Monism

[Resha Caner]

Monism is the belief that there is one of something. For example, with respect to God, a Christian would be a monist: there is one god. An atheist would be a nihilist: there is no god. The ancient world tended to be pluralist: there are many gods.

So, it depends on the object being discussed. If one defines the "unit" as "the company", then there is one company. But if the unit is "people", there are many people working at the company.

So, here is my question: is the phrase "the people" that politicians like to throw around a monist statement? pluralist? nihilist?

As an example, here is a statement from President Obama: "The American people will feel I deserve a second term."

 

[The Nihilist]

But monads have no windows!

 

[quatona]

Monism is the belief that there is one of something. For example, with respect to God, a Christian would be a monist: there is one god. An atheist would be a nihilist: there is no god. The ancient world tended to be pluralist: there are many gods.

Unusual terminology, but ok.

So, it depends on the object being discussed. If one defines the "unit" as "the company", then there is one company. But if the unit is "people", there are many people working at the company.

Yes, the trees and the forest.

So, here is my question: is the phrase "the people" that politicians like to throw around a monist statement? pluralist? nihilist?

As an example, here is a statement from President Obama: "The American people will feel I deserve a second term."

I guess it refers to a majority. Politicians don´t tend to be philosophers.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Monism more strictly refers to metaphysics: in specifics, that the world is composed of one substance, such as matter of one sort or another. This is in contrast to dualism or pluralism, where the world is composed of two substances or multiple substances. Monism is common among pantheists, atheists and other groups who assert that everything is one in either a basic metaphysical sense of the substance being singular or in the sense of ultimate unity, most often expressed by Hindus of a particular school.

 

[Resha Caner]

Monism more strictly refers to metaphysics: in specifics, that the world is composed of one substance, such as matter of one sort or another.

Yes, this is a very common usage of the term, but not the only one. It can be applied to a wide variety of philosophical issues. Typically when I start a question like this, someone asks, "Well, what type of monism are you talking about?" So, this time I thought I'd try to clarify. Go figure.

I guess it refers to a majority. Politicians don´t tend to be philosophers.

Sure. I would suspect that in many cases, politicians are using it in a metaphorical sense. Or maybe they have deluded themselves into thinking that their wishes are synonomous with the people's wishes.

But I meant the question more to ask: is it possible? Is "the people" possible as a monism or is that an illusion?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

It could be pluralistic, most likely. The people as a collective does not mean the people are composed of all the exact same substance so to speak, but instead implies that they have similar characteristics. It's pseudo-monistic in the sense of speaking about a group as singular, but also pluralistic in allowing for dissent and distinctions

 

[quatona]

But I meant the question more to ask: is it possible? Is "the people" possible as a monism or is that an illusion?

Is "the forest" possible as a monism or is that an illusion?

 

[Resha Caner]

It could be pluralistic, most likely. The people as a collective does not mean the people are composed of all the exact same substance so to speak, but instead implies that they have similar characteristics. It's pseudo-monistic in the sense of speaking about a group as singular, but also pluralistic in allowing for dissent and distinctions

Sounds good. So there is an idea of "you win some, you lose some" so that, on average, everybody gets at least some of what they want.

But is it possible that within "the people" there are some who are on the losing side most of the time?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If we're getting into elitism, then it gets trickier, since the people would be at least classified. Of course socialism and egalitarianism get into the notion of the people as not so much all parts of a whole, but members in a community. It becomes more dehumanizing when you view the people as an actual whole of parts.

 

[sandwiches]

Monism is the belief that there is one of something. For example, with respect to God, a Christian would be a monist: there is one god. An atheist would be a nihilist: there is no god. The ancient world tended to be pluralist: there are many gods.

So, it depends on the object being discussed. If one defines the "unit" as "the company", then there is one company. But if the unit is "people", there are many people working at the company.

So, here is my question: is the phrase "the people" that politicians like to throw around a monist statement? pluralist? nihilist?

As an example, here is a statement from President Obama: "The American people will feel I deserve a second term."

In politics, when the word "the people" is used, it is usually done to try to make one think that the majority or "the ones that count" are in agreement and think more or less alike. Everyone wants to belong to something and when we're told that "the people" prefer this or think that, we're implicitly supposed to want to agree with them to not feel like an outcast.

