Remembering Matilal on Remembering
Although memory is pivotal to consciousness and without it no perceptual judgment or thinking is possible, Nyāya epistemology does not accept memory as a knowledge source (pramāņa). Prof Matilal elucidates and defends Udayanas justification for calling into question the knowledgehood or even truth...
| Published in: | Sophia |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Springer Netherlands
[2016]
|
| In: |
Sophia
|
| RelBib Classification: | BK Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism NBE Anthropology VB Hermeneutics; Philosophy |
| Further subjects: | B
Synaptic activities
B Amygdala B Pramā (knowledge) B Anubhava yathānubhava (just-as-the-experience) B Pramāņa (knowledge source) B Hippocampus (Brain) B smṛti (memory) B Mental perception |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | Although memory is pivotal to consciousness and without it no perceptual judgment or thinking is possible, Nyāya epistemology does not accept memory as a knowledge source (pramāņa). Prof Matilal elucidates and defends Udayanas justification for calling into question the knowledgehood or even truth of any recollection. Deepening Matilals argument, this paper first shows why, if a remembering reproduces exactly the original experience from which it borrows its truth-claim, then there is a mismatch between the time of experience and the time of recall and the remembering ends up being false. To correct that error, if we change the tense in the content of recollection, the added past-ness goes beyond the original experience and violates the purely reproductive nature of memory. The paper ends by responding to this Nyāya position using arguments from Dvaita Vedānta and Jaina epistemology where remembering can be veridical and memory is accepted as an important knowledge source. The additional element of past-ness (a sense of back-then) cannot be derived from sense perception. It has to be a spontaneous contribution of the inner sense. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1873-930X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Sophia
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11841-016-0559-4 |