13

Why do any serious philosophers at all believe that only one thing exists in the universe? What are the reasons they give? And are there any serious philosophers that believe no thing exists in the universe?

Joseph Weissman
  • 9,590
  • 8
  • 47
  • 86
user107952
  • 6,620
  • 2
  • 26
  • 50
  • There is a deep link to Asian religions which offer some reasons. – Drux Sep 16 '14 at 07:19
  • The reason is simple. And this reason is an apparent (and real) connectivity of everything in the universe. But don't you think you get what this one thing one god means. One can be (and will be) represented by multitude too. Basically Monism is a deeper statement that everything is connected. Even two gods. Think about it. – Asphir Dom Sep 16 '14 at 12:21
  • Your question is rather too broad, as there are many different monistic theories. I was going to lay out a theist argument for monism of existence but realized it would become too specific and technical. – infatuated Sep 19 '14 at 08:39
  • I do say that. And don't call me Serious. –  Apr 22 '16 at 02:10

6 Answers6

11

Monism does not necessarily posit that there is one thing that is the whole so much as everything is really one kind of thing.

Just to give one quick example to show it's less crazy than you think in modern thought.

Many of todays leading scientists and quite a large percent of philosophers are materialists. Materialists are a type of monist as they believe the only thing that exists is matter (you can try quibbling by pointing out energy, dark matter, etc., but these are ultimately differentiations on the same thing according to the theory).

virmaior
  • 24,729
  • 3
  • 49
  • 105
  • 1
    +1. It's also worth mentioning that most scientists are also reductionists, and that the progress of science has reduced all the various types of matter down first to elements, then to atoms, then to subatomic particles and now to the level of different types of quarks. All matter is quarks, from the point of view of quantum mechanics. – Chris Sunami Sep 16 '14 at 12:19
  • 2
    @ChrisSunami: One extremely interesting observation that's been made about those fundamental particles: the equations that describe a particle and its anti-particle are identical if you allow the anti-particle to travel backwards in time. If this is more than just a mathematical quirk, it could mean that a matter/antimatter annihilation is actually that particle performing a U-turn in time. This would also explain why all quarks of a given type are indistinguishable from each other - every electron could actually be the same electron, zig-zagging back and forth in some 4+ dimension ballet. – Dave B Sep 16 '14 at 16:15
  • 1
    Can you cite a reference for that - "many of today's leading scientists and quite a large percentage of philosophers are materialists"? - I am unfamiliar with that study. – Swami Vishwananda Sep 17 '14 at 09:33
  • 1
    @ChrisSunami not all matter is quarks. For instance, Dave B mentioned the electron. There are a small number of known particles, the most recently added being the Higgs. Things have actually become more complex from when they thought everything was electrons, neutrons, and protons. Which is one reason why they are looking for another theory to simplify it again. – Richard Sep 17 '14 at 10:12
  • @SwamiVishwananda I googled it for you. according to this link, 93% of the members of the NAS are atheists. (http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/does-it-matter-that-many-scientists-are-atheists.) Atheists are almost to a T monists whether they call themselves or not. Sure, not all scientists are atheists, but I never made the claim about all scientists. For philosophers, I don't really need a study but I'm sure you can get the data from the APA. – virmaior Sep 17 '14 at 10:36
  • @ChrisSunami Non-quarks (Leptons, Neutrinos, Bosons, etc.) have already been mentioned. What the particle physicists are currently pushing is "Everything is Energy", including all matter. – RBarryYoung Sep 17 '14 at 17:45
  • I stand corrected on the matter of quarks and leptons. @RBarryYoung -interesting how close that comes to Everything is Thought – Chris Sunami Sep 17 '14 at 18:05
  • @virmaior This confuses Atheism with the "New Atheism", which philosophically is a narrow subset of atheism more akin to a strictly material empiricism. The popular publications and media may have convinced the general public that this is all that atheism is, but scientists as a group have the intellectual knowledge and skills to know that there's more to it than that, and generally seem to reflect a more diverse (and more traditional) view of atheism. – RBarryYoung Sep 17 '14 at 18:51
  • @RBarryYoung no, really, I'm not confusing the two nor do I see how the distinction between the new atheists and their more classic kin would matter here. Did you read the article I linked to? 93% of NAS members (i.e. leading scientists) are atheists. The APA has done surveys and well over half of professional philosophers are also atheists. – virmaior Sep 17 '14 at 23:47
  • @virmaior Again, the problem is that you are conflating "atheist" with "monist", they are not the same thing at all (however, "New Atheism" is generally monist). Many, many forms of atheism are non-monist, and in my experience this diversity is well reflected among scientists who are atheists. – RBarryYoung Sep 19 '14 at 15:32
  • @RBarryYoung I'm really not all getting where you're coming from, but you do have a pretty active imagination as to how I'm getting there. Let's simplify this. Specify a few types of atheists who are not monists rather than focusing on telling me where you think I must have gone wrong. – virmaior Sep 19 '14 at 16:15
  • @RBarryYoung best I can guess is that you're hinting that atheists in previous eras were more or less agnostic on a lot of the questions of dualism vs. monism because they saw the problems raised by monism as daunting. Or you're expanding the category of atheist generously. – virmaior Sep 19 '14 at 16:21
  • 1
    I think a correct statement might be that 93% of NAS members are atheists, not 93% of all scientists are atheists. All philosophers that I have met in my life have not been atheists. Unlike scientists of the past, most scientists today have have had no liberal arts education. Most equate a belief in God with a belief in a dualistic personal God with sits in heaven. They think that religion is American bible thumpers. They have never been exposed to monism. There is nothing in monism that contradicts science. – Swami Vishwananda Sep 22 '14 at 04:39
  • @SwamiVishwananda where did I state 93% of all scientists are atheists? You're dropping an important adjective in what I originally said that changes the meaning. You clearly haven't met many philosophers if all the one's you've met are not atheists. – virmaior Sep 22 '14 at 05:51
  • @SwamiVishwananda regarding your last three sentences, I don't get the relevance of your claim about "American bible thumpers" but I definitely haven't asserted anything about monism contradicting science. In fact, I take it that I've said the opposite. – virmaior Sep 22 '14 at 05:52
  • 2
    Virmaior, not a comment on you statement, a comment on the sad fact that most scientists in the US only receive an education in science, not in the other liberal arts. They have no grounding as to science being a philosophy and to the limits of science. Their only exposure to theological arguments is what they have heard from dualistic protestant preachers. I would be an atheist too if that was all I had been exposed to. – Swami Vishwananda Sep 22 '14 at 10:45
5

