Searle, though not an idealist, described the difference in physical and mental properties as so:

Mental
Subjective
Qualitative
Intentional
Not spatially located & Nonextended in space
Not explainable by physical
processes
Incapable of acting causally

Physical
Objective
Quantitative Nonintentional Spatially located & Spatially extended Causally explainable by
microphysics
Acts causally and as a
on the physical
system is causally closed

Coincidentally, and perhaps more to your point, his “solution” is to claim this is essentially a false dichotomy.

Here is the link to the PDF version of his book “Mind: A Brief Introduction” if you’re interested. The above was on page 127.

Coincidentally, and perhaps more to your point, his “solution” is to claim this is essentially a false dichotomy. — Pinprick

Would you look at that!

Not explainable by physical
processes — Pinprick

Incapable of acting causally — Pinprick

Well this seems like quite a problem. This definition will at best lead to epiphenomenology. Again, as I said, when you make up two fundamentally different substances, that means they can’t interact. One that’s done, you need both categories. If you say everything is physical by this definition, you miss out one things that are subjective qualitative and intentional. If you say everything is mental you miss out on unintentional processes.

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”

so really, squish a mosquito because the itch is inconvenient, or kill the guy ahead of you line, because he is slow to make up his mind...both ways a life is ended for your comfort. The second involves a human, so we attribute more value to it, but there shouldn't be. — Book273

By this reasoning, it's a-okay to kill people... Hence your monism cannot support a healthy human society but may be useful philosophy for serial killers.

My philosophy is universally applicable, attributing value in a truly equal fashion. It is unfortunate that people react so poorly when confronted by a system in which they hold no special place. All things have value to themselves, all things have a purpose, none are above the other. You say my philosophy is useful to serial killers, perhaps it is, however, I am not advocating for the blatant killing of people. I am not advocating for the blatant killing of anything. I am simply stating that all life is of equal value to the organism.

, I am not advocating for the blatant killing of people. — Book273

What are you advocating for, then? Anything? Nothing?

There are multiple "kinds" of monists from idealists, to physicalists to materialists, to God knows what else. I think they're all the same — khaled

I fully agree. The same holds for Dualism. "Variations" exist because you cannot explain everything but just using a "label". This is why I personally avoid to use "-isms" and "-ists". They are boxes that limit a subject, attribute, idea, etc. The can be devoid of meaning. For example, what would be the meaning of saying "I am a nihilist"? Each person would get a different idea about me! Well, if they get one! :smile:

On the other hand, these "-isms" help in just distinguishing between two attributes, ideas, etc. For example, if I say "This is a monistic view", I would be more or less clear what I mean, esp. if it's compared to a "dualistic view". But of course, this can be useful only in vague terms.

So, yes, I agree that there should be a single "Monism". And "Dualism" and every other "-ism". They are philosophical concepts, and people, when using them in discussions, must think about the same thing and agree on their definitions. Otherwise, misunderstandings, confusions etc., get unnecessarily in the way.

By this reasoning, it's a-okay to kill people... Hence your monism cannot support a healthy human society but may be useful philosophy for serial killers. — Olivier5

You and the mosquitoes are in the same business. They try to suck your blood and you try to avoid malaria, dengue, etc. Unites States was forged on the largest genocide in history. 50 million natives were exterminated. Nor were the Indians peaceful. They were already killing each other. The 6 million of "the final solution" are comparatively speaking a trifle. The world has always been ruled by murderers, not serial, but mass. You may not like it. But nobody said life was fair. One thing is what the duty is and another what happens.

nobody said life was fair. — Primperan

Not even me! What I am driving at is that a philosophy should not just be about what is the case, which is rather the domain of science, but also and primarily in what ought to be the case, which behaviors are desirable and which are not. What goals should we pursue? etc.

For me, a decent philosophy cannot be value-less.

Not even me! What I am driving at is that a philosophy should not just be about what is the case, which is rather the domain of science, but also and primarily in what ought to be the case, which behaviors are desirable and which are not. What goals should we pursue? etc.

For me, a decent philosophy cannot be value-less. — Olivier5

That seems more like the domain of the Christian religion (because paganism doesn't seem interested in duty either).

paganism doesn't seem interested in duty either — Primperan

Paganism? Can you be a little more specific? The voodoo? The norse gods? The cult of Isis? Hinduism?

I am saying that all is made up of the same fundamental stuff; differentiated packaging only. For some reason this upsets you, so you have attempted, poorly, to ridicule my position by claiming firstly, that I support serial killing, and then, failing at that, that I support nothing; which is also utterly inaccurate. Therefore, A) you have difficulty comprehending the scope of my position and feel compelled to mockery to distract from your own short-comings, or B) You are arguing from a weak position for entertainment, or C) You are a fool. None of which cast you in a particularly good light.

