Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Dualism in the history of philosophy is a direction based on the recognition of two substances, material and ideal. This phrase means the following: dualists recognize the real and independent existence of matter; they also recognize the real and independent existence of consciousness, independent of the material carrier.
Descartes is considered a classic example of dualism in the history of philosophy, although this example is not entirely correct, since Descartes still recognized God as the only original substance, primary in relation to consciousness and matter. Nevertheless, the dualistic tendency in Descartes ' philosophy is clearly delineated, since within the created world, according to Descartes, everything works exactly dualistically.
Dualism creates a big philosophical problem – the problem of the relationship between mind and body. Empirically, we know that consciousness and body interact with each other, but if the philosophical dualism is true, consciousness and body must be substantially different, which excludes their interaction.
Descartes himself and his followers tried to solve this problem in different ways.�
Descartes used the hypothesis of ” animal spirits – – semi-material information carriers that transmit information from the mind to the body and vice versa. This was essentially a reproduction of the Renaissance model with three levels of reality. The problem is that in a dualistic ontology, such spirits, in theory, should not have a place, since they do not belong to either consciousness or matter (and dualism recognizes only two substances).
Malebranche returned to the idea of God as the only substance and argued that the body and consciousness act independently, and the parallelism between them is explained by direct divine intervention (i.e., very coarsely, you thought you wanted to get up from the chair, God heard your thought and made your body get up from the chair).
Spinoza postulated that there is no dualism, and consciousness and matter are two modes (forms of existence, aspects) of a single substance that is identical with God. Thus, he adopted a pantheistic position, i.e., he identified God and nature (since matter / nature for him is a form of manifestation of a single substance / God).
In his work” The Tree of Gnosis”, Yoan Culianu argued that philosophical dualism is, in fact, only a variant of a more general religious dualistic attitude.�
In the context of the history of religion, the word “dualism” is usually used to refer to teachings that recognize the existence of two divine entities of equal power – for example, Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism.
Culianu's logic was as follows: although religious dualism has its own specifics, in it, especially in Gnosticism, ethical/theological categories (good god/evil god) often coincide with ontological ones (spiritual/material). Therefore, the good god is the lord of the realm of spirit, and the evil god is the lord of matter.
I think badly. Monism (especially materialism) is easier to understand and easier to explain the surrounding reality, reality. The being of things.
🙂 Especially with the help of diamat and isthmat.