Talk:Monism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

The section on "A course in Miracles" seems almost more of an advertisment for that course rather than discussion on Monism.

Does monism always have to do with the relationship between the physical and the mental? Would "monism" also apply to the claims that, for example, life and non-life are really "the same", that matter and light are really "the same", or that mind and matter are really "the same"? --Ryguasu 00:57 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Does monism always convey the sense that there is one true and correct level at which to describe all of reality - a sort of extreme reductionism? Can you hold up the banner of "monism" and yet still believe that, say, the biological cell is every bit as "real" as the quark? --Ryguasu 19:37 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

Snoyes,

Does your removal of the parenthetical disclaimer about eliminativism and monism mean that, in your understanding, eliminativism is always a type of monism and never a type of, say, dualism? While I don't know of any dualist eliminativists, this certainly seems a logical possibility. Or perhaps your removal was based only on lack of clarity. --Ryguasu 06:18 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

FYI:

The Nazi's were the actual ones that had "disbanded" the "Monist League", in the first place, so to call the "Monist League" Proto-Nazi is really very misleading indeed!

http://www.solargeneral.com/SG/fame/fame14.html

A slandered COSMOTHEIST!


This link is relevant to "Monism" as COSMOTHEISM is NOT MONISTIC, contrary to your mistaken "belief" that it is:

"Other characteristics of pantheism that shed light on Pierce's Cosmotheist beliefs include:

It needs to be underscored that most pantheists are not monists. They aren't saying All is One. They aren't contending that there is only one Being and that all reality is either identical with it or modes of it. They are pluralists. That is to say, they believe that there are many kinds of things. They don't regard the existence of real, finite entities as inimical to unity. As pluralists, these pantheists don't see just one human nature but various human natures. Pierce carries this idea over to race. Where some would see one human race, he sees a number of human races."

MIRV, you are just being an ignorant bigot, as usual.

The link is quite relevant to both Monism and to Pluralism and to COSMOTHEISM.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel


If you want to add that link to cosmotheism, you can do that once the issues that led to that page's protection are resolved, but don't add it to other articles: it is not directly relevant to the topic of monism. --No-One Jones (talk) 00:37, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


It is directly relevant just as pluralism is directly relevant as monisms own opposite.

I am getting tired of your lying hypocrisy and reverts, MIRV.

We can revert until the cows come home, until and unless MIRV, you can demonstrate HOW and WHY these links are irrelevant or not?

Monism is the philosophical view in the area of metaphysics that only one sort of "substance" or "stuff" ultimately exists. Monism is to be distinguished from dualism, which holds that ultimately there are two kinds of substance, and from pluralism, which holds that ultimately there are many kinds of substance.

Monism is often seen as partitioned into three different kinds:

  1. Physicalism or materialism, which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental can be reduced to the physical
  2. Idealism or phenomenalism, which holds the converse
  3. Neutral monism, which holds that both the mental and the physical can be reduced to some sort of third, more "neutral" kind of stuff

Certain other positions are hard to pigeonhole into the above categories, including:

  1. Functionalism (philosophy of mind), which like materialism holds that the mental can ultimately be reduced to the physical, but which holds that all the critical aspects of mind as also reducible to some substrate-neutral "functional" level. Thus something need not be made out of neurons to have mental states. This is a popular stance in cognitive science and artificial intelligence.
  2. Eliminativism, which holds that talk of the mental will eventually be proved as unscientific and completely discarded. Just as we no longer follow the ancient Greeks in saying that all matter is composed of earth, air, water, and fire, people of the future will no longer speak of "beliefs", "desires", and other mental states. A subcategory of eliminativism is radical behaviourism, a view held by B. F. Skinner.)
  3. Anomalous Monism, a position proposed by Donald Davidson in the 1970s as a way to resolve the Mind-body problem. It could be considered (by the above definitions) either physicalism or neutral monism. Davidson hold that here is only physical matter, but that all mental objects and events are perfectly real and are identical with (some) physical matter. But physicalism retains a certain priority, inasmuch as (1) All mental things are physical, but not all physical things are mental, and (2) (As John Haugeland puts it) Once you take away all the atoms, there's nothing left. This monism was widely considered an advance over previous identity theories of mind and body, because it does not entail that one must be able to provide an actual method for redescribing any particular kind of mental entity in purely physical terms. Indeed there may be no such method; this is a case of nonreductive physicalism.

For some, monism may also have religious/spiritual implications. For example, it can be erroneously argued that pantheism is essentially a monistic view. Recognizing this, some inveigh against the 'dangers of monism,' asserting that in order to resolve all things to a single substrate, one dissolves the distinction of a Personal God in the process. However, this is not the case when "GOD" is conceived as being the Impersonal "God" of Cosmos, which is the essential Pantheist/Cosmotheist belief.

