizing authority
over the validity of the argument itself.

5. The circular reasoning fallacy, which involves using the

conclusion of an argument as one of its premises, creating a
logical loop that fails to provide genuine support. By
assuming what one is trying to prove, the arguer fails to offer
compelling evidence or reasoning. This fallacy perpetuates a
self-referential cycle that fails to advance the argument or
provide meaningful insights.

6. The appeal to ignorance fallacy, which asserts the truth or

falsity of a proposition based on the absence of evidence for
or against it. Lack of evidence alone is not sufficient grounds
to establish the truth of a claim, as it may simply indicate a
lack of knowledge or investigation. This fallacy highlights the
importance of distinguishing between absence of evidence
and evidence of absence in logical reasoning.

These fallacies underscore the importance of critical thinking

and logical rigor in philosophical discourse, urging
practitioners to remain vigilant in identifying and avoiding
these pitfalls. By recognizing fallacious reasoning, individuals
can strengthen their ability to engage in rational discourse,
critically evaluate arguments, and contribute to the
advancement of knowledge and understanding.

Furthermore, Nyaya's refutation of Buddhist logic,

particularly with reference to the law of identity, is a central
theme in philosophical inquiry. Nyaya challenges
fundamental Buddhist doctrines such as momentariness and
non-substantiality, asserting the necessity of continuity and
enduring substances for identity. By emphasizing the
importance of enduring substrata, Nyaya argues against the
Buddhist notion that entities are merely momentary
aggregates of qualities. Instead, Nyaya contends that entities
possess inherent existence beyond mere aggregates of
qualities, thereby grounding their identity in a stable and
enduring substratum.
The law of identity serves as a fundamental principle in
philosophical inquiry, asserting that each entity maintains its
unique identity over time, distinct from others. At its core, the
law of identity stipulates that an entity remains the same
entity as long as its essential characteristics remain
unchanged. This principle provides a foundational framework
for rational thought and understanding, offering a basis for
defining individual identity and distinguishing one entity from
another.

Nyaya's refutation of Buddhist logic with reference to the law

of identity delves into the philosophical debate surrounding
the nature of existence and identity. In challenging
fundamental Buddhist doctrines such as momentariness and
non-substantiality, Nyaya emphasizes the importance of
continuity and enduring substances for identity. According to
Buddhist philosophy, momentariness posits that all
phenomena are in a constant state of flux and
impermanence, lacking enduring identity. Additionally,
Buddhist thought espouses non-substantiality, suggesting
that entities lack inherent existence and are merely transient
aggregates of fleeting qualities.

In contrast, Nyaya argues for the necessity of continuity and

enduring substrata for identity, directly challenging the
Buddhist conception of momentariness and non-
substantiality. Nyaya contends that the constant flux
proposed by Buddhist momentariness undermines the
stability necessary for identity. Without continuity and
stability, Nyaya asserts, there would be no enduring basis for
recognizing or defining identity. Furthermore, Nyaya rejects
the Buddhist notion of non-substantiality, which denies the
existence of enduring substrata underlying phenomena.
According to Nyaya, entities possess inherent existence
beyond mere aggregates of qualities, grounded in a stable
and enduring substratum.

By emphasizing the importance of enduring substrata, Nyaya

offers a critique of Buddhist logic that highlights the logical
inconsistencies inherent in Buddhist philosophy. Nyaya's
refutation underscores the significance of the law of identity
in philosophical inquiry, shedding light on the complexities of
existence, identity, and reality. Through a critical examination
of inference, fallacies, and Nyaya's refutation of Buddhist
logic, we gain deeper insights into the complexities of human
cognition and the pursuit of truth. These discussions enrich
our understanding of rational discourse and foster more
meaningful and productive dialogue in philosophical inquiry
and everyday discourse alike. By engaging with these
concepts in a rigorous and comprehensive manner, we are
better equipped to navigate the intricacies of philosophical
inquiry and contribute to the ongoing pursuit of knowledge
and understanding.