Typically, in the Western philosophical tradition, the presence of paradox and contradictions is taken to signal the failure or refutation of a theory or line of thinking. This aversion to paradox rests on the commitment-whether implicit or explicit-to the view that reality must be consistent.
In What Can't be Said, Yasuo Deguchi, Jay L. Garfield, Graham Priest, and Robert H. Sharf extend their earlier arguments that the discovery of paradox and contradiction can deepen rather than disprove a philosophical position, and confirm these ideas in the context of East Asian philosophy. They claim that, unlike most Western philosophers, many East Asian philosophers embraced paradox, and provide textual evidence for this claim. Examining two classical Daoist texts, the Daodejing and the Zhaungzi, as well as the trajectory of Buddhism in East Asia, including works from the Sanlun, Tiantai, Chan, and Zen traditions and culminating with the Kyoto school of philosophy, they argue that these philosophers' commitment to paradox reflects an understanding of reality as inherently paradoxical, revealing significant philosophical insights.
This multi-authored monograph argues that the use of paradox and contradictions, in contrast to in typical Western thought, can deepen rather than disprove philosophical thought and discussion. Here the authors apply this view to East Asian philosophy, examining two classical Daoist texts, the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi, and the trajectory of Buddhism in East Asia, including the San Lun, Tiantai, Chan, and Zen traditions, culminating with the Kyoto school of philosophy in the twentieth century. The work ultimately concludes that contradictory positions illuminate deeper understandings of inconsistencies in reality and in the world.
This work is a welcome continuation, now applied to East Asian philosophy, of the authors' previous efforts to challenge the tyrannical hegemony of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. The possible implications of this endeavor for everything else we think and do remains one of the most engaging points of contention in current philosophical enquiry. The classical East Asian Daoist and Buddhist thinkers, those great adepts in the arts of ineluctable paradox, are especially relevant for grappling with these questions in a thoroughgoing way, and it is encouraging to see their thought examined in this fine study.
