Talk:Dualisms

Expansion

I've added this page to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. I'd like to see it further developed (and possibly split into multiple articles as suggested above) but I don't really know enough about it to do it myself. Some ideas:

• More information on the concept of dualism in Western religion and mysticism.
• A comparison of Eastern and Western perspectives on dualism.
• Additional external links

This is a topic that I find fascinating, but don't know much about, so if anyone can add to it, I'd really appreciate it. -Zorblek 07:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

the term is used in such a variety of ways, within and across disciplines, that trying to improve this is a little like trying to take a dictionary definition and then create a compendium of how a word has actually been used. That being said, the literature on dualism and its cousin, binary opposition, in anthropology is large. I'd think there's a need for disambiguation, with articles on Dualism (general), Dualism (philosophy) and Dualism (anthropology/cognitive science). The uses in anthropology and cognitive science are close enough to warrant them being in one article. --Levalley (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Disambiguation?

True or false: This page deserves to be made into a dis-ambiguation page. 66.32.71.239 19:04, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

It seems that the pl: article treats only of dualism in religion, so it doesn't correspond to this article. Andres 07:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

shouldn't this be a disambiguation page? The several meanings are wholly different topics, and deserve independent articles. dab (ᛏ) 12:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is even better than a disambiguation page: It gives a brief intro to each meaning, and a link to the main article. However, if you think it should have "disambiguation" written over it somewhere, or if you think some of the intro's need mending, that's fine by me.--Niels Ø 09:12, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

HELLO ! NO update in here ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.72.83.232 (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

This page is a collection of discussions of different topics. It is not an article about one unified topic. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this page definitely needs to be split up. I'm not going to do it in the near future, but here are some thoughts on fixing this for anybody's feedback. All the sections above the philosophy of mind section could be merged with the page Dualistic cosmology, possibly with the new name "Dualism (cosmology)". The current contents of that page could become a section called "In traditional religions" or something like that. Somebody suggested this a few years ago further down the talk page.

As for the rest, the cybernetics section could become a new article called "Dualism (cybernetics)" and the content under "Political Dualism" could be added to Dualism (politics). There is already a very good article for philosophy of mind (Mind-body dualism), and anything valuable in the relevant section of this article could be added there if it's not already covered. Everything can be inserted into Dualism (disambiguation) if it isn't already there. The other philosophy section and the physics section are so short they can just be reduced to disambiguation (the physics one is already on Duality#Physics). Gazelle55 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Restored material from previous vandalism

I brought back some of the content which was present in the edit of August 12, 2005, but removed in a vandalism attack soon afterwards, and somehow never brought back since. Also I removed the link to the problem of other minds and the short paragraph about the history of mind-body dualism from the secion 'Dualism in Philosophy of Science', as those things seem to be unrelated to that particular notion of dualism. If anything, that link and paragraph should be under the 'Dualism in Philosophy of Mind' caption. Joost 17:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Mind-Matter Dualism in Eastern Philosophy?

This specific section looks like crap to me. It's full of a bunch of red terms, and the wording is unprofessional and seems a bit off a tangent. I'm not familiar with the material, so can anyone clear it up? Tyciol 07:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

While I do think the way the 'dualism' page and this one is set up beats a a disambiguation page, this could do with being merged into a larger 'dualism' page [which seems to me to be a good introduction.] Regardless of what format that page is in.

"Basque bargaining?"

This is a bit of a minor issue, but, while trying to fix all the links to the Basque disambiguation page for the Disambiguation pages with links project, I came across the term Basque bargaining (two links) here and decided to make it into one link, Basque bargaining. Unfortunetly, this page doesn't exist, and, while attempting to do Google and Yahoo! searches for the term, to see if there was a suitable page for it to be redirected to, I discovered that this page and copies of it on other sites were the only ones that used it.

So, basically, I was just wondering whether anyone knew what this term means and could redirect it or create a page for it (or remove it), since I feel uncomfortable with "fixing" a link by turning it into one to a nonexistant page. Thanks, Salmar 21:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Another solution would be to remove all the material relating to the "Emin Society", which is a rather obscure sect.1Z 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

'Movement' disambiguation link fix

Could someone please fix the movement link in "Fourth level: Balance and Movement" to the correct article instead of the movement disambiguation page? I'm unsure of the exact meaning of movement in this context so am unable to do it myself. Thanks --Kroevyn 08:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to link to motion. I hope that helps. Amalas =^_^= 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosopphy of Science

This section could probably do with some mention of Wave–particle duality, complementarity (physics)and symmetry1Z 20:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist Philosophy

This section does not make clear what is trying to make clear.

