What is Syllogism?

Photo by Niklas Hamann on Unsplash

*Note*

I have noticed that this story might be too difficult and theoretical, as there are some feedbacks concordant with this view recently.

Thus, I would like to have a new attempt, that is to create a more practical series about how buddhists debate and do reasoning. Probably there would be more examples and practices.

Let’s take a look if you are interested to begin with something easier:

How Do Nice Buddhists Argue?

Then, probably, you could come back to this story.

Problem-solving? Decision making? Are you doubting?

People face so many problems and doubts every single day! Syllogism might be a handy reasoning tool, that is applicable in many aspects of daily living.

Syllogism is an argument form, and by measuring (or reasoning) the argument, people could know if a certain conclusion is correct or wrong.

In this article, Syllogism refers to Buddhist Syllogism, which is widely used in Tibetan debate and practiced in monasteries in Tibet.

Be familiar with Syllogism, practitioners get one step closer to rationality by reasoning skill.

Like gold upon being scorched, cut, and rubbed, my word is to be adopted by monastics and scholars upon analying it well, not out of respect. — Buddha

Although the Syllogism in this article is the Buddhist one, which is formally used in religious context, I share what I learnt for promoting rationality.

1. Basics

A syllogism is constructed with three units:

1. Subject
2. Predicate
3. Reason

To prove or reject a syllogism, one investigates the relationships between units. And there are three to study:

1. The property of subject — the relationship between subject and reason
2. Forward pervasion — the relationship between reason and predicate
3. Conclusion — the relationship between subject and predicate

The three units and relationships would be discussed below.

In this article, I simplify the concepts and procedures about Buddhist Syllogism, compared to the monastic formal teaching. In case you are interested for further learning, I provide some books in the end, tough enough…

1.1 Unit #1 — Subject

The subject is the focus of an argument, occupying the first position. It is something important that one would like to know about.

Given a sample syllogism,

Sound is a changing entity, because of being an entity with causes and conditions.

In this syllogism, sound is the subject. Sound is the focus of that argument, occupying the first position. It is something important that one would like to know about.

The Tibetan classical sample syllogism is “Sound is impermanent, because of being a product”. Mine is more or less the same, but I switch for some Buddhist terminologies, such as “impermanent” to “a changing entity”.

1.2 Unit #2 — Predicate

The predicate is something one would like to prove about the subject.

Reusing the sample syllogism,

Sound is a changing entity, because of being an entity with causes and conditions.

In this syllogism, a changing entity is the predicate. A changing entity is something one would like to prove about the subject, sound.

1.3 Unit #3 — Reason

The reason is proof of the conclusion.

Reusing the sample syllogism,

Sound is a changing entity, because of being an entity with causes and conditions.

In this syllogism, an entity with causes and conditions is the reason, the proof of the conclusion, sound is a changing entity.

Just we learned to identify three units — subject, predicate, and reason in an argument, next we will learn how to prove an argument, by investigating the three relationships between units.

1.4 Relationship #1 — The property of the subject

The property of the subject refers to the relationship between subject and reason. We check: whether the reason is applicable and correct, in relation to the subject.

Reusing the sample syllogism,

Sound is a changing entity, because of being an entity with causes and conditions.

The property of subject refers to the relationship between the subject, sound, and the reason, an entity with causes and conditions. We check: whether the reason, an entity with causes and conditions, is applicable and correct, in relation to the subject, sound.

In other words, is sound really an entity with causes and conditions? Or, is it reasonable to say: sound is an entity with causes and conditions?

1.5 Relationship #2 – Forward pervasion

Forward pervasion refers to the relationship between reason and predicate. We check: whether whatever is the reason, is necessarily the predicate.

Or, we check: whenever the reason is correct (in relation to the subject), necessarily the predicate is correct (in relation to the subject).

This might be a bit more complicated, no worry, we look at an example.

Reusing the sample syllogism,

Sound is a changing entity, because of being an entity with causes and conditions.

Forward pervasion refers to the relationship between reason, an entity with causes and conditions, and predicate, a changing entity. We check: whether whatever is the reason, an entity with causes and conditions, is necessarily the predicate, a changing entity.

Or, we check: whenever the reason, an entity with causes and conditions, is correct (in relation to the subject, sound), necessarily the predicate, a changing entity, is correct (in relation to the subject, sound).

1.6 Relationship #3 — Conclusion

Conclusion refers to the relationship between subject and predicate. We check: given that the relationship #1 and #2 are passed, whether it is reasonable to accept the view of the argument.

Reusing the sample syllogism,

Sound is a changing entity, because of being an entity with causes and conditions.

Conclusion refers to the relationship between subject, sound, and predicate, a changing entity. We check: given that the

(1) Relationship #1: the reason, an entity with causes and conditions, is applicable and correct, in relation to the subject, sound. That is, sound is an entity with causes and conditions.

And,

(2) Relationship #2: whatever is the reason, an entity with causes and conditions, is necessarily the predicate, a changing entity

are passed,

whether it is reasonable to accept the view of the argument, sound is a changing entity.

2. Well, Now Think About It

If sound is an entity with causes and conditions, and whatever is an entity with causes and conditions, is necessarily a changing entity, then, is sound a changing entity?

3. Practice and Effort

In this Tibetan reasoning and debate system, practice is the key. Try to understand the concepts first, then to practice, practice, practice— forming a syllogism for the argument from you or others, proving or rejecting it, good luck!

This is a photo I took when I am traveling in Tibet. Those monks are debating actively (I don’t know Tibetan language at all). As I know, even Tibetan, without training, could not understand much what they are arguing.

Books for Further Learning (& Reference)

Recommended order:

1. The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate: An Asian Approach to Analytical Thinking Drawn from Indian and Tibetan Sources — by Daniel Perdue
2. Thinking, Fast and Slow — by Daniel Kahneman
3. Tibetan Logic — by Katherine Rogers
4. Debate in Tibetan Buddhism — by Daniel Perdue

Thank you very much! Later, I would try my best to share more I have learned about this Tibetan reasoning and debate system.

Thanks! If you like my stories, please follow me for new updates!