________________
EXAMINATION OF THE DOOTRINE OF 'SELY-SUFFICIENT VALIDITY'. 1283
itself, then we also adınit it, and hence your argument is futile; because the existence of the Cognition itself is held to be proved by Presumption, what to say of its validity, which consists in its Capacity 1-In the matter, however, of the bringing about of its effect in the shape of the certain cognition of the object, the Cognition does not need anything else; that is why the validity has been described as self-sufficient, inherent'".
This cannot be right; because the certain cognition of the object of the Cognition cannot be got at without certainty regarding its validity. Because how can the object, which is still subject to doubt and uncertainty, be independent and self-sufficient, in the bringing about of its effect? If it were dependent upon apprehensions produced by other Means of Cognition, how could you avoid Infinite Regress involved in your view ? So what has been suggested is nothing.-(2842)
The following Tests point out the * Inconclusive character of the Reason -" because it is restricted to its presence (the validity must be selfsufficient]" :
TEXTS (2843-2846).
THEN AGAIN, IN THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE ARGUED, inexlidity ALSO WOULD
HAVE TO BE REGARDED AS INHERENT'; BECAUSE (1) IF IT DID NOT EXIST THERE BY ITSELF, IT COULD NOT BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY ANYTHING; (2) BECAUSE SELF-SUFFICIENCY IS THE ONLY BASIS FOR INVALIDITY, SO ON AND SO FORTH, - ALL THIS THAT YOU HAVE URGED IN SUPPORT OF INHERENT validity) COULD BE URGED (IN SUPPORT OF INHERENT invalidity) ;-AND JUST AS (ACCORDING TO YOU) THE CAPACITY FOR NON-CONFORMITY (WITH THE REAL STATE OF THINGS) AND CERTAIN COGNITION' WOULD BE DUE TO OTHER CAUSES, SO (ACCORDING TO YOUR OPPONENT) WOULD BE THE CAPACITY FOR CONFORMITY AND CERTAIN COGNITION ; SO THAT IN ALL THIS, BOTH WOULD BE ON THE SAME YOOTING.-UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHAT PECULIAR VEATURE HAVE YOU SEEN INVALIDITY WHICH IS NOT PRESENT IN ITS CONTRARY ("INVALIDITY')-ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE FORMER HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INHERENT' AND THE LATTER EXTRANEOUS' l-(2843-2840)
COMMENTARY
So also the capacity for conformity and cortuin cognition is to be construed here alk.
Both would be on the samo footing' -io both Validity and Inwalidity. * In its contrary i.e. in Invalidity.
Sorno people argue as follow-" Tho inherent character of the Capacities is not due to their cternality; nor is it due to the fact of their coming about from the causes of the Cognition itself; and it does not appear later onon account of its being not dependent upon other causes; as a matter of fact,
