To get back to the OP, what is your stance exactly? I get that you are not supportive of mine, but I cannot recall your position, unless it is simply one of opposition.

. I find it a very liberating perspective. — Book273

Oh I'm sure it is liberating to have no value at all. It's just
not practical for a society though.

I saw the translated poster at the theatre, no lie. — Book273

No, you did not.

To get back to the OP, what is your stance exactly? — Book273

My world is dualist, or rather pluralist. There is more than just one kind of stuff in it, or dimension or whatever you want to call it. It's a diverse world, where ideas coexist with matter. I take the particle-wave duality as being an indication that things are more complex than reductionists think. Also a big fan of the form-substance duality of Aristotle.

Interesting, as Aristotle form/substance also filters down to prime matter; an undifferentiated potential matter capable of taking on any and all forms, without any defined characteristics of it's own. So an undifferentiated base, becoming everything.

It's just
not practical for a society though. — Olivier5

I had not realized the discussion had "practical for society" as one of it's fundamental tenets. Hard to capture a universal truth theory that also caters to the whims of a human creation. I will move forward from my position and will file "society" under irrelevant with respect to it's place in my theory.

an undifferentiated potential matter capable of taking on any and all forms — Book273

Still, form is different from substance.

I had not realized the discussion had "practical for society" as one of it's fundamental tenets. Hard to capture a universal truth theory that also caters to the whims of a human creation. I will move forward from my position and will file "society" under irrelevant with respect to it's place in my theory. — Book273

The discussion is whatever we want it to be. To me, the question of ethics is important so I discuss it. If you don't think ethics are important, talk about whatever you think is important... Though I suspect that nothing is really important in a monist view, nothing is salient, hence nothing is really worth saying. Everything is irrelevant to your theory, and vice versa your theory is irrelevant to anything or anybody else than you.

An excellent demonstration of not understanding, well played.

Most welcome, you misunderstood quite well too.

WTF is a Christian translation of Latin? — Olivier5

Christianity became the Roman state religion with Constantine. All the terminological senses that you contribute as contitutives of the Roman axiology are Christian. Between the 6th century BC and the year 313 AD there was a long time in which the prevailing axiology was paganism, which has to do with the speech of Thrasymachus, but nothing with what you attribute to it.

If you want a monism it has to include all the properties (assuming these truly cover everything together) but then you’re just advocating “thingism” , even if you refer to it as “idealism” or “physicalism” — khaled

This is probably right. The only alternative would be to outright deny that the properties from the other side (idealism/physicalism) exists. But at the end of the day we created these categories, as well as their criteria, so we can always choose to define things in such a way that it “supports” whatever position we hold. For example, simplifying the definition of “physical” to be synonymous with detectable; if we can detect it, it’s physical; or making “mind” synonymous with qualia or experience itself.

Weren't Socrates and Plato mostly interested in ethics? Aristotle would say that ethics is what defines man as man, and that without it we're just like any other species. It is pretty obvious from these examples alone that the ancients had moral concerns and debated them widely.

Weren't Socrates and Plato mostly interested in ethics? Aristotle would say that ethics is what defines man as man, and that without it we're just like any other species. It is pretty obvious from these examples alone that the ancients had moral concerns and debated them widely. — Olivier5

Jumping from the Roman world to the Greek does not favor his speech. A Greek citizen was not a woman, not a wage earner, not a slave, not a young man, not an old man. You should read Politics by Aristotle. The cited opinion of Thrasymachus appears in the Republic. Also the ideas in favor of eugenics. We really don't know anything about Socrates. He didn't write anything. Xenophon describes him as someone very religious, a fundamentalist. Plato's evaluation was very uneven. In Apology he introduced a hero. In the Sophist to a charlatan. He forgot about him after that dialogue. But Plato is not to be trusted. He collects many opinions with which he habitually disagrees.
You manipulate the historical discourse to your liking. What you define as philosophy belongs to a very specific discourse, the Christian one.

Jumping from the Roman world to the Greek — Primperan

You jumped first by mentioning Thrasymachus.

What you define as philosophy belongs to a very specific discourse, the Christian one. — Primperan

That made no sense. I haven't defined philosophy quite yet and there is more than one single Christian discourse.

You manipulate the historical discourse to your liking. — Primperan

I have the greatest respect for history and would never do that. You on the other hand seems like a peddler of alternative historical narratives. Like the ridiculous idea that pagans in antiquity had no moral concern.

you don't understand what you don't want to understand. Bye.

Entities vs. properties.

When we encounter differences, there are two ways of handling them:

1. Posit different entities. For example if, through a peephole, I'm first shown the color black and then the color white, I would say that there are two objects; one (say) coal (black) and the other snow (white). Pluralism!

2. Posit different properties: For example, sticking to the two colors black & white and the peephole, I'd say that there's only one object but with two different properties; a penguin/zebra (part black, part white). Monism!

With pluralism as it is we have multiple properties but we're also fielding multiple entities.

With monism we only have many properties but only one entity.

If we let William if Occam decide, monism is the way to go.