|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'm bewildered by Stcherbatsky's first name being called "Fyodor." Every source that I've ever consulted has had his first name as "Theodore," though it's usually abbreviated as "Th." This includes the author's own books. 18.104.22.168 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
March: deletion of what appeared to be not a NPOV on Stcherbatsky
I notice that somebody put into the references a note about Stcherbatsky as being passe: "although this is now extremely dated in the light of more recent research." I was surprised by this and removed it, since, being familiar with the discourses of philosophers in the world's universities about Stcherbatsky, I have never heard this position, and I have only heard kudos for Stch. Perhaps if the person who put this in the passage could justify how Stcherbatsky's work is outdated, it would help.
From Hayes "Dignaga on the Interpretation of Signs" (Kluwer Publications, 1988):
"...Stcherbatsky himself cannot be held responsible for all the times his failure to separate Dinnaga from Dharmakirti and his various other errors have been repeated by others. Given, however, that "Buddhist Logic" remains at present the standard work on the philosophy of the school founded by Dinnaga, and given that so many scholars have repeated Stcherbatsky's misconceptions along with his more sound observations, it is perhaps necessary to say that his work is in serious need of re-examination and will, it is hoped, soon be replaced by a more accurate study based on all the advances that have been made in the study of the Buddhist epistemologists since 1932."
If this is not a definition of "dated", then I dont know what is.
Besides, "Buddhist Logic" is more about Dignaga than it is about Dharmakirti.
--- Hello. Interesting post. But your passage there does not really give specific examples. And because of that, the passage does not seem to be anything much more than an expression of academic disagreement, sort of like the kind that fills every academic book and journal in the world, where we have scholar A saying that scholar B's work is not progressive enough, needs help, etc. but then of course B disagrees, and the followers of B disagree, etc. Just because the Nobel Prize physicist David Bohm disagrees with Einstein, does that give me the right to take a side? Or do I need to investigate why Bohm makes the claim? and even after that investigation, will I find that Bohm is even right? What if he is wrong, but I merely trusted his opinion? Really all your post here does it maintain that some one scholar claims Stcherbatsky involves errors. What if I found a prof. that would disagree (and I assure you I can)? Would that mean we are equal then, since it is one to one? It seems to me that you are using these statements in a synonymous fashion: 1. "group of scholar X thinks that Stcherbatsky is in need of re-examination (but really there is no group here, just one passage of one author you cite), and 2. "Stcherbatsky is dated." I don't see how these statements are synonymous, unless you give specific examples (which you did not), and I could merely name a bunch of scholars and Buddhist studies professors who not only don't think Stcherbatsky is dated, but use his Buddhist Logic in their classrooms. So again, I don't see how you are doing more than taking difference of academic position to be in fact indicate a truth. But I don't see truth anywhere, only scholars battling. But anyway... What I will do, however, is leave this issue aside, and trust that you know what you are doing, and trust that maybe you konw something I don't. So it's your call on if Stcherbatsky is dated and that that info should go on this page. So make your best judgment, and I will step aside from this issue. Okay... Good debate. ~Atomist
The purpose of a wikipedia article such as this one is not to debate an issue but rather give the reader a capsule summary of the present scholarly view of the subject in question, and point them to the most up to date resources.
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Dharmakirti, written by Ernst Steinkellner, also references Stcherbatsky's book, saying "..written with a heavy Neo-Kantian bias, it is a largely out-of-date, but still useful, survey"
The point is not that I know something that you dont, but rather that I trust the professional opinion of specialists like Hayes and Steinkellner. I don't think you are going to find a contemporary scholar who specializes in Buddhist logic who will disagree with their view.
Hello again. Thanks for taking the time to write me more interesting comments. To claim that debate is not inevitable, and that we should unquestionably follow certain scholars, does not sound like the academic process to me, but rather like blind following. What is Einstein thought he should not question the opinion of Lorenz? Isn't it not the name or status of the person, but rather the evidence they bring to us, that gives them their strength? But anyway, that is just my opinion. I can name several scholars who are well published Buddhist academics (including myself and others I work with) who most definitely would disagree with you on the Stcherbatsky claim of being 'outdated'. But, as I implied above, since I have not read Dunne yet, I can't object properly to you. (I actually have ordered Dunne, thanks to your prompting me to; should get here in the mail tomorrow.) One last thing… It seems you are trying to make the claim that due to the fact that Stcherbatsky’s book is written in a Neo-Kantian flavor (which I agree with you somewhat), it is THEREFORE outdated. I don’t see how this is an argument. Why would the neo-kantianist strain in Stcherbatsky lead to it being an outdated account of Buddhist Logic? Of course many have published in the idea that the Enlightenment scholars (Hume, Kant, etc.) likely ripped off the Buddhists in many ways (check out: Jacobson, Nolan. 1969. “The possibility of Oriental influence: in Hume's philosophy”. Philosophy East and West. Vol.19. No.1. Pp.17-37.). So it seems that we should expect Stcherbatsky to sound Neo-Kantian, precisely due to the likelihood that Kant and Dharmakirti have affinities. Anyway… Just more food for thought. Thanks for the interesting comments. ~Atomist
Hello again- This is not the academy, it is wikipedia. If you have expertise in Buddhist epistemology on the level of Hayes and Steinkellner and would like to disagree with them, by all means do so. I do not have their level of expertise so I defer to their opinion. I did not contribute to this wikipedia article to air my own views on Dharmakirti, but only to help point people in the direction of what are considered the most up to date and reliable resources. I would be interested to see any references you have to any published papers or books written in the last 25 years that discuss Sterbachtsky and defend his work as still state-of-the-art and not at all outdated.
