Talk: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:
- Physicalism or materialism, which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental can be reduced to the physical
- Idealism or phenomenalism, which holds the converse
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
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] (http://www.solargeneral.com/SG/fame/fame14.html)]
Before "reverting" anything, ask here first! Thanks! :D
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)
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!
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new)] 14:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)