Spinoza in his Ethics had proved Proposition XIV

"Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived"

which has a Corollary I with this:

“...only one substance can be granted in the universe...”

Surely, now we do not consider such proofs as proofs. However, it reveals some truth.

If one conceives two independent substances, she should accept that they would interact. An interaction would demand a common ground, therefore it will undermine the independence and a monism becomes inevitable.

One can point to Christian God - he can influence without being influenced, but one can argue that this construction is too abstarct or too artificial.

Gelato di Cræma
  • 349
  • 2
  • 8
1

A contemporary philosopher who is defending a version of monism is Jonathan Schaffer, whose work can be found here.

  • 4
    This is essentially a link-only answer, which is discouraged on SE sites. You should at least include a summary of the content. – Tim S. Sep 16 '14 at 21:46
1

The notion of "thing" is a mental construct, and the reason to differentiate one from another is entirely arbitrary. In a gaseous world, the notion of "thing" is very difficult to comprehend.

My own attitude toward monism is that of an agnostic, i.e. there is not enough evidence to suppose monism is false and it is unnecessary to believe it is true.

Whitehead & Russell's Principia Mathematica does not require the existence of more than one individual for its primitive propositions. The axiom of infinity is added in the middle of the second volume as a hypothesis for the existence of aleph-null.

George Chen
  • 2,228
  • 1
  • 14
  • 23
1

The division of the world into separate "things" seems obvious, but may not withstand certain types (e.g. time-scales) of scrutiny.

Consider your body, for example: it sheds skin flakes; you eat and breathe; where does your body begin, and where does it end? Is it the same thing tomorrow, as yesterday? In what sense is it a thing that's objectively separate from other things?

ChrisW
  • 631
  • 3
  • 8
0

The present scientific materialists is not the norm when you study the philosophical musings of many of the great scientific minds from Newton to Bohr to Planck to Einstein to Schrodinger to name a few - over the centuries. Their ideas of "God" were a monistic one.

A good reference is "Quantum Physics and Ultimate Reality: Mystical Writings of Great Physicists" By Michael Green; it is a collection of writings of various scientists, including Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Pauli, Eddington, Dyson, Bohm, etc. To quote one, Albert Einstein -

"..I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.

"Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself to nature....I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research...Those who acquaintance to scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to those like-minded with themselves, scattered through the earth and the centuries...It is a cosmic religious feeling that gives man strength of this sort.

A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that is this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people....science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind....the main source of the present day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in this concept of a personal God."

They all have a great affinity to a monistic concept.

A good reference to study the various monistic traditions, Eastern and Western, and their differences is David Loy's book "Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy"

Swami Vishwananda
  • 3,640
  • 2
  • 20
  • 27
  • 2
    Two suggestions: 1) please use paragraphs and formatting. as written, it's very hard to read. Second, while many of the other answer (including mine) address materialism, your answer no differently concludes that many leading scientists across time are monists as in pantheists, which is a pretty hard position to defend from science by comparison. – virmaior Sep 17 '14 at 10:41
  • Monism is not pantheism. There is a great misunderstanding in the West, even among Western theologians and philosophers that equates monism with pantheism. – Swami Vishwananda Sep 22 '14 at 04:27
  • Loy's book Rocks. It is the first (and so far only) e-book have I bought. The last Hardback I bought new was "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism." –  Apr 22 '16 at 02:17