/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20806770]

What should I read about metaphysical monism versus dualism? Which philosophers have discussed this?

[Anonymous No.20806820]

Negate with the Gnostics.

[Anonymous No.20806826]

Or, start with this if you want a more scholarly and philosophical exploration of dualism.

[Anonymous No.20806896]

>>20806770
> What should I read about metaphysical monism versus dualism?
Rene Guenon’s (pbuh) metaphysics trilogy:

1) Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta
2) The Symbolism of the Cross
3) The Multiple States of the Being

[Anonymous No.20807130]

all of them you fucking ding dong

[Anonymous No.20807179]

>>20806770
>metaphysical monism
Just type solipsism. it's faster.

[Anonymous No.20807449]

>>20806770
>Seiendes
ngmi! SAD!

[Anonymous No.20807525]

>>20806896

Hume and Kant already refuted Guenon's metaphysics on causation and contingency

[Anonymous No.20807688]

>>20807179
the fuck are you on about, monism clearly has fewer letters

[Anonymous No.20807695]

>>20807525
How so?

[Anonymous No.20808032]

>>20806770
Robert Bolton

[bodhi No.20808116]

>>20806896
>the klaus schwab

[bodhi No.20808125]

>>20806896
rofl just saw soros too

[Anonymous No.20808145]

>>20807695
Relations of ideas can't be used to prove matters of fact. Classical (rationalist) metaphysics is just dogmatism.

[bodhi No.20808198]

>>20806826

[Anonymous No.20808667]

>>20806770
Descartes, then Spinoza.
Pay attention to Descartes' substances.

[Anonymous No.20808859]

>>20806770
category theory

[Anonymous No.20809843]

>>20808145
calling something dogmatism is not a real refutation because dogmas can be both internally logically consistent and true

[Anonymous No.20809876]

>>20806770

[Anonymous No.20810315]

>>20806770
>What should I read about metaphysical monism versus dualism?
The better question is this: What do you gain from reading them?

[Anonymous No.20810422]

>>20810315
Metaphysics may seem far removed from anything tangible, but it forms the foundation for supposedly more practical ideas. For example: antinatalism could only have emerged out of metaphysical materialism.

[Anonymous No.20811297]

>>20806770
https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

[Anonymous No.20811505]

>>20811297
utter schizo gibberish

[Anonymous No.20811515]

>>20806770
I've come to the conclusion whole notion of philosophical "substances", "properties", "tokens", "supervenience"and other such object oriented philosophy is syntactically inadequate to deal with the mind-body problem. The differences between "substance dualism", "property dualism", and "neutral monism" for instance are ultimately two different ways of thinking about the same thing, and you end up with essentially isomorphic problems expressed in different syntax.

[Anonymous No.20811557]

>>20811515
The real question is to what extent can consciousness be reduced to interactions of signals. I don't think that it's computationally reducible, and as such it's probably going to be very, very hard or close to impossible to reverse engineer it.

[Anonymous No.20811623]

>>20811557
even if it's possible to reverse engineer consciousness, how would we ever know if we succeeded?

[Anonymous No.20811631]

>>20811505
you are just low IQ and got filtered

[Anonymous No.20811788]

>>20806770
>>20811515
just take the dependent arising pill and go with the buddhists, trascending both monists and dualists

[Anonymous No.20811803]

>>20806770
>>20811515
I solved this problem.

[Anonymous No.20811819]

>>20806770
Spinoza already solved this problem ?
Monism and dualism is the same.

[Anonymous No.20811906]

>>20811788
by becoming a nihilist?

[Anonymous No.20811930]

I am a pluralist; there are an infinite amount of substances.

[Anonymous No.20812032]

>>20811930
the infinite is beyond quantity and so to speak of a 'infinite amount' is a contradiction in terms

[Anonymous No.20812319]

>>20811623
You wouldn't, probably even if we had a scientific means of telepathy. You would still have to make assumptions about the state of consciousness based on behaviors due to the explanatory gap.

