Page 1 of 97

Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:52 pm
by Bill
Just think, we can now rehash the entire monism, dualism, pluralism debate from scratch.

Yay!

Re: A Fresh Start ...

PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:23 pm
by JonathanElliot
A whole section just for this question? I'd prefer to see just a general philosophy one myself. After all, where do I put questions that don't come under "Monism" etc?

Re: A Fresh Start ...

PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:59 pm
by Bill
You is so picky ... :)

Re: A Fresh Start ...

PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:30 pm
by JonathanElliot
Yes, I am :) But I'm also trying to be helpful in getting the initial forum set up to be useful for everyone.

Wouldn't it be annoying if I started talking about Schopenhauer's philosophy of art under this heading? Considering it has nothing to do with the title :)

Re: A Fresh Start ...

PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:35 pm
by Bill
For now, we shall just have a philosophy forum. Singular. A catch all.

Later, if member pressure becomes intense, we can parse out sub-divisions.

:)

Re: A Fresh Start ...

PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:37 pm
by JonathanElliot
Yay, perfect! That's exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks.

Re: A Fresh Start ...

PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:35 am
by UnReAL
"Philosophy" is a good way to encapsulate most of these ideas. We need to get this site active again. I grow tired of the insolence from atheists on other sites, especially the ones at the christian forum. They're the kind that continue to assert the "Atheism/Theism" duality, and they claim I must choose between the 2. They've tried to wedge the neutral agnostics out of a position. Not only that, but they're more like "ignostic atheists" as they use ignosticism as a means of justifying their atheism. Argh the futility!!

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:40 pm
by romansh
OK
for me:
Monism Derives from the observation that pretty much everything I can think of is connected by cause and effect to some degree indirectly, if not directly. This of course leads to some conclusions that are not intuitive and definitely are uncomfortable. Evolution definitely has not endowed us with a sense of monism.

This is embodied in the Buddhist's concept of Indra's net
Image
Dualism From an individual's evolutionary perspective this is a vital concept. Some examples: What's me, how can 'me' replicate and what is not me. Good and Evil (what's ultimately beneficial or not to my replication). Of course this evolutionary perspective gets carried away at times, eg ying and yang, and God and the rest of the universe. Nevertheless it is a relatively useful concept, though it can lead us astray if we believe it too much.

Pluralism I love pluralism, it is what our science is built on. With its spectrums and catergorizations we have to be careful we choose our boundaries carefully. For example when I think of a tree, how separate is it from sunlight, soil, the flora and fauna that coexist with it? Of course there are many kinds of tree and some these may even be big sturdy bushes. But as a scientist it is a useful tool.

Now for me pluralism points to monism being a more accurate description of our existence. Though I would agree with those that say monism is not useful other than promoting awareness.

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:42 am
by romansh
Bill wrote:
romansh wrote:Yep we are one - Monism rules.
;)

Au contraire - we are further proof that complexity evolves out of simplicity.
Pluralism strikes again!
Yay!

I can't be doing a good job of explaining monism or at least my version of it.
Just because things are arranged in a complex manner, it does not make them inherent, intrinsic or indpendent.
If we assign any of those i properties to an object, that's exactly what we have done. Assigned those properties.

Re: Monism, Dualism and Pluralism

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:18 pm
by Bill
And I am not making clear my view of complexity from simplicity.

In the furnace of the interior of the massive stars, the process of converting hydrogen to helium throws off the heavy elements which have different properties than either helium or hydrogen.

The building blocks have created new elements that are more complex. and have different characteristics, even though they "consist" of the same basic building blocks.

A Tyrannosaurus Rex is more complex than a trilobite. Pointing to the identical underlying elements of each does not take away that complexity, but simply attempts to dismiss the difference as being trivial.

But then, as far as I can so far tell, monism does seem to spend a lot of time trying to trivialize everything ...

:)