Do you adhere to a dualistic conception of reality?

[Snsl153]

'Cogito, ergo sum' - Descartes

Or are you a monist?

"The term ‘dualism’ has a variety of uses in the history of thought. In general, the idea is that, for some particular domain, there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles. In theology, for example a ‘dualist’ is someone who believes that Good and Evil – or God and the Devil – are independent and more or less equal forces in the world. Dualism contrasts with monism, which is the theory that there is only one fundamental kind, category of thing or principle; and, rather less commonly, with pluralism, which is the view that there are many kinds or categories. In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical – or mind and body or mind and brain – are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing."

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

[Derekk]

So it's tricky because dualism can be split into two different groups when we talk about consciousness, and there's a third sense when we talk about dualities or binary opposites like good and evil.

Descartes was a substance dualist. So he would say that there's a mental "substance" that exists as a thing in the world, alongside physical substances, which comprise everything else. I don't really buy this idea because it suggests the existence of something that isn't verifiable in any way. It explains away the problem of consciousness by saying that we are conscious due to a mysterious force, end of story.

There's a much more interesting kind of mind-body dualism though, called PROPERTY dualism which I agree with. This is the idea that all mental content is reducible to biology, BUT, that there is a property of "consciousness" that is ascribed to the whole of the system. Much like putting 1000 Lego bricks into the shape of a table confers the property of "table-ness" to the object as a whole. This seems relatively straightforward to me, and it's difficult to explain our own psychological experience without arguing that there is a unique quality to our experience that isn't captured my material phenomena alone, particularly when you break them down into parts, modules, or atoms. Some people would argue that consciousness itself is illusory, and that what we experience is simply a function of our mind modules working together, but I think this just becomes a semantics game once you acknowledge that we do in fact have qualia, or first person experience.

So I guess to answer your question, I would say that I am a substance monist, and a property dualist. As for the other things regarding theological topics, I'd caution against elevating metaphysical concepts into our domain of reality. This is a very Plato thing to do, and it underlies his theory of forms, which most people today don't really spend a lot of time with, aside from certain areas like mathematics.

[Lliam]

I'm a pluralist. I like to look outside the box in search of the big picture.

The problem is, dualism proposes that there are two choices. The only alternative positions are somewhere in between (centrism). It claims good/evil, liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat. But what if those aren't the only choices.

I actually reject dualism. It's way to limited. It simplifies issues and discourages creative thought. Nuance and complexity are overlooked. Dualism hides the big picture.

Dualism is also used to create divisiveness - thou versus the other kind of thinking.

[BlacklightShade]

I don't perceive things can be as simple as black or white. I don't believe there's a fine balance or that one will always be maintained. I don't know if that counts as "pluralism", but I don't care. Labels like this are often too simplistic and put things in categories only to make complex positions easier to understand and put people into groups.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

I believe that He, G-d, is One, the One on Whom everything and everyone depends on; He has no parents nor offsprings (although many Jews call Him Our Father Our Lord, Avinu Malkenu) and no-one is like Him. The Devil, the accursed Satan, is an evil spirit of Fire. He’s quite weak, so unlike G-d, so any human can overcome the Satan (no-one can overcome G-d), but many don’t believe.

I do believe in the Yin/Yang philosophy, though. For every to there is a fro. For every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction (except for Chuck Norris’ roundhouse kick). However, the philosophy doesn’t mean about good or evil, I’ve read.

So in theology, I’m a monist, a monotheist. In natural science, Newton’s Third Law has been accepted as a law universally.

[Snsl153]

Why did you write G-d? It's God, not G-d!

[HippieVeganJewslim]

If one erases His full title, it’s a sin. It’s a Jewish thing, you wouldn’t understand.

[jshm2]

It's outdated and old fashioned and quite frankly in the light of modern science - wrong.

There are RARELY dualities or monism's in nature or reality. But it's usually mental biases which force people to think in such regards. i. e "you're either X or Y". When in fact there are usually lots of little variations and sub-varieties in nearly everything physical and knowable.

[OddBeMe]

Ehh, heah. Without good there's no evil. But im not an absolutist. I dont think there is “good” or “evil” just varying degrees.

In philosophy we’re taught Set theory. The opposite of “devil” is not “god”. Its “no devil”. The opposite of something is the lack of that thing. Not something else.

[NathanDavis]

yes... that has always been my reality

realizing it, embracing it... adjusting to it, kept me alive, and happier while at it too

[DryGermanGuy]

https://youtu.be/KMEViYvojtY

[Wade12345]

The devil is not equal to God. He is a fallen angel Created by God.

[msc545]

Pluralism makes more sense to me.