Physicalism Redux

[Laird]

Though you do seem to have an... interest in me accepting your definitions while apparently ignoring mine, because yours are "standard".

If you have an alternative definition of your own for pluralistic idealism, then (1) you haven't yet provided it, and (2) it would be non-standard, because I have referenced the standard definition through multiple sources. It's also the commonsense and logical definition. As you pointed out in a post over a month ago, if the "monistic" in "monistic idealism" was referring to idealism as a substance monism, then it would be redundant and tautological. Philosophers don't like redundancy and tautology, so it's obviously not referring to substance (type), and the obvious alternative is that it is referring to concrete instantiations (tokens) of that substance (i.e., the number of individual minds; one in the case of "monistic" idealism; many in the case of "pluralistic" idealism).

Sci gets this. I'm sure you do too, but you'd rather quibble and complain than plainly and simply acknowledge, "Oh, OK, I was wrong that 'pluralistic idealism' isn't a thing. Thanks for setting me straight about that."

Recognized by whom, exactly? That seems to be my point of confusion.

Nah, that's just the game you're playing to avoid acknowledging your original error. It's pretty pathetic and sad to see, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees it.