Pluralism vs Monism
I've been thinking a lot about pluralism vs monism. It seems obvious to me that there are many ways to describe our world. It also seems to me that relativism is meaningless, so objectivity wins out over relativism.
But will there ever be a way to completely describe reality as we know it?
It would be great if all world religions could come to some kind of agreement about the nature of reality. Are there only 2 options? Accept some kind of plurality (all religions are true), or accept that one world religion has gotten it right (and therefor we must accept that religion)?
Or is it the case that there is one "correct" view of reality (that has no basis in religion) and that we should all accept that "correct" view of reality?
It seems to me that the universe as we know it is not just one thing, it is many things. So, I'm a pluralist. I'm also not a relativist... But, I have entertained the idea of pluralism in regards to truth.
But will there ever be a way to completely describe reality as we know it?
It would be great if all world religions could come to some kind of agreement about the nature of reality. Are there only 2 options? Accept some kind of plurality (all religions are true), or accept that one world religion has gotten it right (and therefor we must accept that religion)?
Or is it the case that there is one "correct" view of reality (that has no basis in religion) and that we should all accept that "correct" view of reality?
It seems to me that the universe as we know it is not just one thing, it is many things. So, I'm a pluralist. I'm also not a relativist... But, I have entertained the idea of pluralism in regards to truth.
Comments (12)
Everything objective must be first thought, but there is no way to confirm that what is thought is the way things are. Perhaps the only way around relativism, while still retaining it and and at the same time limiting its scope, is pragmatism where only what fits and works out for us becomes the "correct" view of reality".
What if someone says, "I don't find pragmatism appealing....I like X instead." Must he be converted to pragmatism?
I am suggesting that pragmatism may be a way to confront relativism from within a relativistic standpoint. If our description of the world on a perspective basis leads to a plurality of possible interpretations, then pragmatism may be a way to thin out this plurality by choosing those interpretations which are better because they are more useful in living our life and similarly discounting those which are not.
What competitors do you have in mind and are they viable in a similar manner?
No, but that person must be able to show their "system" is a viable or superior contender.
I'm leaning toward just accepting that we may never find that complete system, and accepting that there are a plurality of views.
But I think there’s a cultural issue that’s behind the question you’re wrestling with. This is basically the Christian attitude of the ‘one God’ - and a jealous god, at that - and then Christ being the only way (‘I am the truth, the light, the way, no-one comes to the Father but by me’). You can add to this the early Christian dogma, ‘extra ecclesia nulla sallus’, meaning ‘no salvation outside the Church’. It all adds up to there being the One True Church, outside of which all are condemned. I think this was amplified, if anything, by the influence of Protestantism and especially Reformed Theology.
The issue is, it creates a worldview for which there is no room for dissent. To be a believer is to buy the package, recite the creed, and believe the dogma. There’s no room for questioning, which is regarded as the absence of faith or a falling-away or the work of Satan.
You could argue that this is the kind of attitude that is most likely to propagate succesfully, because it discourages individual interpretation, and encourages conformity. Believers are very easy to manage, practically by definition. It’s no coincidence that the Christian church speaks in terms of sheep and flocks.
I suppose fundamentalists of all religions will always see the world this way, but there are alternative readings. Philosophically, the statement ‘I am the truth’ can be read to say that Christ is the truth, as distinct from falsehood; so it’s not a contrast between Christianity and some other religion, but between truth and falsehood. ‘I am the truth’ is referring to an actual living truth, not this religion as distinct from that one. Read this way, the followers of other faiths follow the same truth, because it is, after all, truth, not this or that religious icon.
Thinking along these lines, there have always been some pluralists in Christian and other traditions. They see the various faiths as variations of the ‘perennial philosophy’ (although it’s true that this attitude is far more characteristic in India than in the West.) But it’s colloquially understood as the ‘many paths up the mountain’ approach - there is only one mountain, but many ways of climbing it - when climbing it, the paths may be a long way apart, but they converge on the summit. Take it with a grain of salt, but there’s also a grain of truth in it.
I’ll tell you a really interesting and worthwhile philosopher of religion, for a serious student like yourself. That is an English writer, not long deceased, by the name of John Hick. He was a lifelong Christian but was a recognised voice for religious pluralism after his experience in Birmingham early in his career. There’s a very good introductory on him here http://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/. Also his God has Many Names
Pluralism but not relativism seems to make the most sense to me as well.
The "subject/object" divide is always tricky, and also erroneous, I think. Obviously, if the different paths all lead to the same mountain peak, then the peak is "objective" in the sense of it being singular; we don't magically arrive at a plurality of mountain peaks while scaling the same mountain; we arrive at a singular peak. So you could view the subject/object dichotomy this way; the travelers on their paths up the mountain are subjects, moving towards the object; the peak. This is helpful, because, rather than, for instance, Christianity being the "one true faith", it's the peak itself which is the "one true". The Christian faith is one of several paths which lead to the "the one true".
Quoting anonymous66
And to emphasize what I'm trying to say, the "view of reality" has nothing to do with objectivity; so the concept of one view being objectively right is misguided. Again, what's objective is the goal. The view is, quite literally, the viewpoint from which the goal is seen; I see it from my corner of the internet, you see it from yours; my view isn't the correct one, nor is yours, but what's important is that we're viewing the objective goal as best we can.
Thank you for those comments. Much appreciated. (I just ordered God Has Many Names).
I always thought Jesus displayed a pluralistic view of religion in the way he dealt with the Samaritan women at the well.
On second thought, I just read the story again.. Maybe not.
I think the fact that there exists religious pluralism kind of discredits every religion itself. Think about it, if you had been born and raised elsewhere, you would have had different religious beliefs. If our founding belief and faith seems so arbitrary it makes question if you can really know wether your religious beliefs are true.
Look at the following argument for instance:
1. Your religious beliefs were instilled in you from childhood.
2. Therefore, your religious beliefs were not formed sensitively, or safely, or are at best true by accident.
3. Therefore, you don’t really know that your religious beliefs are true.
A belief is formed insensitively when the belief is false but you still choose to believe it. It is unsafely when you could have just as easily believed a false fact with the same reasoning. And it is unjust when despite the evidence you prefer to live in the lie.
Peoples strong beliefs can be defined by cognitive biases likeConfirmation Bias; tendency to search for , interpret and confirm ones's preconception, Endowment Effect; tendency of people to hold onto their value than adopt new ones despite the evidence or Sunk Cost Fallacy; placin the disutility of giving up ones faith higher than the utility of acquiring a new one.
Hmm, it seems to me that the objective world is relative.
Quoting anonymous66
Descriptions have a psychological component. Something only counts as a description if someone is psychologically satisfied that the putative description works as a description.
I’ve been thinking a lot about pluralism in this metaphysical sense and have come to agree. Each thing is it’s own “substance”, it’s own “stuff”, by virtue of it being finite. By virtue of it being absent in every other time and place in the universe, by having a particular position, a surface, a beginning and an end, each thing is wholly unique and particular.
The issue, I think, is if the universe is itself finite. This would mean the universe is just one thing, and the many things are its constituent parts.