What is Dualism - courtesy of A_Smoking_fox Options

What is dualism.

When we have established what we think dualism is, A_Smoking_Fox would like to branch off into and discuss different parts which will probably go into a new thread.

Which part of dualism are we interested to explore in this topic.

So any offers?

Well, what we were to explore and the definition was changing gradually, as we need to end up with one definition, which we would agree that express what dualism is for us.

What we was saying to discus is if x and y thoughts, or things, or states, which mind considers dualistic could be one thought, or thing, or state and their duality an illusion of our mind, or not (if it isn’t an illusion). X and y described, exactly, by scientific definitions excluded of topic.

We probably will need to use references to substantial, property and predicate dualism, as well as the way our mind works, amongst other approaches that might occur in the process of our exploration, but the topic is none of them.

We maybe could say that we want to debate the dualism itself, in the specific area (and only in it) defined and restricted by the topic, and see where it will lead us.

But we need to reach a definition of dualism with which we are all to agree first.

I use your model to classify different dualistic terms, and it end ended up, with it forming a little bit differently for me:

Contradictory
1. dichotomy: x / not-x
2. polarity: x / y
3. antithesis: (x vs. y) and (y vs. x)

Complementary
1. dichotomy: x / not-x
2. polarity: x / y
3. antithesis: (x vs. y) and (y vs. x)

I think that any dichotomy (x / not-x), or polarity (x / y), or antithesis: [(x vs. y) and (y vs. x)], could be seen as complementary, or a contradictory and whether someone classifies two terms as one or the other (complementary, or a contradictory), depends on his philosophy and general approach of life.
It could be helpful to have a structural model for the dualistic terms to refer to. Maybe we could change it in a way that we all find it acceptable and include it in the definition?
But Praxis, we still need your definition of dualism. As A Smoking Fox suggested, modify the definition that we had reached some post above, or change it completely, just provide us with the reasons why you are not agreeing with it, as it will be helpful in order to conclude to a definition acceptable by all of us. Or, simply let us know if it is acceptable by you as it is.

This post has been edited by alia: Mar 3 2006, 04:22 PM

Well, 'Fox - I just re-read the entire thread again, and I think that I finally got what you two meant with regard to a definition.

So, let me take one step back - to make sure that I join you two a bit more, here.

Dualism is the theory that considers any possible thought or thing, to consist of only two different and irreducible origins or categories of the element.

I would probably have written that as:

Dualism is a theory for explaining experiences according to two different states.

- which does not really change the essence of what was meant, but just seems to me to make it a little broader (because dualism can be used for explaining more than either thoughts or things), and bit more concise.


But now, let me ask a question here, because my attempt to make it more concise might be from not clearly compreheneding this:

Could either (or both) of you explain again why the specific phrases "irreducible origins" and "categories of the element" were included?