My assignment, since I was unable to “attend” the chat, was to post the transcript for the cyber class.  Below is the transcript, abridged and edited to summarize and to remove chat formatting interference, with a brief summary at the end.

 

The cyber conversation started with a general settling in and agreement that Adam’s paper on Shakespeare’s Henry V is going to be interesting as well as fun to research.

 

Once the conversation got going, the Nyâya Sutrâs of Gotama text was the starting point:

Kathy’s opening remark:  There is no argument that can’t be exploded.

The discussion moved on to note that the text was formalized (with its idea of the five part argument) but reader-friendly with “moments of humor and lightheartedness sprinkled throughout the text,” a manual rather than a “showcasing of wit and talent” (Rachel).

Kathy wondered if the discussion of cow and “cowhood” (142) is an argument against universality in general.

Rachel answered:  I’m not sure how it relates to a universal idea, but I took Buddha to mean that cowhood (like potness) was the set of characteristics by which comparisons of heterogeneous and homogenous could be drawn.

Kim interjected:  (I must say I’ve always loved the whole potness thing)

Rachel surmised:  So what he’s saying (I think) is that there is a universal connection between the cow and its cowesque characteristics, and that we can use this connection to infer, but that they are not the same?

Kim:  When you say universal connection, how do you mean universal?

Kathy:  That the idea of cowhood is a truth.

Kim:  Oh, that kind of universal. Like a Platonic idea.

Rachel:  Buddha is attempting to lay down a method of debate that is universal in that it doesn’t matter what language it is spoken in or what country it is practiced in, the basic principles will hold.

Kim:  I’m not sure, because Buddhists generally don’t believe anything is unchanging, but at the same time….hmmmm. *mulls further*  But yes, I think that’s right, that there is something beyond the confines of a specific language.

Mike:  So is Nyaya a religious text?

Kim:  Buddhism isn’t a religion, so no.  A philosophical as well as rhetorical text.

Mike:  Is it a school of thought?

Kim:  Yes–a philosophy and mental practice.

Kim, prodding participants a bit further:  So the sutras claim there are cowness and potness that are true for all cows or pots no matter when or where they are located. And so?

Keri:  So, the nature of a cow is the same everywhere at all times?

Kathy:  Okay. So what is the fallacy of an argument based on cowhood rather than actual cow? Or is it a fallacy?

Kim:  Aaah, there we have it–I think the point is that we should argue based on actual circumstances and not waste time arguing theoretical questions.

Adam:  So Nyaya thought focused more on using rhetoric to argue “real life” problems rather then focusing on purely theoretical questions

Kim:  Yes; unlike the Greek, I think this tradition did not value arguing in and of itself.

Adam:  Wasn’t that sort of the reason it was derided as being inferior to the Greek tradition because they did not argue these “greater” concepts?

Mike:  I thought the arguments in Nyaya were more metaphoric than western arguments.

Rachel:  And we see that in the distinction between “winning” an argument and arguing one effectively. There’s definitely a difference in the ultimate goal in this text.

Mike:  The cow is the given in a conversation?

Rachel:  The cow is the starting point, the place where both parties can agree on information and then commence their argument.

Kim:  Yes Rachel, that’s also true. And Adam, yes, that’s a good observation.

Adam:  The idea that an argument is not about winning or destroying your opponent but rather to come to a greater understanding

Rachel:  Honest discussion (vada)

 

Kim:  Ok, I have to get going; why don’t you all figure out for the Sutras and for the Incoherence what seems to count as evidence, what seems to be the accepted reason for arguing, and what counts as winning, or if winning is even the point.

 

Mike:  Winning is definitely the priority with western rhetoric

Rachel:  And there seems to be a certain air of achievement accompanied by belittling the competition.

Adam:  Yeah, Western rhetoric is largely about proving your point, rather then coming to a larger understanding of a topic

Mike:  Now I understand the comment about the Nyaya being a conversation. It’s not about winning

Adam:  Yeah, we termed that cooperative argumentation in my undergraduate.  Rather than arguing to prove your point both should seek to create knowledge, not to “win” the argument.

Mike:  Seeking knowledge seems to be the case in Chinese rhetoric also.

Keri:  Yes, that’s true of the Chinese, they were about balance

Mike:  Of course not all Western rhetoric is argumentative

Rachel:  No, some is definitely persuasive like what we see with political speeches.

Adam:  But even with that the goal is to bring people to their view, not to engage in a dialogue to help the whole

Rachel:  I think that’s true, but many presidential addresses center around unifying the people, gathering them as a community and as a country, and placing them more emotionally at ease. I think this is still under the umbrella of rhetoric.

Rachel:  One unifying concept we have encountered with Greek, Chinese, and Indian rhetoric is the concern over probability.

Mike:  Probability, how so?

Rachel:  I don’t recall if the actual term was used in the Greek that we read, but it was used in Xing Lu’s article and in Lloyd’s, and the idea appeared in all three. The notion that an argument, to have basis, must rely on probable and factual elements. That the extraordinary or outlandish is not a reliable factor in persuasion.  Just because something happens once, it does not automatically justify a prediction of a second occurrence.

