Physicalism Redux

[Laird]

Are there any Pluralistic Idealists out in the world, or in history?

After doing some reading, I can now answer your question with:

Yes, very much so.

The Wikipedia article on idealism, for example, has a whole section on pluralistic idealism, which begins with:

Pluralistic idealism takes the view that there are many individual minds, monads, or processes that together underlie the existence of the observed world and which make possible the existence of the physical universe.[178] Pluralistic idealism does not assume the existence of a single ultimate mind or absolute as with the total monism of absolute idealism, instead it affirms an ultimate plurality of ideas or beings.

It lists as examples of pluralistic idealists (in the form of personalists):

• Hermann Lotze,
  
• Borden Parker Bowne (1847–1910),
  
• Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison (1856–1931),
  
• Edgar Sheffield Brightman,
  
• George Holmes Howison (1834–1916),
  
• J. M. E. McTaggart,
  
• Thomas Davidson (1840–1900),
  
• James Ward,
  
• Albert C. Knudson (1873–1953),
  
• Francis J. McConnell (1871–1953), and
  
• Ralph T. Flewelling (1871–1960).
  

It also says that Boston personalism influenced Peter A. Bertocci (1910–1989), as well as the ideas of Martin Luther King Jr.

It also, in an earlier section, describes Leibniz's monadology as a form of pluralistic idealism, as we had already concluded it probably was.

So, just as he was with respect to the general applicability of the type-token distinction...

I never come across any. Idealism is fully recognized only ever as Monistic ontology and metaphysics. "Monistic" Idealism is entirely redundant, thusly.

...Valmar is wrong about the validity and existence of pluralistic idealism too.

...Valmar is wrong about the validity and existence of pluralistic idealism too.

Considering I had never even heard about it before, I had no reason to consider it.

Regardless, it seems rather fringe overall, in that barely anyone recognizes it, nevermind by that name.

How is it not just another name for Priority Monism, albeit of Idealism?

From my short reading of the links, Idealism is still a Monism, in that there is a single base substance ~ mind, albeit many individual minds.

So, it's essentially just stating that there are multiple instances of the same base substance.

Each mind does not become a different substance ~ all minds share the same fundamental core qualities.

[Laird]

Considering I had never even heard about it before, I had no reason to consider it.

You went further than "not considering" it: you saw fit to make the definitive and absolute claim that "Idealism is fully recognized only ever as Monistic ontology and metaphysics."

You clearly had no idea what you were talking about.

Why do I make this point? Because this is a habit with you: on several occasions such as this you have gone out of your way to claim that something I have written is wrong, when it was in fact correct. It is a bad and irritating habit, and you ought to rein it in. It is one of the reasons why I have become in general disinclined to engage with you.

The rest of your post is just an attempt at minimising your error, and not worth responding to.

You went further than "not considering" it: you saw fit to make the definitive and absolute claim that "Idealism is fully recognized only ever as Monistic ontology and metaphysics."

You clearly had no idea what you were talking about.

Why do I make this point? Because this is a habit with you: on several occasions such as this you have gone out of your way to claim that something I have written is wrong, when it was in fact correct. It is a bad and irritating habit, and you ought to rein it in. It is one of the reasons why I have become in general disinclined to engage with you.

The rest of your post is just an attempt at minimising your error, and not worth responding to.

There is nothing in "Pluralistic Idealism" as I am reading about it that makes it not fundamentally Monistic.

There are still just one fundamental substance mind ~ but there's just the Many, just not an Ur-Mind.

So, really, it turns into a Pluralistic Monism. Similar-ish to Dual-aspect Monism, except from a different angle.

I must admit I've always found it hard to even consider an "Ur-Mind" because that implies thoughts, personality, etc, when a truly transcendent, infinite Allness would be beyond even the qualities we ascribe to the concept of "mind".

Even a Soul proper has certain qualities we ascribe to mind ~ desires, etc.

[Laird]

You still don't understand, or are stubbornly pretending not to, the type-token distinction, and the fact that number (monism versus pluralism) can be applied to both, so that when it comes to substance, there are both types of substance as well as concrete instances (tokens) of substances.

it turns into a Pluralistic Monism

That's about the only correct part of your post. Pluralistic idealism is pluralistic with respect to the latter (tokens of substances; individual minds) and monistic with respect to the former (types of substance).

