Comments on “Bad ideas from dead Germans”

Dear David,

I encountered a distinction during my undergraduate degree within western philosophy between metaphysical monism and mystical monism which opened up some new considerations for me, hopefully they’re not so amateur as to be irrelevant here. Mystical monism is the definition I was most familiar with and it is understood by western philosophy to mean something like union with the divine. Metaphysical monism is used to mean a theory which asserts that reality is of one substance and I think that that can sometimes signify an underlying condition and sometimes not, depending on the theorist. My point about the second monism is just that it doesn’t seem to imply a lack of multiplicity, and despite a possible similarity between ‘underlying’ and ‘ultimate’ doesn’t necessarily demand a hierarchy of some sort.

At the time one of the thoughts that occurred to me related to the Buddhist view of reality as the non-duality of emptiness and form, which within Buddhism, also exists (as a definition of reality) alongside other seemingly ultimate descriptions such as ‘primordial purity’ or ‘clear light’, which I think are intended as descriptions which characterise everything. So, I wondered whether Buddhism falls under a metaphysical monism, in that it describes everything as primordially pure (i.e. has a single defining characteristic) for example, and also allows for multiplicity. According to the lecturer who had to suffer my questions on the matter (he is a Hegel expert), Hegel falls under this allocation i.e. his concept of Absolute Spirit is a metaphysical monism that has little to do with the glomming together of substance or an ultimate level of real reality that is distinguished from a less ultimate level (in its attainment, if you see what I mean?).

One last thing. You mentioned in your reply to another comment that feedback was welcome on the content of the blog generally, well, might I say, in relation to the stuff on the page ‘An improbable re-animation’ for example, too little too soon? Put it this way, I look forward to more,

all the very best,
Alex.

It cannot be an accident, any more than it is an accident that our mental and our bodily powers are extinguished together at death, that thought and language arrive together, in Hegel, at the highest degree of corruption of which either is capable.</o>

Love the title. Just read this and it comes at the right time for me - brilliant. Thanks.

William Peiris: The Western Contribution to Buddhism - Germany

Hi, David,

All my appreciation for your blogs, I will surely follow them.

Greetings from Hungary,

Máthé Veronika/roni

Interesting that you see monism as a denial of diversity rather than an embrace.

A monist view cannot be expressed ‘monistically’, as all language is dual by it’s very design - a means to COmmunicate. Thus people easily fall into the trap of using the limits of dualistic communication against any monist position. Shooting the messenger so to speak. Rational, yes, but as in rationing into parts. Thus, monism is erroneously seen as a separate part like all other thoughts (and in that way, is indeed made separate, by mind (the very error is seeks to point out). Nice little trap in this thinking business.

It is not a matter of one vs many. It it that many arise of one, and one appears as many, and so both. Neither having any meaning beyond our relative perspectives - aka Mind.

In essence, various expressions of monism will always fall short in message, as they point to an internal recognition of the fundamental, and so are not workable as an external teaching. Many ancient and modern texts attempt to address this in their teachings, but without personal insight, they are unlikely to shed any light.

Since you reference Buddhism, lets look at its first teaching. This error is akin to the desire to end suffering being rooted in its very cause. Most see the 4 Noble Truths as a prescription, and try to apply it to end suffering, rather than heeding the inherent warning that reveals its end without effort. Approach it as a Zen Koan, directly. Not as a doctrine to follow. Buddha was a slick one. Attachment to anything is separation from everything. Nothing sticks (impermanence), and if it does (attachment), cut it loose (‘liberation’).

Is it just your informal observation that the two senses of materialism “typically co-occur,” or do you have hard evidence for this? It hasn’t been my experience at all.

Your guess is correct: the organizer for the Philadelphia LW meetup group offered these posts as a discussion prompt.

