Book Title: Nyaya Theory of Knowledge
Author(s): S C Chateerjee
Publisher: University of Calcutta

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 293
________________ 276 NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE hill is fiery,' is a new knowledge which is not involved in the knowledge of its premises. The Naiyāyika view of vyāpti as covering all the individual cases of a relation seems to commit inference to the fallacy of petitio princinii. Thus it has leen held by the Naiyāyika that when we know the tyāpti or the universal relation between smoke and fire, we know all the individual cases of smoke to be related to fire. Otherwise, we cannot account for the inference of fire from the smoke in a bill. If we do not know that the hill-smoke is related to fire, we could not possibly pass from the one to the other. But then the difficulty is that if we already know the hill-smoke to be related to fire, there is no room for an inference to arrive at a new truth The conclusion of such an inference will only repeat what is already stated in the premises. This difficulty in the Nyāya view of inference may however be explained According to the Naiyāyıka, to know that smoke is universally related to fire is indeed to know that all cases of smoke are cases of fire.' But the knowledge we have of all fires and smokes is mediated by the knowledge of the universals 'fireness' and 'smokeness' (sāmānyalaksanāpratyāsattı) This means that we know all fires and smokes in so far as they participate in 'fireness and smokeness,' 1.e. in their general character without any reference to their specific characters. So while the vyāptı gives us a knowledge of the relation between smoke and fire in general, an inference based on it gives us the knowledge of the relation of fire to a particular object, namely, the smoky bill. The major premise of the inference 'all cases of smoke are cases of fire' does not by itself lead to the conclusion that there is fire in the hill. It is only when the major premise is combined with the minor, there is smoke in the bill,' that we draw the conclusion there is fire in the bill.' This shows that the truth of the conclusion is not epistemically involved in that of the major premise or the universal proposition.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440