The idea of Buddhist logic has always puzzled me, because I don’t recognise anything that could be called logic in those writings, i.e. methods of reasoning,. There are only recitations of various formulas like “true, not-true, neither true not not-true, both true and not-true.”
The motivation is probably metaphysical. Indeed, some aspects of classical logic also have metaphysical motivations. It doesn’t cause paradoxes to drop bivalence, so the motivation for including it is probably an intuition that things either exist or don’t.
The motivation is probably metaphysical. Indeed, some aspects of classical logic also have metaphysical motivations. It doesn’t cause paradoxes to drop bivalence, so the motivation for including it is probably an intuition that things either exist or don’t.