reply to both questions below about GWA Appendix B (pp. 79-83).

reply to both questions below about GWA Appendix B (pp. 79-83). Then end your post by asking a question about the reading. I will use this discussion to inform our in-class discussion so remember what you wrote in case I ask you to elaborate or if your question gets answered.

1. Choose one of the three “horns” of Kumārila’s trilemma (proving what is already admitted; using a faulty prover; using examples that lack the property to be proved) and briefly summarize his objection articulated on pp. 80-81).

2. Explain why Dharmakīrti is accusing Nyāya philosophers like Vācaspati of “false equivalency. How is the term “effect” (or, “product”) being equivocated?

3. [BONUS (feel free to answer in addition to 1 or 2):] In general, what do you think of the two sides of the issue (Vācaspati vs. Kumārila/Dharmakīrti)? Yes, both sides can be supplemented and clarified, but which side do you think has the stronger position? Briefly explain why.

Again, make sure to end each response with a question about the reading to your instructor or classmates. Replying to your classmates is optional but may afford extra credit if your replies are thoughtful and accurate.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Submit your reading response for GWA Appendix B (pp. 79-83) here as a PDF.

Your submission should consist of a brief SUMMARY of part of the reading and an ANALYSIS in which you take a stance on a particular interpretation of what you summarized.

Important criteria for your SUMMARY —a quotation or short passage along with clarifying remarks, definitions, and contextual info.

Relative Length: Each summary should be no more than 50% of the entry

Terms: Make sure to briefly define any special terms when you introduce them

Important criteria for your ANALYSIS —an argument for an unobvious interpretation or a practical application of the text

Relative Length: Each analysis should be more than 50% of the entry

Thesis: There should be an easily-identifiable thesis (your ‘stance’, position, or interpretation of that part of the reading you summarized)

Argument: Justify your thesis with a brief argument (i.e., why you’re taking that ‘stance’ or why you think your interpretation is helpful)

Examples (optional): Provide examples from your own life if you think they’d be helpful. In general, I’m fine with first-person pronouns.

Important TECHNICAL criteria:

Overall Length: At least 300 words per entry (not longer than 600 words please)

Citation: Use proper citation of any quotations or paraphrases

Format: Use proper formatting (double-spaced, neat paragraphs, grammatically coherent)