tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post8888451101535536655..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: Goldberg and the problem of Anonymous Assertionselisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-62893643206833195512013-08-27T15:12:18.237+02:002013-08-27T15:12:18.237+02:00Chapter IX of Newman’s Grammar of Assent on the il...Chapter IX of Newman’s <i>Grammar of Assent</i> on the illative sense is excellent on the development of doctrine. It’s on Gutenberg. ombhurbhuvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-81446266731082732302013-08-27T14:19:23.687+02:002013-08-27T14:19:23.687+02:00J.T.B. = justified true belief.
The Vedic base - t...J.T.B. = justified true belief.<br />The Vedic base - that has latitude and longitude. <br /> ombhurbhuvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-10697599253003211752013-08-27T13:53:55.903+02:002013-08-27T13:53:55.903+02:00@Ombhurbhuva,
yes, there are different interpretat...@Ombhurbhuva,<br />yes, there are different interpretations of what it means for a text to have no author (worthy of a mention is, e.g., Puruṣottama Bilimoria's attribution of authorlessness to the *truths* spoken of in the Vedas). And Sanskrit authors are usually adamantine in explaining that it is not enough to be merely remembered or transmitted. There must be ---logically, albeit not chronologically--- a Vedic base. <br /><br />I am sorry to admit that I cannot understand "JTB".elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-73682841520346075002013-08-27T13:43:31.535+02:002013-08-27T13:43:31.535+02:00There are similarities as one would expect and eve...There are similarities as one would expect and even in the discussion of apoureshya there are fundamentalist views and interpretive ones. Was it ‘heard’ or was it ‘remembered’ or a mix of the two. Is it part of the sampradaya? These are universal questions and they do not have answers that will be satisfying to the reductive rationalist. I feel that the mixing of belief and knowledge in JTB is a mirage that opens the door to universal scepticism. ombhurbhuvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-87408417956008609392013-08-26T12:45:22.275+02:002013-08-26T12:45:22.275+02:00@Ombhurbhuva, are you talking about "two sort...@Ombhurbhuva, are you talking about "two sorts of doctrine for the acceptation of the faithful" within Christian theology?<br />Because, interestingly, Sanskrit philosophy tend two slightly different options:<br />—authoritative teachings (akin to your first category), as in Nyāya. In this case, a Sacred Text is accepted because it has been authored by God, the Buddha, the Jina and so on.<br />—teachings which regard topics unattainable through human means of knowledge and have no author: their validity remains, thus, unchallenged. This is the Mīmāṃsā account of the validity of the Veda. But one may see in the background something of your second point, insofar as in order for this argument to apply the authority of the Veda must already be an established fact (accepted by everyone).elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-18910130597570246732013-08-23T20:30:11.663+02:002013-08-23T20:30:11.663+02:00Elisa: Interesting topic. There seems in religiou...Elisa: Interesting topic. There seems in religious warrant to be two sorts of doctrine for the acceptation of the faithful:<br />(a) Accepted because authoritative<br />(b) Authoritative because believed by the faithful (.quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est", )<br /><br />The Bhagavadgita comes into the latter category though of human origin. <br /><br />Justified true belief as knowledge is a contested area. Can anonymous assertions be regarded as knowledge or reliable? Is Wikipedia reliable? Perhaps as a place to begin and on straight matters of checkable facts. Is Britannica more reliable in being written by accredited experts who are known? I tend to be happier with it but no doubt Wikipedia will demur.ombhurbhuvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-83633147963031866812013-08-23T17:28:23.219+02:002013-08-23T17:28:23.219+02:00I was only considering assertion. However, the epi...I was only considering assertion. However, the epistemic bases of classical Islamic Law, in principle at least, rely largely on known authorities. <br />Shari'a is not a code made of "anonymous" injunctions but a corpus of authoritative opinions by predecessors, whose name is usually known. <br />At the end of the chain, sayings by the Prophet (where the "reliably believable to actually being by thhe Prophet" part is critical) and the Book (by God) are the ultimate source of authority. <br />Anonimy sort of re-emerges through the principle of consensus, but consensus is usually assumed to be among people who are reliable by definition. <br />A more naive approach helds that God is actually the "author" of thee Law, but this cannot, of course, be taken literally (although there are people who tried to). Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879077062187701054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-15771086261578590652013-08-23T17:12:58.942+02:002013-08-23T17:12:58.942+02:00Thanks, Marco! What about laws? Are they only conn...Thanks, Marco! What about laws? Are they only connected to their author or isn't it the case that they form an independent corpus?elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-65465674771958160672013-08-23T17:11:14.541+02:002013-08-23T17:11:14.541+02:00I of course have no answer to your final question ...I of course have no answer to your final question (as far as I can tell, anonymity is hardly ever a sign of authority in Classical Islam, athlough there may be exceptions; pseudoepigraphy is, however) but I have to commend and thank you for this insightful and interesting post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879077062187701054noreply@blogger.com