Like Aristotle, the Jains recognize fallacies in thinking
(abhasas) because each point of view (naya) can also be misinterpreted or
misconstrued. Each abhasa relates to a specific naya. Many abhasas overlap with
Aristolian fallacies and are best avoided for effective thinking, arguing and
writing.
NAIGAMBHASA is a fallacy of the Naigama naya (Popular
Point of View). This Jain fallacy combines the Aristolian fallacies of
composition and division. Just as generalizations can be misleading,
emphasizing specifics can ignore the larger context.
SANGRAHABHASA
is a fallacy of Sangraha naya (General Point of View). Not only do the
deliberate generalizations of this fallacy miss the point, they can make the
specifics generic. Arguments are ineffective when they ignore specific
exceptions.
VYAVAHARABHASA
is a fallacy of the Vyavahara naya (External Point of View). A strictly
empirical understanding does not include the practical. Ideologies are great,
but they can ignore the realities of employing those ideologies.
RIJUSUTRABHASA
is a fallacy of the Rjusutra naya (Straightforward Point of View). This
Jain fallacy assumes that an argument is true throughout time. Any number of
changes over time or space can prove and disprove an argument.
SABDABHASA is a fallacy of the Sabda naya (Literal Point of View). The meaning of words and phrases can
change due to context. Idioms are rarely literal, but when taken literally, the
meaning changes.
SAMABHIRUDABHASA is the fallacy of the Samabhiruda naya (Etymological Point of View). When even the smallest the differences
between synonyms is ignored, the meaning can change. The similar isn't always
the same.
EVAMBHUTABHASA is the fallacy of the Evambhuta naya (Actualized Point of View). This Jain fallacies that the original definition
of a word is not absolute. The meaning of some words changes over time,
especially with slang.
When it comes to arguments, fallacies suck. They
demonstrate a need to win rather than be correct.
