Upvote:0
Sounds like some useless, intellectual gymnastics - just apply mindfulness to the thinking process or the doubt that arises instead of getting caught up in concepts.
Upvote:1
But if we accept this picture of ontology it is evident that we are not obliged to infer the existence of a substratum or underlying individual from the existence of a quality. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/
I take this to mean that the subject and predicate are reversible.
I believe you are reading the quoted conclusion wrong. Not inferring an individual, which means a subject, from the existence of a quality, doesn’t mean the subject and quality are reversible, it means that there doesn’t have to be a subject. Or more precisely, it means that the quality’s existence isn’t necessarily proof that there is a subject entity that has that quality. This logic is based upon a change from the extant paradigmatic understanding of reality as a material dualism to something different:
There is, however, no deep ontological reason why we could not change our view of what the constitutive and what the instantiating properties are…
Here it is being explained that a logical analysis is ultimately framed by our paradigm, and paradigms can be switched.
But if we accept this picture of ontology it is evident that we are not obliged to infer the existence of a substratum or underlying individual from the existence of a quality.
The quote above is saying that there is no ontological reason why we can’t have a paradigmatic understanding in which there are no entities — subjects — though there are qualities that can be experienced.
Saying that because I see the color red, there is an entity that is ‘redness’ works in one paradigm, but there is this other paradigm that Nagarjuna was alluding to (Emptiness) in which redness is not an entity, and the appearance of red does not require, nor is proof of, an entity that is red.
I hope this helps.