Dualism and Two Things

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

1. If I have one thing, and another thing, do I have two things? Yes, but only in 'having' them can I count two things.
2. If I see one thing, and see another thing, do I have two things? Yes, but only in 'seeing' them can I count two things.

So my question is: what must I be doing to count as 'two things' the independent things of dualism?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 830 • Replies: 15

No top replies

Re: Dualism and Two Things
John Jones

Quote:

So my question is: what must I be doing to count as 'two things' the independent things of dualism?

You have just answered your own question. "I" and "things". You have established yourself an "I" (mind, soul) that acts ("count") upon things.
I and Things. Soul and body.
Are you a cartesian, Jones?

0 Replies

You do apply dualism skillfully john. But the dualism val points out is a big thought to start out with. It may be easier with a smaller example.

Dualism is about not two things, but one thing from two sides.

Imagine the old glass of water. It contains 50% water. Now, is it half full or half empty? You can say both, and both are true.

And what is water? Is water a basic element? Or is it a mix of basic elements?

Music is a dance of dualism. The thing you hear as a coherent musical piece is in reality a blend of sound and silence creating an impression of oneness.

0 Replies

Reading!

0 Replies

Re: Dualism and Two Things

val wrote:

John Jones

Quote:
So my question is: what must I be doing to count as 'two things' the independent things of dualism?

You have just answered your own question. "I" and "things". You have established yourself an "I" (mind, soul) that acts ("count") upon things.
I and Things. Soul and body.
Are you a cartesian, Jones?

I can count two things as long as two things are in the same framework. For example, I can count in frameworks like 'seeing', and 'having', where 'seeing' is visual and 'having' is possession. In each framework the two things would stand out as two things. But they would not stand out as two things if one was in one framework, and the other in the other framework.

My point still stands. Even if you construct a metaphysical 'I' from my statement (which is cheeky, and I need not have to do that), what framework can I place 'I' and object in so that I can attend to a difference between them? For if I cannot assess a difference then I cannot say I have two things.

So I say again, dualism is not two things, as we normally understand two things to be.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

You do apply dualism skillfully john. But the dualism val points out is a big thought to start out with. It may be easier with a smaller example.

Dualism is about not two things, but one thing from two sides.

Imagine the old glass of water. It contains 50% water. Now, is it half full or half empty? You can say both, and both are true.

And what is water? Is water a basic element? Or is it a mix of basic elements?

Music is a dance of dualism. The thing you hear as a coherent musical piece is in reality a blend of sound and silence creating an impression of oneness.

The dualism you describe seems more like a monism. Certainly I can count two things in your examples. But if dualism addresses two different viewpoints of the same object, then, as it is the same object, I would say that we are talking about monism, and that we are not talking about dualism simply by taking two views of one object.

0 Replies

JJ, you might be interested in Martin Buber and his I-It; I-Thou relationship:

http://web.singnet.com.sg/~chlim/Chapter3.html

0 Replies

Letty wrote:

JJ, you might be interested in Martin Buber and his I-It; I-Thou relationship:

http://web.singnet.com.sg/~chlim/Chapter3.html

I would rather Martin Buber be interested in me, but I'll have a look at the old goat anyway to see if I can straighten him out.

0 Replies

My word, JJ. You have a sense of humor. Now how did we miss that?

0 Replies

Letty wrote:

My word, JJ. You have a sense of humor. Now how did we miss that?

You missed it?
What.. are you a mental mishap?
Is your brain chemistry spelt incorrectly?

0 Replies

Ah, the "spelt" gave it away, JJ.

0 Replies

John wrote:

Quote:

The dualism you describe seems more like a monism. Certainly I can count two things in your examples. But if dualism addresses two different viewpoints of the same object, then, as it is the same object, I would say that we are talking about monism, and that we are not talking about dualism simply by taking two views of one object.

I think what you call monoism is what I call the perfect circle. There is only one perfect oneness, and all understanding of the world besides this is a dualistic understanding. We have a way of defining things according to their direct oposites. We know light by it's absence, as we know peace because we know war. If we didn't have war there'd be no word for harmonious existence. Dualism is not an ideology, it is how we percieve the world through our imperfect senses. Luckily our spiritual powers are adequate to understand this, given time and concentration we are able to sum up all the dualistic impressions we recieve into a coherent oneness.

0 Replies

Re: Dualism and Two Things
John Jones

Quote:

My point still stands. Even if you construct a metaphysical 'I' from my statement (which is cheeky, and I need not have to do that), what framework can I place 'I' and object in so that I can attend to a difference between them? For if I cannot assess a difference then I cannot say I have two things.

I don't care about the "two things" Jones! The problem is in your own proposition: the "I" you use - that has nothing to do with metaphysics - establishes a rupture between you and "the other", "the different". It is in our own language. This is another kind of dualism: the "I" subject, and the "it" object.
When I say "I am Val", Val is the object. the thing-name. The "I" stands always behind.

In order to reject dualism I think you have to center your attention in the "I-subject".

0 Replies

Re: Dualism and Two Things

val wrote:

John Jones

Quote:
My point still stands. Even if you construct a metaphysical 'I' from my statement (which is cheeky, and I need not have to do that), what framework can I place 'I' and object in so that I can attend to a difference between them? For if I cannot assess a difference then I cannot say I have two things.

I don't care about the "two things" Jones! The problem is in your own proposition: the "I" you use - that has nothing to do with metaphysics - establishes a rupture between you and "the other", "the different". It is in our own language. This is another kind of dualism: the "I" subject, and the "it" object.
When I say "I am Val", Val is the object. the thing-name. The "I" stands always behind.

In order to reject dualism I think you have to center your attention in the "I-subject".

The term 'I' is a grammatical convenience. I don't have to make a substance out of it, and the sort of substance I would create would be arbitrarily chosen. Even if I did create a thing from a grammatical expression, I would still come across the problem I have already outlined (that dualism cannot be two things).

0 Replies

Re: Dualism and Two Things
John Jones

What is a "grammatical convenience"? And why is "I" a "convenience"? Regarding what?

0 Replies

Re: Dualism and Two Things

val wrote:

John Jones

What is a "grammatical convenience"? And why is "I" a "convenience"? Regarding what?

I do not lay claim to a metaphysical concept or substance by the word 'I' when I use the word 'I'. The term is a grammatical convenience that is used along with other words to convey the sense of a whole sentence. Some languages do not use 'I'.

0 Replies

Dualism and Two Things

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know