Typically, in Western philosophy, dualism is considered to be a dualism between mind (nonphysical) and brain (physical), which ultimately involves mind interacting with pieces of tissue in the brain, and therefore, also interacting, in some sense, with the micro-particles (basic building blocks) that make up the brain tissue. Buddhist dualism, in Dharmakirti’s sense, is different in that it is a dualism between not the mind and brain which is made of particles, but rather, between states of consciousness (nonphysical) and basic building blocks (according to the Buddhist atomism of Dharmakirti, Buddhist atoms are also nonphysical: they are unstructured points of energy)

What is the difference between interacting with a brain made of basic building-blocks (Western) and interacting with basic building blocks (Buddhist). What is the difference between 'mind' (Western) and 'states of consciousness' (Eastern)?

1Z 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Overzealous Appropriation of Buddhist Philosophy and Terms

I remember coming to this page awhile ago and having the origins of the word 'dualism' from the Sanskrit 'duas' which (I believe I'm paraphrasing here) 'soul'. Needless to say, This is false and has been fixed, But theres still obvious signs of "New Age was here" { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age }. Theres some blatantly false religious terminology and belief systems. In short, I believe that this article needs a more formal editing, If not an outright rewrite with notable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.233.253 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 April 2008 UTC

I can well imagine that that silly duas notion was provoked through association of advaita with 'nondualism'. And yes, most of this article is indeed "Overzealous Appropriation" of terms. But then again, many philosophy & theology articles are riddled with "Overzealous Appropriation", to include the confusion of monism with monotheism; confusion of any -ism with any -theism; and conviction that mono* is a sign of quality.

btw, are you volunteering to clean up? Or are you just surprised that duality in mathematics and physics hasn't been included yet? :) Aiiii. This article doesn't even mention Hyde, leave alone Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Huxley, Wolff, Malebranche, Eckles, Popper,... -- Fullstop (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Duotheism and Dualistic cosmology

Currently Duotheism, Bitheism and Ditheism all redirect to this article, which is actually pretty uninformative on the subject. There's one very brief section on it and nothing more. However, we have another article called Dualistic cosmology which is much closer to what we want in terms of explaining these ideas. It's written largely from an ethnological perspective, but that seems fine to me, and it could be expanded in scope if we wanted. I'd like to see these terms redirect to that article instead of this one, and give the Religious Dualism section in this article a "main article" link to Dualistic cosmology, rather than just a "see also". Perhaps eventually a name-change for that article would be in order. I'm going to investigate further and see what kinds of merging might need to be done, but I'd welcome any comments or ideas. Fuzzypeg★ 23:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yourdef of dualism

is crap. any noun with an -ism at the end is not a state, but a school of thought, in many cases it is hypostatic, meaning falsification, because it treats the subject (dualism) as a real thing and not a (abstract) concept. "Live and learn" said Mr Rosewater (by Kurt Vonnegut.) Vakeger (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What "Sat-Chit-Ananda" means In Vedanta philosophy

According to article -=> In Vedanta philosophy Brahman which has three fundamental attributes sat-cit (It is Chit and not Cit)-ānanda (Truth-Consciousness-Bliss). "Sat" is not "truth -(Satya)" but it means "Ever" (No beginning and No end). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.20.58 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

This unsourced information about Jehovah's Witnesses is incorrect and has been removed:

Arianism and Jehovah's Witnesses hold that Jesus is a created duplicate of God, created ex nihilo and not "begotten".

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that, as a created being, the Logos (Jesus) is the only-begotten son of God, not a "duplicate". They interpret "only-begotten" to mean that he is the sole direct creation of his father. Jesus was used as the means, or agent, to create all other things. (The Watchtower, December 15, 2008, page 12.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.52.171 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709073908/http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-a.html to http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-a.html#CHAPTERI
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305082331/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-05 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposing split and merger of this article

I'd like to propose that 1) this page should be split, 2) the remainder should be merged with Dualistic cosmology, and 3) this page should be redirected to Dualism (disambiguation). I suggested this above and didn't get any objections so I'm putting an updated version of what I suggested below.

Two main reasons for this. Firstly, as per WP:PTOPIC this shouldn't be under "Dualism" unless it's clearly the main topic with that name. However, this page has about 800 daily views (some of which may be intended for other meanings of dualism) compared to mind-body dualism with about 600, dualism in international law with about 200, dualistic cosmology with over 150, and dualism (epistemology) with about 100. Second reason is that as per WP:CONSPLIT the very diverse topics on this page should be separated and/or merged into the disambiguation page.

I suggest the following specific changes:

• The cybernetics section could become a new article called "Dualism (cybernetics)". It can then be added to the Dualism (disambiguation) and removed from here. Also a new article for "Dualism (Indian philosophy)" similarly linked on the disambiguation page.
• There is already a very good article for philosophy of mind (Mind-body dualism), and I added the part from this page that wasn't already reflected there. The section here can be removed. Same goes for Dualism (politics).
• Everything in the "Soul dualism" section that's not already on the page that already exists for that topic can be added there, and then the section can be removed.
• The other philosophy section is partly reflected on the disambiguation page with epistemological dualism, and the rest is so brief it will have to just be removed. The physics section is also brief enough to be deleted and I already added it on the disambiguation page.
• The four remaining sections could then be merged with the page Dualistic cosmology. The current contents of that page could become a section called "In traditional religions" or something like that, except the part on Gnosticism which could be combined with the material on Gnosticism on this page. The sections on this page already overlap each other confusingly so that could also be cleaned up a bit during the merger (or afterwards).
• This page will be left as a redirect to Dualism (disambiguation).

