Critiques of monism

This page is unfinished. It may be a mere placeholder in the book outline. Or, the text below (if any) may be a summary, or a discussion of what the page will say, or a partial or rough draft.

Monism can be criticized from the points of view of dualism, nihilism, or the complete stance.

The dualist and nihilist critiques of monism appear to have lost some of their effectiveness recently. The new monist pop spirituality has flown in the face of these critiques. It appears to have developed a new rhetorical technique for bypassing them.

I hope that a new critique, based in the complete stance, will be more effective.

Navigation

This page introduces a section containing the following:

This page is in the section ⚒ Monism,
      which is in Unity and diversity,
      which is in Doing meaning better.

This page’s topic is Monism.

General explanation: Meaningness is a hypertext book (in progress), plus a “metablog” that comments on it. The book begins with an appetizer. Alternatively, you might like to look at its table of contents, or some other starting points. Classification of pages by topics supplements the book and metablog structures. Terms with dotted underlining (example: meaningness) show a definition if you click on them. Pages marked with ⚒ are still under construction. Copyright ©2010–2017 David Chapman.