Catuskoti; Tetralemma; Four ways of being

08 Aug, 2026

Integration Status¹: Minimal

Consider a proposition P. You can substitute any propositions of your liking for it. Let me initiate by providing a proposition of my own:

P1: I exist

What are the positions we can take in relation to P, that fully exhausts the space of possibilities?

1. The most obvious is P itself; I exist.
2. The second most obvious is the former's negation; Not P. I do not exist.

The third and fourth are less intuitive but should still make sense with some care.

3. Both P and not P. Both (I exist and do not exist)
4. Neither P nor not P. Neither (I exist nor do not exist)

When I first learnt about the Tetralemma, I was unsure of where the third and fourth possibilities would apply. Mainly because they seem to unstablize the intuitive notions of classical logic we are familiar with - namely the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle. A way to make sense of where such options can apply is to think about propositions with category errors and/or sentences that fail to refer.

For example, consider a proposition like The smell of shadow is nice; Call it P2.
One can see how a straightforward resolution of true or false is not applicable because there is no such thing as a smell of a shadow. Therefore, P2 could probably fall into the option 4 variety - something neither true nor false.

A statement where option 4 applies is more difficult to find, especially since we are very used to the law of non-contradiction. How can something be both P and Not P? An option that may work to differing success is the liar's statement: This statement is false; Call it P3. If the statement is true, it is false. If it is false, it is true. Therefore, in a sense, this statement may be interpreted as something both P3 and not P3.

The interesting thing about Catuskoti, it seems, is that it wasn't necessarily used to differentiate the truth-value of proposition but more so as a way to encompass all kind of dialectical position we can have to any proposition that are composed of affirmation and negation. For example, one may resolve a concept like "The cause of an object" as either:

1. The object itself,
2. Another object/s,
3. Both itself and other,
4. Neither itself not from other.

Similarly, following the dictum that what is important should reiterated more, one can resolve a statement like "Beings reincarnate" as:

1. Beings reincarnate,
2. Beings do not reincarnate,
3. Beings both reincarnate and do not reincarnate,
4. Beings both do nor reincarnate nor not reincarnate.

I encourage you to try to resolve any thing you encounter as these four ends. Aside from these four ends, can you think of any 5th option?