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

Previous | Next

Page 335
________________ 318 NYAYA THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE of the syllogism As such, it becomes a kind of fallacy that corresponds to the fallacy of accident in Westeru logic. According to a second interpretation, the halātīta is the fallacy of a wrong order of the different members of the syllogism. It is illustrated when there is an inversion of the natural order of the pre nises and the conclusion, as when we put the premises after the conclusion. On this view, the kālātīta corresponds to the fallacy of hysteron proteron. But this view of the matter is not accepted by the Naiyāyikas. A change in the order of the members of a syllogism does not really affect its validity nor render it fallacious. Further, such a change does not involve a fallacy of the middle term or an inferential fallacy It constitutes a defect in the method or procedure and is, therefore, described as the clincher of the inopportune (aprūptakāla nigrahasthāna). 1 Although the fallacy of the būdhıta bas been treated by some writers as another name for that of the kālūtīta, yet it seems to me better to distinguish between the two in view of the sharp contrast in their meanings While the kālātīta stands for a middle terın vitiated by a limitation in time, the būdhita means a middle term which is contradicted by some other source of knowledge (pramānāntarena) A middle term is contradicted when it leads to a conclusion, the opposite of which is proved to be true by some other pramāna. This is illustrated by the argument 'fire is cool, because it is a substance' Here the middle term substance,' which seeks to prove that fire is cool, is contradicted because we know from tactual perception that 1 Ibid It should be remarked bere tbat although it be usoal in a syllogism to put the premises before the conclusion, yet that 18 neither logically necessary por psychologically correct It 18 now generally recognised by logicians that a syllogism may take another form in which the conclusion comes first and the prardises follow it Hence we see that a change in the usual order of the propositions in a syllogism involves neither the fallacy of hysteron proteron por the clincher of tbe inopportune.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 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