How does Monism relate to Pandeism? //// Pacific PanDeist * 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Historically, monism has been promoted in spiritual terms on several occasions, most notably by Ernst Haeckel. To the dismay of some modern observers (some contemporary monistic thinkers in particular), Haeckel added various proto-Nazi ideas to his presentation of monism.

There is a growing undercurrent of monism in the modern spiritual and philosophical climate, evidenced by increasing Western fascination with Taoism, Buddhism, Pantheism, Zen, and similar systems of thought which explore the mystical and/or spiritual elements of a monistic philosophy.

See also: Reduction (philosophy), reductionism, Mind-body problem, Naturalistic spirituality, cosmotheism see also:[[1]]


es:Monismo


Before "reverting" anything, ask here first! Thanks! :D

Contents

[edit] Vogel Vandalism????

What Mirv just removed was NOT vandalism. Actually, I think it was a quality edit. If you are going to persecute Mr. Vogel, I am going to have to ask you to do it carefully. It is unacceptable to revert a quality edit, and even worse to put an innaccurate, slanderous flame into the edit summary. Sam Spade 19:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He deleted valid information without explaining why he did so. That is vandalism. If you consider undoing his damage to be "persecution", well, I'm sorry. --No-One Jones 19:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't consider what he did to be "damage" I view it as a quality edit. What he removed was clearly (in my eyes) POV. What he did was make a quality, NPOV edit, IMO. You may disagree, but calling what he did vandalism was frankly not only innaccurate, but not a good sign for your case against him. I am looking into his case officially now, as a members advocate. If I continue to find examples such as this, rather than actual vandalism, I will become increasingly displeased. You may have a valid case against him, don't let this become a witch hunt. Nazi or no, he must be treated fairly. We cannot allow our pursuit of truth and justice to become mired in mere ideological conflict. Sam Spade 20:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Strange, because you also reverted the particular change Vogel made that you are now talking about. (i.e. him deleting "thereby assuring the ultimate demise of his Monistic Alliance.") And what does this have to do with Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates? - snoyes 20:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I made a revert, apparently an erroneous one. I did so based on numorous other edits thruout the article which were innaccurate (look to my edit summery). As to what this has to do w my being a members advocate, I assume you are contesting my role due to Paul not being a member. Unless you clarify, I am going to disregard the second question as spurious. Sam Spade 20:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Membership is open to anyone who wishes to help members who are faced with the quickly developing mediation and arbitration processes that are being implemented on Wikipedia in the last few months (since the fall of 2003)." There is no mediation or arbitration going on here, so why do you feel the need to point out the fact that you are "officially" looking into this in your role as a member of Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates? - snoyes 20:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Because I reccomended to Mirv elsewhere that he take his complainst to wikipedia:conflict resolution. Also, I don't see what you are quoting above as in any way limiting my abilities to be officially helpful in regards to Paul. To be frank, I feel there is a valid case against Paul, but I also feel he is being treated unfairly, and is redeemable. Sam Spade 21:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mirv and his ilk

Editing solely for a Wiki NPOV is NOT VANDALISM, and no matter what Mirv and his ilk of censoring, banning, and lying and hypocritical Marxist-PC bigots say!


This is becoming really pedantic if not wonton bickering - just let the small stuff go and work on the disputed material itself for crying out loud!

DAYORK--66.194.118.10 17:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monistic theism

I disagree that this is a philosophy distinct from other forms of monism generally, and from semetic religions specifically. True, most Abrahamic religions (which is what I think you ment to refer to) are not monist or panentheistic, but some are. Look into the Orthadox Christian Church, Liberal Catholicism, Hassidic Judaism, etc... Sam [Spade] 14:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see that someone already added this part to the article, but I just wanted to add here that some Christians indeed are panentheistic. Actually, I'd say that the overwhelming majority of Christians are panentheistic (Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, etc.), they just don't use that word--perhaps because they are unfamiliar with it, or perhaps because it sounds too much like pantheism. I first came across the word in Marcus Borg, but later I also came across the term in more traditional authors like Bp. Kallistos of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is really just another way explaining the God hypothesis, akin to distinctions like essence/energy and divine nature/divine economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.97.201 (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] minor edit to pluralism link

I changed the See also link "Pluralism" to "Pluralism (philosophy of mind)". The main pluralism article is about diversity in societies. Also, the philosophical pluralism article is very limited; perhaps someone familiar with this page knows enough about pluralism to expand it a bit. --Victoria h 10:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism monist?????

