(May 3, 2019 at 8:47 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: The "unity" discussed in the article has to do with Spinoza's merging of mind and body into one substance. Spinoza was a monist, and his metaphysics was a rejection of Cartesian dualism. Instead of Descartes' two substances: body (with extension) and mind (with consciousness/thought)... Spinoza proposed that mind and body are in fact different attributes of a single substance. To Spinoza there was one primary substance which he (annoyingly?) named God.
I think this is key, and that it brings up all kinds of issues which are still current. It's not something we can dismiss based on five minutes of Googling.
Since you're the only one of us who's actually read Spinoza, let me ask you: what is the best argument against his position?
What he's dealing with is relevant to a number of problems which remain for us. For example:
~ the Hard Problem of consciousness
~ possible panpsychism
~ issues in physics where mind seems to influence or determine the behavior of matter
If we stop to debate each one of these it will derail the thread -- I know each has been done to death around here. And I'm sure that certain people will be more than willing to pronounce the Truth in regard to each one of these -- unjustified confidence is not in short supply. I'm only bringing them up to wonder if Spinoza-type monism would offer a solution to these, and if there is any reason to rule out such monism at this time? If we were convinced of his position, would it tie up these issues?
And again, I know that according to the Immutable Laws of Internet Debate we have no burden of proof, and until Spinoza offers absolutely persuasive proof we have no obligations at all. But let's pretend we are people who, in good faith, would just like to know what's true, so we can skip debate dogma. What arguments do you know against monism?
