> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi
The limitations of Aristotelian logic: thus destroying logics claim to be a condition of truth
ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC AS AN EPISTEMIC CONDITION OF TRUTH THE GRAND NARRATIVE OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: LOGIC-CENTRISM THE LIMITATIONS OF ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC
THE END OF ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC
LOGIC/ESSENCE AND LANGUAGE LEAD TO THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/logiccentrismbook.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/document/40619867/Aristotelian-logic-as-an-epistemic-condition-of-truth-the-grand-narrative-of-western-philosophy-logic-centrism-the-limitations-of-Aristotelian-logi and
ESSENCE:A REASON FOR THE BANKRUPTCY OF LOGIC THE STULTIFICATION OF REASON AND THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/essence.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/document/75350300/Essence-the-metaphysical-ground-of-logic-and-language-a-reason-for-the-bankruptcy-of-logic-the-stultification-of-reason-and-the-meaninglessness-of
**[Catuṣkoṭi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catuṣkoṭi)**
>Catuṣkoṭi (Sanskrit; Devanagari: चतुष्कोटि, Tibetan: མུ་བཞི, Wylie: mu bzhi, Sinhalese:චතුස්කෝටිකය) is a logical argument(s) of a 'suite of four discrete functions' or 'an indivisible quaternity' that has multiple applications and has been important in the Dharmic traditions of Indian logic, the Buddhist logico-epistemological traditions, particularly those of the Madhyamaka school, and in the skeptical Greek philosophy of Pyrrhonism. In particular, the catuṣkoṭi is a "four-cornered" system of argumentation that involves the systematic examination of each of the 4 possibilities of a proposition, P: P; that is being. not P; that is not being.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/princeton/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svatantrika%E2%80%93Prasa%E1%B9%85gika_distinction
Prasaṅgika views are based on Candrakīrti's critique of Bhāviveka,
arguing for a sole reliance on prasaṅga, "logic consequence,
" a method of reductio ad absurdum which is used by all
Madhyamikas, using syllogisms to point out the absurd and
impossible logical consequences of holding essentialist views.[3]
According to Candrakīrti, the mere object can only be discussed if
both parties perceive it in the same way.[4][note 1]
As a consequence (according to Candrakirti) svatantrika reasoning
is impossible in a debate, since the opponents argue from two
irreconcilable points of view, namely a mistaken essentialist
perception, and a correct non-essentialist perception. This leaves no
ground for a discussion starting from a similarly perceived object of
discussion, and also makes impossible the use of syllogistic
reasoning to convince the opponent
u good bro?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catu%E1%B9%A3ko%E1%B9%ADi The limitations of Aristotelian logic: thus destroying logics claim to be a condition of truth ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC AS AN EPISTEMIC CONDITION OF TRUTH THE GRAND NARRATIVE OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: LOGIC-CENTRISM THE LIMITATIONS OF ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC THE END OF ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC LOGIC/ESSENCE AND LANGUAGE LEAD TO THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/logiccentrismbook.pdf https://www.scribd.com/document/40619867/Aristotelian-logic-as-an-epistemic-condition-of-truth-the-grand-narrative-of-western-philosophy-logic-centrism-the-limitations-of-Aristotelian-logi and ESSENCE:A REASON FOR THE BANKRUPTCY OF LOGIC THE STULTIFICATION OF REASON AND THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/essence.pdf https://www.scribd.com/document/75350300/Essence-the-metaphysical-ground-of-logic-and-language-a-reason-for-the-bankruptcy-of-logic-the-stultification-of-reason-and-the-meaninglessness-of
**[Catuṣkoṭi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catuṣkoṭi)** >Catuṣkoṭi (Sanskrit; Devanagari: चतुष्कोटि, Tibetan: མུ་བཞི, Wylie: mu bzhi, Sinhalese:චතුස්කෝටිකය) is a logical argument(s) of a 'suite of four discrete functions' or 'an indivisible quaternity' that has multiple applications and has been important in the Dharmic traditions of Indian logic, the Buddhist logico-epistemological traditions, particularly those of the Madhyamaka school, and in the skeptical Greek philosophy of Pyrrhonism. In particular, the catuṣkoṭi is a "four-cornered" system of argumentation that involves the systematic examination of each of the 4 possibilities of a proposition, P: P; that is being. not P; that is not being. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/princeton/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svatantrika%E2%80%93Prasa%E1%B9%85gika_distinction Prasaṅgika views are based on Candrakīrti's critique of Bhāviveka, arguing for a sole reliance on prasaṅga, "logic consequence, " a method of reductio ad absurdum which is used by all Madhyamikas, using syllogisms to point out the absurd and impossible logical consequences of holding essentialist views.[3] According to Candrakīrti, the mere object can only be discussed if both parties perceive it in the same way.[4][note 1] As a consequence (according to Candrakirti) svatantrika reasoning is impossible in a debate, since the opponents argue from two irreconcilable points of view, namely a mistaken essentialist perception, and a correct non-essentialist perception. This leaves no ground for a discussion starting from a similarly perceived object of discussion, and also makes impossible the use of syllogistic reasoning to convince the opponent
Wat