Subject: Tags: Spam prevention:Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.Enter code: Content: Ryo Tanaka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Itsuki-san, Thank you for your comments and > question.As you have pointed out, I think the > answer to your question depends on how to > understand the notion of “intrinsic > nature.” Abhidharmikas are Buddhists, and > dependent origination is one of Buddhists’ > central claims, so their conception of > “intrinsic nature” might be nothing like > Madhyamikas were thinking of. That is all I can > say for now, since I haven’t read Buddhists > literatures enough to answer this.But, in > Sellarsian framework, I might have something more > to say (I don’t know whether there is something > parallel to this in Buddhist > philosophy). Sellars takes roughly a > “Kantian” attitude toward the notion of > causation; he thinks that causality is dependent > upon our use of concepts (or words). (P1) If > causality is understood in this way, causal > dependency implies conceptual dependency.(P2) If > something is conceptually dependent on others > (namely, epistemic subjects), it seems that it > cannot be said to have an intrinsic nature.(C) SO, > causal dependency and intrinsic nature are > mutually exclusive.I am not sure P2 is really > true. Anyway, let me continue on another occasion > if anyone is interested.