If I don't get any feedback within 30 days (required for a merger) I'll gradually start making these changes. Let me know of any suggestions/objections. Gazelle55 (talk) 02:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Having received no objections I'm starting the changes proposed above. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ya think, R'n'B? 1500+ dab issues. Yikes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. Too many issues. bd2412 T 16:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

On further review, the fact that there are different kinds of dualism does not render "dualism" ambiguous. Rather, it makes it a topic for a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. bd2412 T 21:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Many apologies for the redirects issue, I neglected that under the merger instructions. Thanks BD2412 for reverting in the mean time. Regarding the term Dualism, though, I do think it is ambiguous if you had seen it when I proposed the merger. It previously had sections on physics, politics, cybernetics, which are clearly separate, as well as a philosophy of mind section which I think almost anyone in philosophy would agree is separate (and already has its own article). I agree that all the remaining sections are related and can stay together as a broad concept -- so what's left of my proposal is just the merger with Dualistic cosmology. Sound reasonable? (Also I added the discuss merger template to the disambiguation article.) Gazelle55 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

As I see it, "dualism" has two major meanings, both long and widely known in both East and West. (1) Mind–body dualism, which is philosophical (and can be religious); and (2) dualistic cosmology, which is religious (and can be philosophical). I don't consider either to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I'm not sure that they can be easily brought within a WP:BROADCONCEPT. They're different ideas. (Descartes, closely associated with mind-body dualism, was accused of being an atheist. The Gnostics, closely associated with dualistic cosmology, were condemned for heresy.)

A beneficial side-effect of this episode has been to highlight how many of the links to Dualism, Dualist and Dualistic are unhelpful to readers - or just plain wrong. I would support a proposal to move useful content out of Dualism into the appropriate articles and to turn it into a DAB page. It'd take some work to clean up the incoming links; but it wouldn't be for the first time (I remember Talk:Vinyl, where fewer than 10% of the incoming links went to the correct page); and what matters above all else is making this encyclopaedia accurate. Narky Blert (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. If BD2412 doesn't reply within a few days I say go ahead as planned. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gazelle55: *applause* for spotting this problem, and for the clean-up work which you have already done. Earlier versions of this page contained a mish-mash of half-undigested and unrelated ideas. This sort of thing can slip under the radar until someone who knows the subject goes, "Yes, but...".

Redirect the links-in to, and add any relevant info to, the correct articles. If you're uncertain about the correct target, add a {{dn}} tag after the link. Once you have done that and have blanked this page, post a WP:RM (or, if you're really confident, a technical move request at WP:MALPLACED). If you've done the heavy lifting, your request will go like grass though a goose. Narky Blert (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging BD2412, mentioned in the post to which I just replied. Narky Blert (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to think of mind-body dualism as the primary topic of the term. That is the meaning addressed in the "Dualism" articles of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[1] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[2] The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[3] RationalWiki,[4] the New World Encyclopedia,[5] and other sources of this type.[6], [7] A quick glance of Google Books returns for Dualism also seems to strongly favor mind-body. Granted, the Catholic Encyclopedia addresses the religious sense,[8] and Britannica has separate articles for "Dualism (philosophy)" and "Dualism (religion)".[9] bd2412 T 02:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the primary topic, but only in philosophy. The other one is more likely to crop up in history, mythology, the studies of religion etc. – Uanfala (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a tremendously strong feeling about it, but I do think that these are the only two prominent uses of the term, and that for the general purposes of an encyclopedia, the philosophical meaning is more likely the primary. Either way, something will need to be moved to this title, whether it is that article, or the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 04:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could make it disambiguation for now and then watch for a favorite in terms of pageviews. I don't feel confident enough to make mind-body dualism the main at this point. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"I would tend to think of mind-body dualism as the primary topic of the term." I don't. I think of Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism and Daoism before that idea. A WP:PTOPIC is WP:NWFCTM. Narky Blert (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have said elsewhere, and I say again here: forcing a WP:WPOTIC when there isn't one is unhelpful to readers and is bad for the encyclopaedia. If you have some time on your hands, look at what-links-here to tetrahedron (unquestionably WP:PTOPIC) and fix the links which should be to Tetrahedron. If you have still more time on your hands, look at what-links-here to Esplanade and fix the links which should be to Esplanade. Narky Blert (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok so all the mainspace links are disambiguated or marked {{dn}}. Although more books and encyclopedias address the philosophical sense, there are now more than double the links to the religious sense and about equal pageviews (~400/day) so unless there are last-minute objections I'm going to request the disambiguation page be moved here and blank the page. Gazelle55 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dualism (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)