Which things seem to co-occur will strongly be affected by your social milieu. Being a politically active socialist, I may know a disproportionate number of people in whom metaphysical materialism and ethical altruism co-occur. Still, I’m skeptical of the claim that there’s an overall correlation one way or another – especially since the kind you suggested sounds so much like an old anti-atheist stereotype.

I’d also remind you that people’s accounts of the reasons for their own attitudes, even if sincerely believed, aren’t necessarily accurate; we aren’t “reliable narrators” of our own motivations. In particular, I think people are wont to ascribe intellectual sources for habits that are really emotional or innately dispositional in their origins.

Western-style monism is the claim that there is only one entity, or kind of entity. Variations include Material monism, the idea that all is matter, and idealistic monism, the idea that all is mind, and neutral monism, the idea that all is neither matter nor mind. All three kinds are compatible with the idea that there are multiple, genuinely distinct, individual entities – multiple tokens, but all of the same type. Eastern-style nondualism is sometimes equated with monism, but there are differences. Nondualism is the idea that there are no fundamental distinctions in reality. Nondualism therefore at odds, with materialist and idealistic monism because both assume the validity of a fundamental distinction in order to “take sides”, to claim that one of two possible answers to a question is realised and the other not. (Neutral monism is closer to Nondualism). Nondualism is also incompatible with the fundamental distinctness of individuals,, since it rejects the validity of the whole-part distinction. It is therefore aligned with mystical monism, the belief that it is possible for an individual to conjoin with the Absolute in henosis, mystical union. (From the nondualistic point of view, this is seen as the shedding of illusions of seperateness, uncovering a pre-existing state). Since nondualism is incompatible with the fundamental distinctness of individuals, it must explain the fact that they are apparently different. This they do by , maintaining that the appearances are deceptive. This theory of illusion, or Maya, often accompanies the theory of Nondualism, or Advaita, in the Asian context. In the Western context, Nondualism is often linked to idealism. Given the preceding explanations, it would be a contradiction to say that the ultimate ultimate nondual reality is mental as opposed to material. The relevance of idealism to Nondualism is via the Maya theory. A unified nondual reality that appears to itself –there is nothing else for it to appear to – multiple and divided, must have intrinsic abilities for appearance and perception. But these abilities are not exclusive of any others. Nondual reality cannot exclude any possibilities, in the way that idealistic monism excludes materialism, and vice-versa. Idealism itself means different things in the Eastern and Western contexts. In the West, the emphasis is on mental content and process, in the east on pure consciousness and awareness. (Compare with kataphatic and apophatic mysticism). For instance, in Hegels Absolute Idealism, Geist propels the unfolding of history as it shifts from one unsatisfactory stance to another. In contrast, Nisargadatta Maharaj ‘s “That” stands aloof from both worldly existence and history. Pure consciousness is credited with the ability to reflect itself in a variety of ways, leading to the illusion of a complex world, in a way that can be illustrated with the analogy of a hall of mirrors, or “Indra’s Net”. Some Western philosophers hold to the Pure Consciousness version of idealism, and some of them use the invalid argument that because consciousness is epistemically primary, it is also ontologocally primary (eg Peter Zuban). The conclusion is a non-sequitur; it is also incompatible with Nondualism, which can only grant consciousness a penultimate reality.

Yes, my “unreliable narrators” point was partly about using philosophical materialism as an excuse. But it was also, inversely, in response to your saying some people are altruists because they’re materialists. They may believe that, but I’m dubious. It certainly can’t be the whole story, else all materialists would be altruists.

Hi David

There are current forms of monism/nondualism that are confused,and versions that are not. Some people are getting it wrong, others are not, it is not a given that all monism is uniformally wrong, so it does require analysis to identify genuine mistakes.
The danger in treating monism in broad brush strokes is that you are not going to give a fair hearing to the 10% that isn’t crap.

(I am not in fact selling monism as as opposed to pluralism: I think a number of approaches coalesce in their done-right forms. But that us going to be invisible if whatever has been placed in the bucket labelled monism stays there forever).