...unless you think you're noncomformist, in which case you'll try to belong to the people you think are in the minority. =P

 

[Xenocide]

I Believe That There Is Really Only One Person And We Are Just In His Head In A Dream That He Is Playing Out, We Are All Sort Of The Windows Of His Perception So To Speak

 

[Resha Caner]

I had decided that those who called my usage of "monism" unusual/misplaced were correct, so I was going to let this drop.

But since it has wandered into the realm of political philosophy, I suppose we can go with that.

In politics, when the word "the people" is used, it is usually done to try to make one think that the majority or "the ones that count" are in agreement and think more or less alike. Everyone wants to belong to something and when we're told that "the people" prefer this or think that, we're implicitly supposed to want to agree with them to not feel like an outcast.

...unless you think you're noncomformist, in which case you'll try to belong to the people you think are in the minority. =P

Agreed.

So what of those minorities? I know there are many in the U.S. who label themselves as Christians, but those who actually share my theology are pretty small in number. So, if I'm not part of "the people", to what lengths should I be allowed to go to live according to what I believe?

 

[sandwiches]

I had decided that those who called my usage of "monism" unusual/misplaced were correct, so I was going to let this drop.

But since it has wandered into the realm of political philosophy, I suppose we can go with that.

Agreed.

So what of those minorities? I know there are many in the U.S. who label themselves as Christians, but those who actually share my theology are pretty small in number. So, if I'm not part of "the people", to what lengths should I be allowed to go to live according to what I believe?

Personally, I think the standard should be the same regardless of whether you're part of a minority or not; to the extent that you don't cause undue suffering.

 

[Resha Caner]

Personally, I think the standard should be the same regardless of whether you're part of a minority or not; to the extent that you don't cause undue suffering.

Fair enough, though "undue suffering" is pretty difficult to define.

I guess I'm thinking in terms of creating a community that would live according to a set of religious principles. At the moment it seems the ACLU would step in and say, "No, you can't do that."

 

[sandwiches]

Fair enough, though "undue suffering" is pretty difficult to define.

Not really. Events can cause more or less suffering. So, if you have to inflict some suffering to prevent greater suffering, that's reasonable (Think: Cutting a leg to prevent gangrene to spread throughout the body.)

I guess I'm thinking in terms of creating a community that would live according to a set of religious principles. At the moment it seems the ACLU would step in and say, "No, you can't do that."

That's not true. As long as your community isn't state-supported and you're not breaking the law, you can do whatever kind of crazy community you want.

 

[Resha Caner]

Not really. Events can cause more or less suffering. So, if you have to inflict some suffering to prevent greater suffering, that's reasonable (Think: Cutting a leg to prevent gangrene to spread throughout the body.)

I understand the concept. Putting it into practice would be different. What unit of measure would you use for suffering? How would you know whether people are really suffering or whether they're just belly-aching? Or trying to work the system?

That's not true. As long as your community isn't state-supported and you're not breaking the law, you can do whatever kind of crazy community you want.

It is true. Think David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, Ruby Ridge, etc. They weren't state supported, but the state put a stop to them (and rightly so). And where does your definition of "state" start and end? Even though I consider myself a minority (as far as religious views go), I'd bet there are at least 10,000 across the U.S. who would agree with me. So, suppose we all 10,000 of us gather together in one place, buy enough private property to support us all, and institute an annual "membership fee" (i.e. tax) to provide funding for our "security team" (i.e. police) such that we can enforce the rules. Is that acceptable?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Think Amish.

 

[Resha Caner]

Think Amish.

Yeah, a good example. But even there the U.S. government has stepped in from time to time. Wasn't there a recent case of rape?

So, I'm asking, how far can a group go in asserting its separateness?

 

[UnReAL13]

I'm a Gnostic Atheist and a Pluralist. Monism is sort of like a pseudo-religion, and it's the philosophy that most Eastern religion is based off (Buddhism). Scientifically, this viewpoint can only be supported by the interconnection of matter on the quantum level of observation. The problem is that when we look at any other level of observation, we can see an obvious deviation of matter and energy.

Pluralism makes the most sense and is what our science is based off. It's much easier to segment reality and draw dividing lines between what is obviously separate. Rather than trying to implement some imaginary fabric of reality that encompasses all things. Monism is really just a subset of spirituality.