You still don't understand, or are stubbornly pretending not to, the type-token distinction, and the fact that number (monism versus pluralism) can be applied to both, so that when it comes to substance, there are both types of substance as well as concrete instances (tokens) of substances.

I don't understand the token-type distinctions very well, but I do understand that different instances of mind are still fundamentally mind.

So there can be a plurality of distinct individuals all composed of a fundamental substance.

We are all minds, yet we are distinct individuals with unique perspectives and perceptions.

That's about the only correct part of your post. Pluralistic idealism is pluralistic with respect to the latter (tokens of substances; individual minds) and monistic with respect to the former (types of substance).

I've always recognized that there are multiple instances of mind ~ many, many individuals.

I've just never previously used or needed the vocabulary of "token" and "type".

So we're arguing over essentially nothing.

Using different sets of words to describe the same thing.

So I don't get your disagreements.

[Laird]

So there can be a plurality of distinct individuals all composed of a fundamental substance.

And as an idealism, that's called "pluralistic idealism", which a little over a month ago you denied the existence of.

So we're arguing over essentially nothing.

We're "arguing" over your prior denial that there is such a thing as pluralistic idealism. If you now concede that, OK, you were wrong, and there is such a thing as pluralistic idealism after all, then this "arguing" can stop.

And as an idealism, that's called "pluralistic idealism", which a little over a month ago you denied the existence of.

Because I didn't think it was a thing. I'd never heard of it before, anywhere.

We're "arguing" over your prior denial that there is such a thing as pluralistic idealism. If you now concede that, OK, you were wrong, and there is such a thing as pluralistic idealism after all, then this "arguing" can stop.

Whether there is such a recognized branch of Idealism called "pluralistic Idealism", I am unsure, but it seems to just be another name for Priority Monism of the Idealist flavour.

It has nothing to do with "being wrong". I'm not sure I need to "concede" anything. It just appears to be another name for something I was already quite familiar with, yet have never once called it by that name.

I've never placed much emphasis on types and tokens as you seem to do.

[Laird]

Because I didn't think it was a thing. I'd never heard of it before, anywhere.

That's probably the closest we're going to get from you to the concession that to be intellectually honest you ought to make: that you were wrong to deny the existence of pluralistic idealism via the definitive, absolute statement that (bold added by me) "Idealism is fully recognized only ever as Monistic ontology and metaphysics".

Whether there is such a recognized branch of Idealism called "pluralistic Idealism", I am unsure

Then you are simply, and remain, ignorant. I have seen it referenced in plenty more places than the Wikipedia article on idealism.

but it seems to just be another name for Priority Monism of the Idealist flavour.

It's not. Priority monistic idealism and pluralistic idealism are distinct, although the boundaries between the two might at times blur, and whether any given idealism fits one or the other might sometimes be ambiguous, such as for Leibniz's monadism.

That's probably the closest we're going to get from you to the concession that to be intellectually honest you ought to make: that you were wrong to deny the existence of pluralistic idealism via the definitive, absolute statement that (bold added by me) "Idealism is fully recognized only ever as Monistic ontology and metaphysics".

I could not "deny" what I did not know was meaningfully a concept. But what I will deny is an Idealism that is not Monist, because that doesn't make sense. There is no non-Monist Idealism.

Even Pluralistic Idealism is still Monistic in ontology and metaphysics, it would appear to my understanding of reading it. There's no contradiction between there being a singular base substance ~ mind ~ and a plurality of instances, individuals, of that substance.

I am not at all certain of being "intellectually dishonest" as you are implying.

Then you are simply, and remain, ignorant. I have seen it referenced in plenty more places than the Wikipedia article on idealism.

Then that's a new one for me. The Wikipedia article has merely on reference to one website, so that would almost relegate it to being relatively unknown in the greater sphere of the Idealist branches.

It's not. Priority monistic idealism and pluralistic idealism are distinct, although the boundaries between the two might at times blur, and whether any given idealism fits one or the other might sometimes be ambiguous, such as for Leibniz's monadism.

I struggle to see a meaningful difference, overall.

In Priority Monism, the Many are given preference. In Pluralistic Idealism, the Many manifestations of mind take precedence over the concept of an Ur-Mind.