 

The participants then moved on to Keith Lloyd’s “Rethinking Rhetoric from and Indian Perspective:  Implication in the Nyaya Sutras”

Adam:  I found it interesting in Lloyd that just like with Chinese rhetoric Indian rhetoric was seen as less then Western rhetoric.

Mike:  The notion of mysticism.

Adam:  Though where it was thought to not exist in China, Indian rhetoric was seen as being completely inferior when it was introduced.

Mike:  Inferior because it was different.  Ethnocentrism.

Adam quotes from Lloyd’s text:  “[I]n its exposition the Nyaya is tedious, loose and unmethodological.  Indeed the whole form of this philosophy is a proof of the incapacity of its expositors to enter into the intrinsic development of ideas, whatever knowledge they may have possessed of the external laws of composition. (7)

Mike:  This ethnocentrism seems to be prevalent in comparative studies

Adam:  I guess when you spend so much time studying western rhetoric you begin to feel that it is the only correct way to do it

Mike:  In my commentary I remarked that we’ll never agree that another rhetoric is on a par with the west

Rachel:  That was the nice thing about Lloyd’s argument though. He didn’t try to prove how much better Nyaya is that Western rhetoric, he only asks that its merit be noted and that it be included in rhetorical studies.

Adam:  I agree, Lloyd definitely did focus on the merits that the Nyaya Sutra could bring to the study of rhetoric

Rachel:  I like that both the Chinese rhetorical defenders and Lloyd don’t ask us to blindly believe them about their claims, but they give us the actual language, its definitions, and lead us to understanding about their claims.

Mike:  Good point, we don’t have to agree with another culture. But we might learn something from them

Adam:  I think logic still is important, because without logic you can’t really have a discussion

Mike:  You’re right Adam, you need logic, but sometimes our perceptions are correct too

Rachel:  And Lloyd’s claim that the “West’s ignorance” comes from a belief that the “east is more mystical, less interested in systematic thinking” is right on. Until I read Said’s “Orientalism” (which we’ll discuss in week 10), I didn’t realize how I, too, fall into that trap because of the Western education I’ve received.

Mike:  Culture is a strong intoxicant

Rachel:  So, we know how to “win” an argument here, but how would an argument end in the Sutra, aside from greater common knowledge?  What trumps?

Adam:  I think it would be when both sides come to an agreement

Mike:  Is the point to teach?

Adam:  I think so.  And to learn.

Adam:  Not just to pass information to the other but to be receptive to knowledge you may not have had before

Rachel:  Well, we are told that “felicity” is the main goal, which is a liberation from ignorance, and that seems like something we would learn rather than achieve, so I agree.

Mike:  But western rhetors argue that they too teach

Rachel:  They dictate. There is a wrong and right way about everything in the west. We are told not taught.

Mike:  And it’s still the case today, empty vessels

Adam:  True, the goal seems more to be about showing why you are right

Rachel:  Maybe not even right, but better informed.  I certainly don’t mean this to be some bashing of our educational system, because I rather enjoy it, but I think it is definitely different than the system we are encountering in the Sutras.

Mike:  Receptivity…that’s something we have difficulty with in the west

Adam:  I remember in my cooperative argumentation class we were supposed to argue in this sort of method and it was very difficult to force yourself to not try and prove yourself right

Rachel:  Plus, another goal laid out by the Nyaya is to eliminate desire and fear. I’m not so sure we could clearly name our goals here in the West. To be rid of desire is probably not even on the top 5.

 

Mike:  One last question, the incoherence? Anything strike you?

Rachel:  What I read was an interpretation by one philosopher of another, a sort of response to the claims being made by Ghazali.  He seems to find trouble with several of the claims being made.

Mike:  Rushd mentioned truths. What is entelechy?

Rachel:  It’s an actuality instead of a potentiality

Mike:  “Entelechy: having one’s end within, therefore, that something’s essential potential is being fully actualized.”

Rachel:  Much like the conversation earlier, it’s the sturdier of the two, the one you can make claims upon.

 

With philosophical notions of truth and argument no doubt still swirling through their minds, the participants signed off for the night.

 

Summary and commentary:

It was interesting to read the chat, not having been able to participate.  The participants fleshed out important points on the reading:

·        The difference between the Indian tradition of Nyaya, arguing about “real life,” and the Western tradition of arguing the theoretical and abstract is part of what led the Indian tradition to be derided by Western scholars

·        The purpose of argument in Western tradition is winning or convincing your opponent of the correctness of your argument; in Chinese and Indian traditions, coming to a larger understanding of a topic is “winning”

·        The authors we read argue for the inclusion of rhetorical traditions of other cultures in our study of rhetoric without saying they are superior—we can all learn from each other’s rhetorical traditions

·        The point of Indian and Chinese argument is to teach.  Perhaps that is the point in Western rhetoric as well, but the definition of “teach” is different—to dictate versus both sides being “receptive” to the argument of the other

 

The discussion clarified the readings for me.  Nice job, chatters!