Physicalism Redux

[Laird]

You're still not worth engaging with. (You're also wrong about what has priority on priority monism: hint, priority monism is by name and definition a monism).

[Laird]

Just to add one of many references for the record:

From the Merriam Webster dictionary:

pluralistic idealism
noun
: a system of philosophical idealism emphasizing the multiplicity of selves and their individual experiences
—contrasted with monistic idealism

[Laird]

Another, from the paper About Idealism: An Exploration of Some Philosophical Viewpoints that Put Mind Before Matter by Mark F. Sharlow:

Idealistic Theory No. 3: Pluralistic Idealism

Pluralistic idealism is the view that there are many individual minds which together underlie the existence of the observed world. Unlike absolute idealism, pluralistic idealism does not assume the existence of a single ultimate mental reality or Absolute. According to pluralistic idealism, it is individual minds which make possible the existence of the physical universe.

Pluralistic idealism differs from absolute idealism by denying that all minds are encompassed by one absolute mind. According to the pluralistic idealist view, individual minds are the sources of reality; it is the individual minds, not the Absolute, that do all the work. Pluralistic idealism also should be distinguished from subjective idealism. Although it is possible to be a subjective idealist and also a pluralistic idealist, most pluralistic idealists have regarded matter as the resultant of the activity of interrelated minds acting together, rather than as constructs built up from the contents of single minds.

Just to add one of many references for the record:

From the Merriam Webster dictionary:

Wikipedia I wouldn't consider a great source for much of anything, since anyone can edit it, and editing wars are a plague. I don't give much credit to dictionary sites, which can say absolutely anything, and even contradict one another on occasion.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/ doesn't mention Pluralistic Idealism ~ but there are mentions of pluralism, which doesn't really help much.

I found this, though https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james-ward/

The upshot of these two parallel lines of arguments—the critique of materialism and Absolute idealism—is that some form of pluralistic idealism must be true. And it is only natural at this point to turn to Leibniz, and especially so for a thinker so well acquainted with German philosophy. According to Ward, however, Leibniz’s metaphysics needs to be amended in one fundamental respect:

…the well-known Monadology of Leibniz may be taken as the type, to which all modern attempts to construct a pluralistic philosophy more or less conform. But the theology on which Leibniz from the outset strove to found his Monadology, is, in the first instance at all events, set aside; and in particular his famous doctrine of pre-established harmony is rejected altogether. (1911: 53–54)

Even here, Pluralism apparently exists within a Monistic framework.

Every reference I can seem to find regarding pluralism or the like implies a multiplicity existing within a fundamentally Monistic metaphysics and ontology.

Thusly, it seems that Pluralistic Idealism is simply still a fundamentally Monistic framework within which it is recognized that multiple instances of a base substance manifest, in perhaps different forms, though the core nature is still the same ~ mind.

[Laird]

You must be trolling, because surely you're not this idiotic.

Another, from the paper About Idealism: An Exploration of Some Philosophical Viewpoints that Put Mind Before Matter by Mark F. Sharlow:

Idealistic Theory No. 3: Pluralistic Idealism

Pluralistic idealism is the view that there are many individual minds which together underlie the existence of the observed world. Unlike absolute idealism, pluralistic idealism does not assume the existence of a single ultimate mental reality or Absolute. According to pluralistic idealism, it is individual minds which make possible the existence of the physical universe.

Pluralistic idealism differs from absolute idealism by denying that all minds are encompassed by one absolute mind. According to the pluralistic idealist view, individual minds are the sources of reality; it is the individual minds, not the Absolute, that do all the work. Pluralistic idealism also should be distinguished from subjective idealism. Although it is possible to be a subjective idealist and also a pluralistic idealist, most pluralistic idealists have regarded matter as the resultant of the activity of interrelated minds acting together, rather than as constructs built up from the contents of single minds.

This is the one source Wikipedia gives on this.

But it does nothing to suggest that Idealism is not fundamentally Monistic. It simply implies a plurality of minds, instead of a singular Ur-Mind into which all dissolve.

This has been sort of my position for a while ~ though I'd never heard of Pluralistic Idealism prior. I have simply moved on from the word "mind", which I find limiting in expression, due to its general connotations. "Soul", "spirit", I prefer more now. Something that is more transcendent and doesn't conform to our generalized pre-conceptions.

You must be trolling, because surely you're not this idiotic.

Perhaps you need to make your definitions more flexible.

I have long recognized a plurality of minds / souls / entities, though all share a common, fundamental nature.

Minds / souls / etc I have long considered eternal, immortal, undying, so there is no Ur-Mind to "return" to.

[Laird]

Perhaps you need to make your definitions more flexible.

I've shown you proof that my definition of pluralistic idealism is standard. I've also quoted you as having previously denied in absolute terms the existence of pluralistic idealism. The intellectually honest response would have been, "Oh, I see, 'pluralistic idealism' is a recognised term after all. I was wrong."

You're not, though, being intellectually honest. You're being slippery and evasive.

That you use different words to refer to the same idea is utterly beside the point. Of course you do, because it's a coherent and obvious concept.

That idealism is necessarily a substance monism as you keep on repeating is also utterly beside the point. Of course it is. Nobody's disputing that.

I've shown you proof that my definition of pluralistic idealism is standard. I've also quoted you as having previously denied in absolute terms the existence of pluralistic idealism. The intellectually honest response would have been, "Oh, I see, 'pluralistic idealism' is a recognised term after all. I was wrong."

Recognized by whom, exactly? It barely exists as a term. Maybe a handful of philosophers have used it, but it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. As it is, I'm not sure it is really accepted by the greater sphere of Idealist philosophers as an actual branch.

It can exist, of course, as someone's pet term for whatever they actually mean by it.

You're not, though, being intellectually honest. You're being slippery and evasive.

I'm not ~ not intentionally. I'm just thrown off by it, and am puzzled because it doesn't seem acknowledged except by a handful.

It's not even a major branch, or even majorly recognized.

That you use different words to refer to the same idea is utterly beside the point. Of course you do, because it's a coherent and obvious concept.

Because the description appears to resemble my own ideas, and the ideas of others, though I've never heard any others refer to their Idealism as "pluralistic".

It's barely referenced on a handful of websites.

That idealism is necessarily a substance monism as you keep on repeating is also utterly beside the point. Of course it is. Nobody's disputing that.

Then you weren't coming across entirely clearly in your statements, then. It wasn't entirely obvious what you meant. Perhaps it's in part because I'm tired, but you're not always clear in what you mean, even if you feel you are. I myself may be guilty of that myself at times.

[Laird]

Recognized by whom, exactly? It barely exists as a term. Maybe a handful of philosophers have used it, but it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. As it is, I'm not sure it is really accepted by the greater sphere of Idealist philosophers as an actual branch.

It definitely exists as a term with general recognition; its relative scarcity seems likely to be because, aside from Leibniz's monadism, the most common form of pluralistic idealism seems to be personalistic idealism (as corroborated by its getting an entire section under pluralistic idealism in the Wikipedia article on idealism), and that's the more common term to be discovered in discussions about pluralistic idealism. If you google for personalistic idealism you'll find a lot more meaningful hits than for "pluralistic idealism".

It can exist, of course, as someone's pet term for whatever they actually mean by it.

This is nonsense. It's not at all a pet term.

Then you weren't coming across entirely clearly in your statements, then. It wasn't entirely obvious what you meant.

I defined the term multiple times. You could have inquired if you were confused, rather than simply deny it outright.