04 | Why the Cārvākas Rejected Logic (Inference)
Wtf astika accepts Vedas but rejects god!? Tell me about this when we reach that topic. It's ok bro you can just write only percentage no need to explain it. I don't know bro what do you mean by arch-heretics?ok I got it if I can feel it is there then it is there. Yes I can see why everyone was shocked as they can't perceive spiritual things. Ok cool bro go ahead
You got it, bro. We'll definitely dive into that whole Āstika/atheist mind-bender when we get to Sāṅkhya. It's a trip.
And "arch-heretic" just means "the biggest heretic of them all." A heretic is someone who goes against the established religious beliefs. So, the Cārvākas were seen as the ultimate rebels.
Okay, let's move on. We've established the Cārvāka golden rule: Perception is the only truth.
Now, let's see how they use this rule as a weapon to attack the most important tool of all other philosophers: Inference.
Progress: ~30%
Part 4: The Cārvāka Attack on Inference (Logic)¶
So, what is inference? It's just using logic to figure something out that you haven't directly seen.
The classic example they use in all Indian philosophy is this:
You look at a distant hill. You see smoke rising from it. You don't see the fire, but you infer that there must be fire on the hill.
This seems like simple, obvious logic, right? We do this a thousand times a day. Your phone is not in your pocket, so you infer you left it on the table.
But the Cārvākas said, "Hold on. That's a huge, unproven leap of faith."
They argued that this kind of inference is completely unreliable and can't be trusted as a source of certain knowledge. Here’s their brilliant and devastating breakdown of why.
For your inference "There is fire because there is smoke" to be 100% true, it has to rely on an unbreakable, universal rule. That rule is:
"Wherever there is smoke, there is fire."
This universal rule is the backbone of the inference. In Sanskrit, they call this rule Vyāpti (pronounced Vyaap-tee). Vyāpti means an invariable, universal relationship between two things.
The Cārvākas then asked a killer question: "How do you know that this Vyāpti is true? How can you be so sure that smoke is always accompanied by fire?"
You might say, "Well, I've seen it a million times! I've seen fire and smoke together at campfires, in kitchens, in forest fires..."
And this is where the Cārvākas trap you. They say:
"Oh, so you've seen it a million times. But have you seen every single instance of smoke in the entire history of the universe—past, present, and future? On this planet and on every other planet? What if there's some weird, magical smoke without fire somewhere that you've never seen? Since you haven't perceived all cases, you can't be 100% certain that the rule is universal. You are taking a leap of faith from the known (the smoke you've seen with fire) to the unknown (all the smoke you haven't seen)."
According to their own golden rule, knowledge has to be based on perception. And since you cannot possibly perceive every instance of smoke and fire to confirm the universal rule (the Vyāpti), the rule itself is not proven.
And if the universal rule (Vyāpti) is not proven, then any inference based on that rule is just a guess. It might turn out to be right by chance, but it's not a valid path to certain knowledge.
So, the core of their attack is this:
Inference depends on knowing a universal rule (Vyāpti). But we can never be 100% sure a universal rule is true because we can't perceive every single instance in the universe. Therefore, inference is an unreliable "leap in the dark," not a valid source of knowledge.
This was a massive bomb dropped on all other philosophical systems, because all of them (Nyāya, Vedānta, Buddhism, etc.) rely heavily on inference and logic to make their arguments about the soul, God, karma, and so on. The Cārvākas were essentially saying, "Your most basic tool of logic is broken."
Does this breakdown make sense? How they attack the idea of a "universal rule" because it can't be fully perceived? Let me know if you're ready to see what they believe the world is actually made of, based on this strict philosophy.