Perhaps you should consider why you are offended by my claiming that everything is of equal value. The answer may help solve other issues in your life.

Perhaps you should try to address what I am saying, and not something else altogether... Or just try to understand what I say; that'd be a start.

If it's all the same stuff, is there anything that matters? And if yes, what would that be? IOW, can monism sustain a hierarchy of values? It seems not. If "everything is of equal value" then nothing is of any particular value...

Taking a scientific, materialistic, approach, monism seems untenable.

First, scientists claimed that matter is made of atoms. That didn't do the trick and upon further investigation, atoms were found to be combinations of protons, neutrons, electrons. With this monism lost ground. Not to worry for soon it was discovered that protons, electrons, neutrons were made up of quarks. Monism, the prodigal son, makes the comeback. Not so fast though: there were different kinds of quarks and monism again faded away into oblivion. What's next? Another particle but then if we look at the trend, every new particle seems to come in different flavors, we should give up the idea of a single fundamental substance; in other words, monism fails.

The pattern: Every time we reduce reality to a single substance, we're faced with the problem of having to reconcile contradictory qualities, something impossible. Does it make more sense to insist that monism is true and that all contradictions are illusions or to abandon monism as nonsensical. The choice: contradiction OR no to monism.

Another way of looking at that is that every time there seems to be multiple things that make up the world, they turn out to be made up of one thing.

But materialism definitely false, agreed. Not everything is made up of matter. For instance: Electromagnetic waves.

Physicalism ftw!

Another way of looking at that is that every time there seems to be multiple things that make up the world, they turn out to be made up of one thing. — khaled

:up:

A monotheistic point of view vs. a polytheistic point of view, an extremely fragile compromise it seems khaled. So instead of saying there's a Ahura mazda (+) and an Angra manyu (-), two distinct entities, there's actually only one Allah who has two qualities, peaceful and wrathful. I wonder if this logic can be applied to split-personality disorders?

So yes, there's an up quark, a down quark, etc. but they aren't separate things, as in they're all quarks.

It seems monotheism is Occam's razor in action - different qualities need not entail different entities.

That said, contradictions are a cause for concern.

The pattern: Every time we reduce reality to a single substance, we're faced with the problem of having to reconcile contradictory qualities, something impossible. Does it make more sense to insist that monism is true and that all contradictions are illusions or to abandon monism as nonsensical. The choice: contradiction OR no to monism. — TheMadFool

This is not an argument against monism. The fact that a circle is not a square is also no argument against geometry. Monism means that everything consists of only one substance. In the broadest sense matter is, what something weighs, applies also to light.

This is not an argument against monism. The fact that a circle is not a square is also no argument against geometry. Monism means that everything consists of only one substance. In the broadest sense matter is, what something weighs, applies also to light. — SolarWind

Just a thought, that's all.

I can sympathize with the non-monist point of view in that it's basically a solution to contradictions that are baked into systems that subscribe to some kind of unitary substance/principle.

One way to save monism is to rope in Cronus, Father time. Yes, he ate his sons but let's ignore that for the moment. An apple isn't, I've never seen it happening, both green (unripe) and red (ripe) at the same time but it does go from green to red as Cronus' heartbeat ticks off time but, it's the same friggin' apple. Thus, there's one substance/principle (monism) and it does assume qualities which maybe opposites but a contradiction doesn't occur because of temporal separation.

Paganism? Can you be a little more specific? The voodoo? The norse gods? The cult of Isis? Hinduism? — Olivier5

Greco-Roman paganism never speaks of helping the weak. For instance. Rather, they were thrown into the circus.

Greco-Roman paganism never speaks of helping the weak. For instance. Rather, they were thrown into the circus. — Primperan

Which is one of the reasons the Christians screwed them in the end. The pagan Roman's lack of empathy for the weak was their weakness.

But it does not follow that the Romans of old had no interest in duty, or had no moral values. They just had different values than the Christian ones... As often the case with Indo-European cultures, the Roman values originally were very warlike. They started with the general concept of virtus (from which comes the English word "virtue"), meaning 'manliness' (vir=man).

Then this concept evolved overtime and expanded to become lists of several virtus.

