Wouldn't non-dualism violate the law of non-contradiction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicHere_Hi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicHere_Hi

Guest
Non-dualism believes that everything is “one”. There is no “this” vs “that”. there is “this that”.

Wouldn’t this violate the law of non-contradiction?

In a non-dualist world, that means a thing can be and not be something in the same way at the same time. Thus it would be impossible to even observe this non-duality.
 
In non-dualism, there are no individual entities. A couch is not separate from a tree. There is also no external reality, since external would imply something outside of one’s own consciousness.

In dualism the couch and the tree are both individual entities that are distinct from each other and there exists an external reality outside of our own consciousness.
 
Oh I see what you mean. Non-dualism is genrally called monism. The philosopher Parmenides was the most famous monist in western civilization, and he had strong arguments. However, I would say that, although monism is not contradictory per se and in itself, it still implies a contradiction because one cannot really deny that a multiplicity of things exist. Sure, we can deny without contradiction that there are things outside the mind, but we can’t deny that there are many things. For example, even if you accept that all what exists is only in your mind, you still perceive many sounds, many colours, etc. And you cannot deny that you are indeed perceiving many things. If you perceive the colours green and yellow at the same time, you cannot at the same time believe that there are one thing. Even if you say that those colours are a kind of illusion, and that reality in itself is purely One, you already accepted that there are at least two existing things: the illusion and the One. So yes, monism implies a contradiction, and non-monism (or “dualism”, as you call it) is the only possible true solution.
 
Last edited:
I’m missing the motivation here. Why criticize a view that no one holds?
 
That is not quite accurate. A tree is not a couch yet they are both expression of the same fundamental being. Individual identity is real but it is a subset of a greater unity. A fish is not a wave but they are both ocean.

The last supper prayer of Jesus challenges us to think more in term of unity.
 
opop said:
I think the OP was thinking about Hinduism, which indeed holds this view.
Click to expand...
Hinduism certainly holds the view that everything is unified, but it’s not clear to me that it holds the view that there are no distinctions within the One. I’m sure there is a rich and vibrant tradition answering how there can be both unity and diversity (or apparent diversity) despite all things being one.
 
That is for sure. And even physics is looking to a model where all material things are energy patterns arising in an energy field. It makes sense to me. I guess I am a non-dualist, a qualified non-dualist. Are we not all expressions of a universal force of nature? and yet we cannot deny our unique individuality. And God? God transcends all these categories. But don’t we ave to admit hat we are at least vilified by God’s own will, intention and life?
 
Shakuhachi said:
That is for sure. And even physics is looking to a model where all material things are energy patterns arising in an energy field. It makes sense to me. I guess I am a non-dualist, a qualified non-dualist.
Click to expand...
I think there is a huge difference between:

(1) Only one thing exists.

and

(2) Only one type of thing exists.

The second claim has a some real evidence for it, even though it is highly questionable (physicalism would fit under #2). The first claim is not very precise (does the thing have parts?) and is very hard to defend.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I think I’m starting to get more clarity on the matter now.

So a non-dualist doesn’t believe one can be sitting in a chair and not sitting in a chair at the same time and in the same way?
 
No. But then it depends on what you mean by “one”. An individual person, a relatively independent autonomous psychical being, No. But the underlying reality of that being, the Being of all beings, the universe (that we are all expressions of) that is another matter.

Nondualism are most in conflict with the creator/creature duality. But even then, it seems to me, creatures are finite temporal expressions of the infinite, eternal creator.
 
Shakuhachi said:
Depends on what you mean by unchanging.
Click to expand...
remaining the same,
To gain new knowledge of a subject indicates a change.
If you gain new knowledge, your understanding of the subject has changed, so it would not be correct to say your understanding in this instance was immutable.
 
I think at the phenomenal level we are changing superficial expressions of the deeper unchanging God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top