Meaning, Reference, and Verbal Knowledge in Indian Philosophy: An Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the Chapter on Word Meaning in Gaṅgeśa’s Jewel of Reflection on the Nature of Things (Tattvacintāmaṇī)

Abstract

This dissertation focuses on a pivotal debate in classical Indian philosophy of language as presented by the influential 14th-century thinker Gaṅgeśa over the meaning of common nouns. The debate centers on reconciling two intuitive assumptions: first, words are about objects (i.e., in any given context C where an utterance is true, every expression E in the utterance stands for some individual object(s) in C); and second, common nouns (focusing on their indefinite use) have a constant meaning that is grasped by any competent language user across contexts. Gaṅgeśa and his opponents strive to resolve the tension between the two assumptions, which arises from the fact that common nouns can refer to different objects in different contexts while still having a constant meaning across those contexts. In my introductory chapter, I reconstruct and evaluate Gaṅgeśa’s theory of meaning of common nouns, which I call “Context-Sensitive Direct-Referential Descriptivism.” To resolve the tension between the two intuitions that are in tension, Gaṅgeśa proposes a hybrid theory in which the meaning of a common noun includes both a universal (e.g., cowness) and a particular (e.g., a particular cow). I also explore challenges to Gaṅgeśa’s theory, particularly regarding cases where speakers use common nouns without specific referents in mind. I argue that Gaṅgeśa will have to give up a direct-realist position when it comes to verbal utterances involving general terms like common nouns. In addition to my reconstruction and analysis of Gaṅgeśa’s theory, a significant portion of my dissertation is devoted to translating and commenting on the original Sanskrit text. My translation of Gaṅgeśa’s text aims to be clear and philosophically precise, suitable for use in a philosophy classroom or by scholars engaging with Indian philosophical texts. The accompanying commentary elucidates the background knowledge, technical terminology, and unstated assumptions that Gaṅgeśa expects his readers to bring to the text.