There’s no system that’s so unconfused that someone can’t get confused about it.

It may be that monism is misunderstood. Lots of things can be misunderstood.

It may be that monism doesn’t mix well with Tibetan Buddhism. Many mixtures don’t work. That would mean mixtures are bad.

“The stereotype of “spiritual” people (such as New Agers) is based in fact: monist practices make you scatter-brained. Monists are always following their latest “divine intuition” or “message from the universe,” hopping from one unrealistic path to another.”

Monist practices? I have heard of Vedic study and self inquiry..

“They rarely have enough stability to get anything done.Monism’s insistence on a unitary Higher Self makes it impossible to find workable compromises among conflicting motivations.

Which is something that would only happen if you confuse the Higher Self with the apparent, conventional self.. something monists are told not to do, on page 1

“If the great teachers and traditions of the world have agreed on anything, it is this: we are not who we think we are, and there is more to “what is” than meets the eye. “

(The Closely Examined Life, Self Inquiry as the Direct Path to Truth by, Carol Skolnick, page 1, line1)

Of course there may be monists who are so confused that they are not even on page 1.

There may be Tibetan Buddhists who’re confused that they think it means banging your head one gong all day. I don’t know. But I know they are not going to be used as argument against Tibetan Buddhism,

Hi,

I’m glad I recently discovered your blog. I’m a philosophically minded scientist (in training) with a recent interest in Eastern-flavored ideas, so it’s a good fit for me. However, you say “Many [of these ideas] are almost right, and perhaps none is entirely wrong.” Why then do you call them bad ideas? I’m assuming you don’t mean it too seriously, but surely the notion that ideas like this can be separated into “good” and “bad” ideas is badder than all those listed!

Glossary: essentialismx
ERROR: could not find a definition for essentialism. Please report this problem to the author.

Hello David,

I was reading your blog while putting off writing an essay - and then I ran across this quotation while doing research for it:

“It is now about twenty years since the whole race of Germans began to ‘transcend.’ Should they ever wake up to this fact, they will look very odd to themselves.”

—Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1826)

I figure you’ve got to pass on the things that make you laugh out loud.

-a pseudonymous millennial apprentice

Much of what you mentioned as their core ideas does converge with or almost directly replicate the ancient eastern wisdom traditions though.

F.e. the “True Self” (even though this term is somewhat misleading): “What most people mistake as their selves is just an outer shell, the ego. It is created out of social conditioning and is divorced from our true essence.

The true self lies beneath the ego. It is normally hidden, but can be accessed through special means.”

Isn’t this what Sutrayana Buddhism and in fact all nondual schools teach? Only that the “true Self “/Buddha Nature isn’t hidden since it’s with you permanently, but one has forgotten to realise it.
The Hindu’s notion of Atman and Brahman being identical is basically the same as Anatman/No-Self being Buddha Nature.

The only thing that remains to be said is that American spirituality is based on a superficial interpretation of German idealism. In particular, I think it means to grossly misunderstand guys like Hegel and Schelling to say they thought that ” True reality is the domain of Spirit, which is pure and simple. ” While it is easy to come away with this impression of a first reading, it is hardly the point of their philosophy.

For what it is worth, I recently tried to explain what “absolute idealism” is all about as briefly as possible. If someone is interested: https://not-the-territory.blogspot.com/2021/12/why-idealism-doesnt-contradict-science_20.html

Your slagging of Romanticism might have more credibility if you had bothered even to read the Wikipedia article to which you linked, let alone any more sophisticated accounts of the German Romantics.

While I am tempted to observe that it is a shame that the Schlegel brothers and Novalis didn’t have a sharp guy like you around to set them straight and leave it at that, I will instead recommend a book, Rüdiger Safranski’s Romanticism: A German Affair, in the hope that reading it will amend your superficial and puerile characterizations of their ideas.