Hi there WM. Okay, so I hvae been thinking about what you wrote; here we go... Your last point, about wanting to see such a piece in print, implies that your original point that started our debate (Stcherbatsky is outdated) is wrong. I say that because if there is no such detailed study (I have never seen it), what right do you have to maintain that Stcherbatsky is outdated? Only that sort of a study could conclude that Stcherbatsky is outdated, but it does not exist. Therefore I can just say that Stcherbatsky is not outdated, but is obviously then merely a contributor to Buddhist scholarship. And what right do the scholars you mentioned have to maintain that Stcherbatsky is outdated until that study is completed and is commented on by many other scholars. Just because you can point to three scholars who maintain that Stcherbatsky is outdated and who do not present an argument for why he is (unless you can show that they do), does not mean that he is. That would be like saying this: Me, Steve, and Bert think that wave-particle duality is an outdated philosophy but we can’t tell you why, therefore it is outdated. The only claim you gave as to why those scholars are maintaining he is outdated is that Stcherbatsky is operating in accord with Kantian transcendental idealism—a fact that is widely known. But as I stated previously, I am not seeing why that means Stcherbatsky is outdated; rather, it only indicated that, just as I said, Stcherbatsky is a Kantian to some degree, which we already knew. It sounds more like what is really going on is Stcherbatsky is not so much liked by the scholars you mentioned, and nothing more. But of course that does not at all mean he is outdated. Further, there is clearly a similarity between Dharmakirti and Kant, as Stcherbatsky points out, but I already mentioned that last time. Of course there also is a huge trend in philosophy to bash Kantian transcendental idealism, and the trend is to be partial toward metaphysical realism (i.e, quasi-Aristotelian substance theory), which is just a fad, and there is no argument anywhere that leads to the conclusion that Kantian transcendental idealism is not as good of a theory as Aristotelian substance. Both are based on nonempirical metaphysical items in the end. So, anyway… I think I am showing that you don’t have a claim that Stcherbatsky is truly outdated. All you have is the opinion of three scholars. But opinion is of course not fact. Okay. Good. Write me back if you want. ~Atomist
Hi there. I have not heard from you. I was thinking that in my last message I wrote, I did show that maintaining that Dunne's work supplants Stcherbatsky is too strong, and is in the domain of opinion. I have started Dunne's book and am not finding anything so far to the contrary. So I have put a comment in on the wiki page that says, "according to some..." so as to not make it look like it is fact that all philosophers think that Stcherbatsky is outdated. I thought this seemed fair, since it repsects your desire to go with Dunne's claim, but it also respects what I have claimed above. If you think this is not a good move, just let me know. Ok... Take it easy. ~Atomist
- I deleted a rather rambling sentence from the References section about Stcherbatsky and his Kantianism etc to make it a little simpler -- I don't think that's the place really to debate the various merits of Stcherbatsky vs. Donne etc. Zero sharp 08:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe recasting a bit would address both views. I see two things:
- Word choice – perhpas S's work not so much outdated as simply dated. Though acknowledging that it comes from an earlier time, this word choice seems to me to allow for more contemporary significance. And correct me if I'm wrong, but it does seem like someone studying the field would be likely at least to review Buddhist Logic.
- Perhaps reversing the order of presentation would help: "Although dated, Stcherbatsky's work continues to inform scholarly views of Buddhist logic..."
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Numbered list item
Summary of Dharmakirti's philosophy
I removed a link that was introduced with "See here for a through exposition of Dharmakirti's contributions" because it seemed like an advertisement for a book that was already quoted. But the same link  does have a good passage [pp. 239–40] that ought to be summarised on the page. Does anyone have suggestions on how best to incorporate this source without relying very heavily on quotations? Sreesarmatvm (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)