[Anonymous No.20813391]

>>20811906
?
what's nihilist about buddhism?
there's suffering and the cessation of suffering

[Anonymous No.20814410]

>>20813391
>The Buddhistic assumption that the extinction of that consciousness is the highest end of human life, is untenable, for there is no recipient of results. For a person who has got a thorn stuck into him, the relief of the pain caused by it is the result (he seeks); but if he dies, we do not find any recipient of the resulting cessation of pain. Similarly, if consciousness is altogether extinct and there is nobody to reap that benefit, to talk of it as the highest end of human life is meaningless. If that very entity or self, designated by the word ‘person’—consciousness, according to you—whose well-being is meant, is extinct, for whose sake will the highest end be?
- Adi Shankara (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.20814453]

So metaphysical monism is the gnostic thing or what? What is their stance on dualism? Just a simulacrum created by the demiurge or something?
Sorry I don't know shit about gnosticism. Is this thread even about gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.20814666]

>>20806820
what if i'm NOT schizophrenic?

[Anonymous No.20814689]

>>20806770
The Eleatics are the only ones who offer a coherent metaphysical account, at least when interpreted as monists. If you want to know about metaphysics, or metaphysical monism specifically, you need to start with them and never forget what they teach you.

The image you posted doesn't have much to do with them, though. If you think reality is an "outward manifestation of an inward god" then the scope of your enquiry is too narrow and you've already kind of lost the plot. Not as bad as an Aristotelean though.

[Anonymous No.20814897]

>>20811803
What a Peircing gaze that young man has, ha ha, ha ha!

[Anonymous No.20815398]

you are watching a movie. you can make a distinction 8etween the state that identifies with the movie and the state that doesnt, 8ut youre always watching a movie.

>>20811515
food for thought and food for thought only. there is nothing a8out the 8rain that makes consciousness. everything has a perspective, 8ut 8rains can express their perspective, so we think it is special to them. in this case an idealist panpsychism is true.

[Anonymous No.20815446]

>>20811515
>two different ways of thinking about the same thing, and you end up with essentially isomorphic problems expressed in different syntax.
Welcome to Advaita Vedanta.

[Anonymous No.20815972]

>>20814410
Shankara didn't understand buddhism, even though his whole system was based on buddhist doctrines such as Yogacara and Madhyamaka.

Imagine confusing an aggregate with an imposed notion of a 'self'.
The tathagata is free from all forms of self-identification; it's meaningless to speak in terms of survival or annihilation.

[Anonymous No.20816014]

>>20815972
> Shankara didn't understand buddhism, even though his whole system was based on buddhist doctrines such as Yogacara and Madhyamaka.
It’s not, you have to be pretty dumb and misinformed to think this

>Imagine confusing an aggregate with an imposed notion of a 'self'.
What Shankara is talking about (the Atman) isn’t any of the aggregates

>The tathagata is free from all forms of self-identification
A cop-out answer that answers confronting the issue that if you reduce an entity to being solely aggregates which don’t continue in Parinirvana then it’s practically the same as a total annihilation

[Anonymous No.20816378]

>>20816014

in 'Systems Of Buddhistic Thought' Sogen Yamakami shows how Shankara completely misunderstood the buddhist doctrines of impermanence, momentariness, causality, storehouse-consciouness and many others.

https://archive.org/details/systemsofbuddhis029771mbp/page/n9/mode/2up

[Anonymous No.20816834]

>>20816378
>in 'Systems Of Buddhistic Thought' Sogen Yamakami shows how Shankara completely misunderstood the buddhist doctrines
Not really; he objects to Shankara saying the aggregates cannot account for their own existence by saying that the Buddhist answer is that avidya in a past life accounts for the existence of the aggregates in this present one but this is either him playing stupid or he genuinely is stupid because this is the very nonsensical idea that Shankara refutes by pointing out that it involves an impossible regress; as there wont be an opportunity for that previous avidya in the first place to be there producing the effects that lead to the current set of aggregates since the mechanism by which Buddhists account for it involves an absurd and illogical regress; it's like he went out of his way to pretend to not understand the implication of what Shankara is talking about