The Roman state, be it the Republic or Empire, never issued a formal, codified list of virtus, nor much definition of the concept, which was from old time religion and probably so ubiquitous that no one needed a definition or a list. Therefore any such list is a modern construct patched together from various ancient authors. This caveat said, here is one from wikipedia:

Abundantia: "Abundance, Plenty" The ideal of there being enough food and prosperity for all segments of society. A public virtue.
Auctoritas – "spiritual authority" – the sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria. This was considered to be essential for a magistrate's ability to enforce law and order.
Comitas – "humour" – ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.
Constantia – "perseverance" – military stamina, as well as general mental and physical endurance in the face of hardship.
Clementia – "mercy" – mildness and gentleness, and the ability to set aside previous transgressions.
Dignitas – "dignity" – a sense of self-worth, personal self-respect and self-esteem.
Disciplina – "discipline" – considered essential to military excellence; also connotes adherence to the legal system, and upholding the duties of citizenship.
Fides – "good faith" – mutual trust and reciprocal dealings in both government and commerce (public affairs), a breach meant legal and religious consequences.
Firmitas – "tenacity" – strength of mind, and the ability to stick to one's purpose at hand without wavering.
Frugalitas – "frugality" – economy and simplicity in lifestyle.
Gravitas – "gravity" – a sense of the importance of the matter at hand; responsibility, and being earnest.
Honestas – "respectability" – the image and honor that one presents as a respectable member of society.
Humanitas – "humanity" – refinement, civilization, learning, and generally being cultured.
Industria – "industriousness" – hard work.
Innocencia – "selfless" – Roman charity, always give without expectation of recognition, always give while expecting no personal gain, incorruptibility.
Laetitia – "Joy, Gladness" – The celebration of thanksgiving, often of the resolution of crisis, a public virtue.
Nobilitas – "Nobility" – Man of fine appearance, deserving of honor, highly esteemed social rank, and, or, nobility of birth, a public virtue.
Justitia – "justice" – sense of moral worth to an action; personified by the goddess Iustitia, the Roman counterpart to the Greek Themis.
Pietas – "dutifulness" – more than religious piety; a respect for the natural order: socially, politically, and religiously. Includes ideas of patriotism, fulfillment of pious obligation to the gods, and honoring other human beings, especially in terms of the patron and client relationship, considered essential to an orderly society.
Prudentia – "prudence" – foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.
Salubritas – "wholesomeness" – general health and cleanliness, personified in the deity Salus.
Severitas – "sternness" – self-control, considered to be tied directly to the virtue of gravitas.
Veritas – "truthfulness" – honesty in dealing with others, personified by the goddess Veritas. Veritas, being the mother of Virtus, was considered the root of all virtue; a person living an honest life was bound to be virtuous.
Virtus – "manliness" – valor, excellence, courage, character, and worth.

You speak to a Latinist and Hellenist by profession. Read the Iliad and Aeneid before cutting and pasting from a dictionary. The list you give is the Christian translation of Latin terms.

WTF is a Christian translation of Latin?

then nothing is of any particular value.. — Olivier5

...any more than anything else. Yes, that is correct. If one cannot determine an appropriate course of action for one's life and motivations, simply because they have lost perceived value, or "specialness", the flaw is within them, perhaps they should determine why they need to feel so special in order to have value. Regardless, it is not a flaw of the underlying system, the flaw is perception based.

Everything is made up of energy. Form is different, qualities are different, etc. But cut through all of the aesthetics...just energy. Also, we are limited in our testing devices to move deeper into proving this, both from a science and observational perspective. Which is unfortunate, but allows for potentially fun debates.

WTF is a Christian translation of Latin? — Olivier5

Latin translated to support Christian perspectives. Seriously, how is this a question? ALL translations are limited, and directed, by the lens of the translator.

As a Latinist, feel free to offer a better translation.

Yes, that is correct. — Book273

I thought as much. Yours must be a very boring world, where everything is in the same shade of grey.

No. I do not know Latin. I do know language suffers through translation and interpretation.

Most entertaining example I can think of: The movie title "The Matrix", Keanu Reeves, Lawrence Fishburne, etc. The French poster for that film had the film as "Les Jeunes qui porte des lunettes de Soleil." Which means "young people that wear sunglasses". Hardly an accurate translation, although accurate in itself, as most of the film involves younger people wearing sunglasses.

The French poster for that film had the film as "Les Jeunes qui porte des lunettes de Soleil." — Book273

That is simply not true. The film was released in France under the English title "Matrix". By the way, your absurdist French title up there is also grammatically incorrect, on top of being a lie.

Yours must be a very boring world, where everything is in the same shade of grey. — Olivier5

If that is how you chose to see it. Sad for you, but there it is. Clearly you need to be externally validated as special in order to maintain your world view, which seems limiting, and bankrupt, but that is where you are at apparently. I do not need that level of external validation. I matter to me because I want to, and everything that matters to me does so at my will. These items have value because I have assigned them value, if I were removed from the equation, and no one were to assign them value in my place, they would have no value above anything else. There is no lesser being, there is no higher being, and nothing worthless. I find it a very liberating perspective.

I saw the translated poster at the theatre, no lie. And yep my French is likely grammatically incorrect. No worries there.