Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Debate

Thesis Vitaṇḍā is not always illegitimate: a critic with no thesis can still be doing philosophy

Nima Tsering Gurung Fellow
· 7 replies
Logic & argumentBuddhistGreek & RomanIndianCarvakaMadhyamakaNyayaNagarjunaSextus EmpiricusSocrates#madhyamaka#pure-critique#scepticism#vitanda
Follow

Where it stands

There is one problem in Nāgārjuna I have been chewing on for a long time.

The Nyāya tradition calls vitaṇḍā illegitimate: one party only attacks and never defends a position, so they risk nothing and cannot be wrong. That seems fair as a rule for a debate.

But Nāgārjuna's opponents accused him of exactly this, and he did not exactly deny it. In his Vigrahavyāvartanī he says, roughly, that if he had a thesis the fault would apply to him, but since he has none, it doesn't. The sceptic Jayarāśi, usually counted among the Cārvākas, wrote a whole book attacking every means of knowledge without offering one of his own. Sextus Empiricus did something similar in Greek. And Socrates, in the early dialogues, mostly refutes and says he doesn't know.

These people are not cheats. Some of them are among the most important philosophers anywhere.

My thesis: pure critique without a counter-position is a legitimate philosophical activity, and sometimes the most valuable one. What makes it illegitimate is not the lack of a thesis but pretending to be doing something else.

LikeReply
Follow7 replies

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

7 replies

For the thesis 4

  1. Arvind Poojary

    For Fellow

    For. Jayarāśi is my hero for exactly this reason. Indian philosophy is full of elaborate theories of knowledge, and he showed how fragile all of them were, without pretending to have a better one. That is a service. My own work in villages is mostly destructive: I show how the trick is done. I don't need a complete theory of the universe to show that a man is not producing ash from nowhere.

    Helpful · 2
  2. Kenneth Lam Chi-ho

    For Fellow

    A historical note that complicates the picture. Within Madhyamaka itself there was a sharp dispute over this. Bhāviveka criticised an earlier commentator, Buddhapālita, for only drawing out the absurd consequences of opponents' views instead of offering independent arguments. Candrakīrti defended Buddhapālita. Tibetan scholars later made this the basis of their distinction between two kinds of Madhyamaka. So "may a Mādhyamika argue without a thesis?" was a live question inside the school, not only an accusation from outside.

  3. Giulia Ferrante

    For Fellow

    For, from the Greek side, with a qualification. Socrates refutes and professes ignorance, yes. But he is hardly risk-free: he is tried and executed for it. Perhaps the Nyāya worry about the critic who "risks nothing" depends on the setting. In the agora, refutation without a thesis cost him everything.

    Helpful · 1
  4. Sam Ellery

    For Fellow

    From competitive debate: in policy rounds the negative team may win simply by refuting the affirmative case, without proposing anything. That's accepted. But experienced judges are wary of a negative that only says "they haven't proven it", because it encourages exactly the hollow style Meera describes. So we allow it and distrust it, which may be the right attitude.

    Helpful · 2

Against the thesis 2

  1. Meera Kulkarni

    Against Fellow

    Against, at least as a reading of Nyāya. The objection to vitaṇḍā isn't that critique is worthless. It's about what kind of exchange is going on. In vāda both parties put something at stake and both can learn. The vitaṇḍā debater takes the benefits of the exchange (the opponent's effort to state and defend a view) while contributing nothing that can be tested. That's a free-rider problem, not a dismissal of scepticism.

    Helpful · 1
  2. Arjun Iyer

    Against Fellow

    Against, gently. Arvind, you do have a position: naturalism. You are not doing vitaṇḍā, you are doing vāda with your thesis left implicit. And on Nāgārjuna, the critics in my own tradition never accepted that "I have no thesis" was not itself a thesis. Whether he escapes that charge has been argued for eighteen centuries. I don't think he does, but I admire the attempt.

    Helpful · 3

Other replies

  1. Nima Tsering Gurung

    Fellow

    I've learned a lot here. Meera's free-rider point is the strongest objection, and Kenneth's history shows the Mādhyamikas felt it too. Revised thesis: critique without a thesis is legitimate when it is openly offered as critique, like a reviewer's report, and the other party knows the game. It becomes vitaṇḍā in the bad sense when it is dressed up as joint inquiry. And Giulia's point stays with me: Socrates paid for his questions, which is perhaps the best test of whether a critic is really risking nothing.

    Helpful · 3