Jainism is certainly not the worst of all religions. (In my opinion, it's the least bad of all religions).

However, can anybody else make sense of this?

The Wikipedia article on the seven-valued logic of Jainism Wrote:The Saptabhangivada, the seven predicate theory may be summarized as follows:

The seven predicate theory consists in the use of seven claims about sentences, each preceded by "arguably" or "conditionally" (syat), concerning a single object and its particular properties, composed of assertions and denials, either simultaneously or successively, and without contradiction. These seven claims are the following.

Arguably, it (that is, some object) exists (syad asty eva).
Arguably, it does not exist (syan nasty eva).
Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist (syad asty eva syan nasty eva).
Arguably, it is non-assertible (syad avaktavyam eva).
Arguably, it exists; arguably, it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
Arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably, it is non-assertible (syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).
Arguably, it exists; arguably, it doesn't exist; arguably it is non-assertible (syad asty eva syan nasty eva syad avaktavyam eva).

There are three basic truth values, namely, true (t), false (f) and unassertible (u). These are combined to produce four more truth values, namely, tf, tu, fu, and tfu(Three-valued logic). Though, superficially, it appears that there are only three distinct truth values a deeper analysis of the Jaina system reveals that the seven truth values are indeed distinct. This is a consequence of the conditionalising operator "arguably" denoted in Sanskrit by the word syat. This Sanskrit word has the literal meaning of "perhaps it is", and it is used to mean "from a certain standpoint" or "within a particular philosophical perspective".

In this discussion the term "standpoint" has been used in a technical sense. Consider a situation in which a globally inconsistent set of propositions, the totality of philosophical discourse, is divided into sub-sets, each of which is internally consistent. Any proposition might be supported by others from within the same sub-set. At the same time, the negation of that proposition might occur in a distinct, though possibly overlapping subset, and be supported by other propositions within it. Each such consistent sub-set of a globally inconsistent discourse, is what the Jainas call a "standpoint" (naya). A standpoint corresponds to a particular philosophical perspective.

In this terminology, it can be seen that the seven predicates get translated to the following seven possibilities. Each proposition p has the following seven states:
p is a member of every standpoint in S.
Not-p is a member of every standpoint in S.
p is a member of some standpoints, and Not-p is a member of the rest.
p is a member of some standpoints, the rest being neutral.
Not-p is a member of some standpoints, the rest being neutral.
p is neutral with respect to every standpoint.
p is a member of some standpoints and Not-p is a member of some other standpoints, and the rest are neutral.

Perhaps those who are partial to Dialectalism will find it less nonsensical than I do. Or at least those who think that the non-assertability of a proposition can count as a truth value. Or at least those who think that a proposition can be neither true nor false. Or at least those who think that something can not exist.

But, I guess, even if this is terrible logic ... at least it's still logic, terrible or otherwise, which is more than can be said for most---or maybe even all---other religions.

Honestly, coming from a religion I still find this mightly impressive. Comparatively-speaking. Incoherent or otherwise ... you gotta admit it's a huge step up from at least most religions. I know that's not saying much, but still. It seems to even outdo Buddhism.

It's still saying "Batman is more realistic than Superman".

(July 17, 2020 at 6:11 am)ModusPonens1 Wrote: those who are partial to Dialectalism

I don't think there's any dialectic going on in the description above. It's more of a structure to organize different combinations of assertions. 

I like it a lot, because it takes into account that human beings have a number of different, incompatible philosophical perspectives, and it holds all of them in mind. 

Some of it needs further explanation. For example, I'm not quite sure what "non-assertible" means. Is that an assertion which has no meaningful content, like "colorless green ideas sleep furiously"? That might be what it means. A statement would either be true, false, or, like colorless green ideas, not really something that can be asserted. Famously, the Logical Positivists claimed that any metaphysical idea is not assertible in this sense. 

So as an example, we might say that syat from the standpoint of classical metaphysics, "everything created depends for its existence on logically prior conditions." But syat from the standpoint of Logical Positivism, "everything created depends for its existence on logically prior conditions" is not something that can even be asserted. 

Different people hold to each of these views, they are incompatible, but we could plug them into the Jain system to compare them. At least that's what I think it's getting at. 

The nice thing is that it holds in mind or coordinates different philosophical perspectives -- called here "standpoints" -- without asserting that any one of them must be true.

From this brief account, it brings to mind Thomas Nagel's idea of "the view from nowhere." As I understand it, he says that science attempts to describe the world as if the description doesn't come from any particular viewpoint. This may not be possible and may be a holdover from the notion of an omniscient god. It looks as though the Jains would be more careful than scientists, if it's true that science wants its truths to be true from every possible viewpoint. Using their structure, we could say that syat according to the viewpoint of modern Western official science, X is real, but other viewpoints disagree. Thomas Aquinas, for what it's worth, was careful to say that only God sees the world from all possible viewpoints, while humans, beings animals, view the world according to the kind of animals we are. 

Is there anything about this logical structure which makes it particularly Jain? Or is it just that it was Jain philosophers who came up with it? I mean, Jainism holds to mind/body dualism, which is a metaphysical proposition, and would not be true in every standpoint. 

If there's nothing essentially Jain about it, then I don't see it as evidence that Jainism is a great improvement over the achievements of other religions. Christians, Jews, and Muslims have done important work in logic. If Jains have also done good work, that doesn't necessarily prove that the religion is better.

christianity, islam and moses evolved from judaism like buddhism, jainism and sikhism evolved from hinduism.

At least Jains caught on to the idea 'slavery bad' pretty early.

Yeah, and they were constant victims at the height of the islamic slave trade. These interactions lead to jainism reconsidering it's stance on violence. Ultimately, jain princes and societies acted just like any other, regardless of what their magic books told them to do. We might also want to recall that jainism is the establishment myth of an indian empire....and it's unlikely that they peace and loved their way into that anymore than later jain rulers would. Up to and including the transportation of captive prisoners as a workforce, or the offspring of local potentates as hostages. They weren't slaves, you see, they were bad people being punished - much like we contend today.

(July 17, 2020 at 8:04 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(July 17, 2020 at 6:11 am)ModusPonens1 Wrote: those who are partial to Dialectalism

I don't think there's any dialectic going on in the description above.

Correct, sorry, my mistake. I meant to say "Dialetheism".

---

(July 17, 2020 at 9:46 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:  Ultimately, jain princes and societies acted just like any other, regardless of what their magic books told them to do.  

Then they weren't practicing Jainism. The fundamental rule in Jainism is "Don't be violent" ... so when a person who self-identifies as a Jain ends up being violent ... it's because they're human and humans can be violent. There's nothing in Jainism that says "Sometimes it's okay to be violent." Even self-defense is said to hurt oneself and be a bad thing, in Jainism.

So, yes. Their magic book told them to do something and they failed to do it. So, silly or not, magic or not, they still were failing to practice Jainism while they were being violent.

(July 17, 2020 at 1:37 pm)ModusPonens1 Wrote: I meant to say "Dialetheism".

I can't tell from the part you quote whether the Jain version ends up agreeing with Christian dialetheism. 

As you know, the Christian version comes from Neoplatonism, and got a big boost due to Nicholas of Cusa's work on infinity. William Blake is all about dialetheism. 
For Christians, statements which seem opposed from a human perspective are both true in the infinity of God. Being infinite, God excludes nothing. (This was before Cantor's work on infinity.)

The Jains apparently lay out a system which shows what is true according to various viewpoints. But do they think that in the end all of these viewpoints are resolved in God? Or do they think that some of the viewpoints are just wrong? I doubt if they're postmodernists, who think that all truth is simply a matter of perspective.

I love that story.