Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Nyaya school of Indian philosophy, founded by Gautama, is renowned for its rigorous system of logic and epistemology. Central to this system is the understanding of valid reasoning, particularly through the structure of a syllogism (anumana). A syllogism comprises three terms: the major term (sadhya), the minor term (paksha), and the middle term (hetu). The validity of a syllogism hinges significantly on the correctness of the middle term. Naiyāyikas identify several fallacies (hetvabhasa) that can affect the middle term, rendering the argument invalid. This answer will elucidate these fallacies in relation to the five characteristics of a valid middle term as defined within the Nyaya framework.
The Middle Term and its Characteristics
The middle term (hetu) is the crucial link connecting the minor and major terms in a syllogism. For the syllogism to be valid, the middle term must possess five essential characteristics (pancalakshana):
- Vyatireki (Exclusiveness): The middle term must be invariably absent in the absence of the major term and invariably present in its presence.
- Avinabhāva (Inseparability): The middle term should be inseparable from the minor term.
- Cakatu (Pervasiveness): The middle term should be pervasive, meaning it should be present wherever the major term is found.
- Abhāva (Absence): The middle term should not be present where the major term is absent.
- Satyakāma (Truthfulness): The middle term should be a real and existent entity.
Fallacies of the Middle Term (Hetvabhasa)
Naiyāyikas identify five main fallacies of the middle term, each violating one or more of the above characteristics:
1. Savyabhicāra (Fallacy of Improper Postulation)
This fallacy occurs when the middle term is affirmed of something that is not the minor term. It violates the characteristic of Avinabhāva (inseparability). The middle term is not truly connected to the minor term.
Example: "Fire is a cause of light, because it is a cause of heat." Here, heat (hetu) is affirmed as a characteristic of fire, but it's not specifically related to *this* fire (paksha). It's a general statement about fire, not about the fire in question.
2. Kakatāla (Fallacy of the Crow)
This fallacy arises when the middle term is affirmed of something that is not the major term. It violates the characteristic of Vyatireki (exclusiveness). The middle term is not exclusively related to the major term.
Example: "This is a fire because it has light." Light is present in other things besides fire (e.g., a lamp). Therefore, light (hetu) is not exclusively a characteristic of fire (sadhya).
3. Jāti (Fallacy of Accident)
This fallacy occurs when the middle term is a common property of a class, and the argument assumes that possessing this property necessarily implies the major term. It violates Cakatu (pervasiveness) and Vyatireki (exclusiveness).
Example: "This is a cow because it is an animal." Being an animal is not exclusive to cows; many other creatures are also animals. Therefore, the middle term 'animal' doesn't guarantee the major term 'cow'.
4. Viruddha (Fallacy of Contradiction)
This fallacy arises when the middle term contradicts itself. It violates Satyakāma (truthfulness). The middle term is not a real or consistent entity.
Example: "This is a fire because it is cold." Fire, by definition, is hot, not cold. The middle term 'cold' contradicts the inherent nature of fire, making the argument invalid.
5. Prakaraṇa (Fallacy of the Predicate)
This fallacy occurs when the middle term is the major term itself, or a property that is essential to the definition of the major term. It violates Vyatireki (exclusiveness) and Avinabhāva (inseparability). The middle term doesn't provide any new information to connect the minor and major terms.
Example: "This is a cow because it is a cow." The middle term is identical to the major term, offering no logical connection. Or, "This is a fire because it burns." Burning is an essential property of fire, not a connecting link.
Table Summarizing the Fallacies
| Fallacy | Violation of Characteristic | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Savyabhicāra | Avinabhāva (Inseparability) | Fire is a cause of light, because it is a cause of heat. |
| Kakatāla | Vyatireki (Exclusiveness) | This is a fire because it has light. |
| Jāti | Cakatu (Pervasiveness) & Vyatireki | This is a cow because it is an animal. |
| Viruddha | Satyakāma (Truthfulness) | This is a fire because it is cold. |
| Prakaraṇa | Vyatireki & Avinabhāva | This is a cow because it is a cow. |
Conclusion
The Naiyāyika account of fallacies of the middle term provides a sophisticated framework for analyzing the validity of arguments. By meticulously defining the five characteristics of a valid middle term and identifying the ways in which these characteristics can be violated, the Nyaya school offers a powerful tool for discerning sound reasoning from fallacious claims. Understanding these fallacies is crucial not only for philosophical inquiry but also for critical thinking in everyday life, enabling us to evaluate arguments and avoid being misled by flawed logic.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.