Pluralism is true, the compatibility problem is fake and you are as much of your own thing as a nature spirit and a god
>>42337125The one disagrees
>>42337125Possibly the final redpill is realising the amount of havoc wreaked on our philosophical thinking by Axial age religion
>>42337128The one is disagreeing with itself? Crazy lore
>>42337147I think people are slowly starting to get that, atleast the people that matter
>>42337125>plurismYou mean duality with a mustache?People go insane following some alien perspective implanted in them through trauma and conditioning.
>>42337160I personally figure that there must be a superhuge, possibly infinite amount of essences, i reckon any finite amount would have a bigger explanatory baggage than monism which is the only point i concede
>>42337177You're making it way too complicated.Go to the wilderness, sit under a tree, inhale through your nose, and exhale through your mouth. Focus on whatever is in front of you until you stop labeling it and see everything as connected. From the soil, trees, sky, etc.The microcosmos is the macrocosmos from your current vessel's perspective.
>>42337125But if you do monism just right you can trick yourself into thinking its pluralism anyway, so you can have both cakes
>>42337216Its just too complicated, it has too much unanswered questions >>42337195This is great, but how can you tell me with a straight face that this is the monistic unity you want to be true? It may instead, simply put, be special, maybe magical or divine or just chemical relationships between you and the surrounding area, and These are great, they are amazing, but labeling it as monism is a leap and yes ive done psychedelics too years ago
Pluralism and monism are the same fucking thing, dumbass. The plurality is the one. That's why it's *the* plurality. Monism is ontologically inescapable.
>>42337125Great to see this being posted. The rational path is from the base reality people collectively live in which is dualism to pluralism and onwards instead of going from dualism to monism and inwards. Some can say it's materialism. It does take a little bit of humility to understand we don't actually have it all right here.
>>42337497Too trivial, just word garbled up, two parallel lines can never meet and just because both exist doesnt make it one thing, if nothing else not in any for anything relevant way so were back at pluralism
>>42337125>the compatibility problemDo you mean the interaction problem of dualism?
>>42337125While we're on this subject, is there any other book that defends a pluralist position other than this one?
>>42337125Can you define what you mean by both monism and pluralism?
>>42337783Obviously >>42338057One fundamental substance/things or multiple fundamental substances>>42337996Honestly i think i have to make everything from scratch but atleast a book recommendation is nice
