A Monstrous Inference called Mahāvidyānumāna and Cantor’s Diagonal Argument

Nirmalya Guha

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    A mahāvidyā inference is used for establishing another inference. Its Reason (hetu) is normally an omnipresent (kevalānvayin) property. Its Target (sādhya) is defined in terms of a general feature that is satisfied by different properties in different cases. It assumes that there is no (relevant) case that has the absence of its Target. The main defect of a mahāvidyā inference μ is a counterbalancing inference (satpratipakṣa) that can be formed by a little modification of μ. The discovery of its counterbalancing inference can invalidate such an inference. This paper will argue that Cantor’s diagonal argument too shares some features of the mahāvidyā inference. A diagonal argument has a counterbalanced statement. Its main defect is its counterbalancing inference. Apart from presenting an epistemological perspective that explains the disquiet over Cantor’s proof, this paper would show that both the mahāvidyā and diagonal argument formally contain their own invalidators.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)557-579
    Number of pages23
    JournalJournal of Indian Philosophy
    Volume44
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 01-07-2016

    Fingerprint

    Inference
    Monstrous
    Defects
    Epistemological

    All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

    • Cultural Studies
    • Philosophy

    Cite this

    @article{dfbf3c323e6b421888c624cd15eb2101,
    title = "A Monstrous Inference called Mahāvidyānumāna and Cantor’s Diagonal Argument",
    abstract = "A mahāvidyā inference is used for establishing another inference. Its Reason (hetu) is normally an omnipresent (kevalānvayin) property. Its Target (sādhya) is defined in terms of a general feature that is satisfied by different properties in different cases. It assumes that there is no (relevant) case that has the absence of its Target. The main defect of a mahāvidyā inference μ is a counterbalancing inference (satpratipakṣa) that can be formed by a little modification of μ. The discovery of its counterbalancing inference can invalidate such an inference. This paper will argue that Cantor’s diagonal argument too shares some features of the mahāvidyā inference. A diagonal argument has a counterbalanced statement. Its main defect is its counterbalancing inference. Apart from presenting an epistemological perspective that explains the disquiet over Cantor’s proof, this paper would show that both the mahāvidyā and diagonal argument formally contain their own invalidators.",
    author = "Nirmalya Guha",
    year = "2016",
    month = "7",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1007/s10781-015-9276-5",
    language = "English",
    volume = "44",
    pages = "557--579",
    journal = "Journal of Indian Philosophy",
    issn = "0022-1791",
    publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
    number = "3",

    }

    A Monstrous Inference called Mahāvidyānumāna and Cantor’s Diagonal Argument. / Guha, Nirmalya.

    In: Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 44, No. 3, 01.07.2016, p. 557-579.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - A Monstrous Inference called Mahāvidyānumāna and Cantor’s Diagonal Argument

    AU - Guha, Nirmalya

    PY - 2016/7/1

    Y1 - 2016/7/1

    N2 - A mahāvidyā inference is used for establishing another inference. Its Reason (hetu) is normally an omnipresent (kevalānvayin) property. Its Target (sādhya) is defined in terms of a general feature that is satisfied by different properties in different cases. It assumes that there is no (relevant) case that has the absence of its Target. The main defect of a mahāvidyā inference μ is a counterbalancing inference (satpratipakṣa) that can be formed by a little modification of μ. The discovery of its counterbalancing inference can invalidate such an inference. This paper will argue that Cantor’s diagonal argument too shares some features of the mahāvidyā inference. A diagonal argument has a counterbalanced statement. Its main defect is its counterbalancing inference. Apart from presenting an epistemological perspective that explains the disquiet over Cantor’s proof, this paper would show that both the mahāvidyā and diagonal argument formally contain their own invalidators.

    AB - A mahāvidyā inference is used for establishing another inference. Its Reason (hetu) is normally an omnipresent (kevalānvayin) property. Its Target (sādhya) is defined in terms of a general feature that is satisfied by different properties in different cases. It assumes that there is no (relevant) case that has the absence of its Target. The main defect of a mahāvidyā inference μ is a counterbalancing inference (satpratipakṣa) that can be formed by a little modification of μ. The discovery of its counterbalancing inference can invalidate such an inference. This paper will argue that Cantor’s diagonal argument too shares some features of the mahāvidyā inference. A diagonal argument has a counterbalanced statement. Its main defect is its counterbalancing inference. Apart from presenting an epistemological perspective that explains the disquiet over Cantor’s proof, this paper would show that both the mahāvidyā and diagonal argument formally contain their own invalidators.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928155283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928155283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1007/s10781-015-9276-5

    DO - 10.1007/s10781-015-9276-5

    M3 - Article

    AN - SCOPUS:84928155283

    VL - 44

    SP - 557

    EP - 579

    JO - Journal of Indian Philosophy

    JF - Journal of Indian Philosophy

    SN - 0022-1791

    IS - 3

    ER -