can anyone state sources for such claims by a credible secondary source???? Since the doctrine of anatta and of emptyness negates essence, how can it be then claimed that all is of one essence???? Also, why are materialist monists omitted, and its incorrectly stated that 'Monism is often seen in relation to pantheism, panentheism, and an immanent God'??? Materialism is a type of monism. Also, Alfred North Withehead is prominently missing in explanation of (neutral) monism.--Aryah 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the dubiousness of buddhism and zen buddhism from the list as monoism/monism. Be bold! hehehe Monkey Brain 17:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This talk page is in desperate need of cleanup. There is supposed to be some discussion going on as to the proposed merger with holism, but I see no such discussion taking place. If there is one, how could one hope to find it in this mess? The top of the page is an indecipherable mess, with a host of comments but one cannot tell to whom they are directed. Furthermore, some of them are unsigned, and none have been given a title. As I say, this page needs editing and cleanup. --Charles 03:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with Holism

At the top of the page this has been added:

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with holism. (Discuss)

I believe they are completely different ideas and this notice should be removed from the page. --Who123 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To merge monism and holism in an online encyclopedia would suggest dictacting the evolution of terms which, to me, seems not the purpose of an encyclopedia of any kind. Similar to journalism where one's duty is to report the news rather than make it. Monism is the belief in a singular reality while holism is a persepective in which all reality may consist of smaller parts or components -- this is not the same.

I also oppose any merge between holism and monism. — goethean ॐ 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. They are not even necessarily related ideas. — Coelacan | talk 15:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merger between holism and monism. The two concepts are, by definition, different, distinct. Maybe there is a "philosophical theorem" which effectively says that monism = holism. In that case, Wikipedia should include a conclusive proof of it. But I doubt it: in Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, the author discusses holism versus reductionism. I do not think that it would make sense to discuss "monism versus reductionism". Just because (assuming) everything is made of the same substance does not necessarily imply that things cannot be explained reductionistically, or does it? —AugPi 06:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If holism is equivalent to monism, then since holism is the opposite of reductionism, and monism the opposite of dualism, then reductionism should be equivalent to dualism. Contradiction: because Descartes introduced dualism in order to prevent complete reductionism (e.g. non-human animals are monistic, so they can be reduced to mechanism). Hence, holism is not equivalent to monism. At least not historically. So I removed the merger notice. My apologies to whomever put it up there. —AugPi 07:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Forms of Hinduism"

Since when are Taoism and Rastafari forms of Hinduism?67.170.176.203 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marxism, Plekhanov?

Monism was also been used as a synomym for dialectical materialism. For example, Plekhanov, the 'father' of Russian Marxism, wrote a introduction to Marxism titles 'The Development of the Monist View of History'.[2] --Duncan 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from article

The West is inundated with physicalistic monism, which is not surprising since physicalist claims are in general more easily confirmed or denied using empirical methods than are the claims of mentalist monists. There is therefore a widespread belief, supported by a preponderance of the available evidence, that everything will eventually be explained in terms of matter/energy by science. The familiarity of this worldview can make the ideas of mentalistic monism hard to grasp, and even paradoxical. One way to begin to grasp the idea is through analogy. One analogy is the movie screen, which can be thought of as a modern equivalent to Plato's "cave of shadows". If we next consider "Star Trek's holodeck", keeping in mind that it only exists in our experience as an aspect of a fictional world's fictional technology, it takes us a step further toward the mental monist's worldview, as what appear to be physical objects on the holodeck are only illusions. Next consider the movie "The Matrix". In "The Matrix", which is also a fictional technology postulated within a fictional story, even people's bodies and identities are projected. Then--in your imagination--replace the machine with a vast and powerful mind whose ideas create the illusions we perceive to be real. A last analogy is our dreams at night. We seem to be in a world filled with other objects and other people, and yet nothing of it is real. These analogies allow us to begin to think along these lines, and wonder just how we might verify the objective existence of the objects we perceive through our senses. [verification needed] However, while absolute knowledge of objective reality may well be out of our reach, it has generally been quite difficult to collect hard evidence from repeatable experience that will support the validity of the theories proposed by supporters of mental monism.

  • the above seems opinionated and unhelpful.


Some Christians inveigh against the 'dangers of monism', asserting that in order to resolve all things to a single substrate, one dissolves God in the process[citation needed]. Much Christian thought has insisted that while the universe is dependent on God for its existence, it is also of a separate substance from God[citation needed]. Some contend that this means that monism is false, while others argue that there is a distinction between Ultimate Essence, and the differentiated essences (substances), so that the "single substrate" essentially is God. Theological arguments can be made for this within Christianity, for example employing the Christian doctrine of "divine simplicity" (though a monistic interpretation of that doctrine would not be considered orthodox by the Roman Catholic Church)[citation needed].

  • This section also seems distressed and in need of review.