from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. An advocate of monism.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. A believer in monism.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. An adherent of the metaphysical doctrine of monism in some one of its forms.
- Same as monistic.
Sorry, no etymologies found.
I don't mind being called a monist, but I naively suspect that "subjective conciousness" can be explained with upcoming advances in "physical" theory.
‘Into the Cool’ is exactly the kind of monist ‘Unified Theory’ material I was referring to.
Yet it would seem that such a proposition must be held by a materialist, or by what can be implied by the term "monist," used in its narrowest and most unphilosophic sense -- a sense which would be better expressed by the term materialistic-monist, with a limitation of the term matter to the terrestrial chemical elements and their combinations, _i. e._, to that form of substance to which the human race has grown accustomed -- a sense which tends to exclude ethereal and other generalisations and unknown possibilities such as would occur to a philosophic monist of the widest kind.
I suppose what I'm saying is, there are a variety of views that can mesh with the science – dualist, monist, and otherwise.
Forgive me when I talk about views 'you' can take – dualist or monist.
Now, I don't deny that you can take a monist view that accounts or allows for these things, and slap the label 'materialist' or 'physicalist' on there.
He likes Type-F best, but also acknowledges that similar to Type-F, a Type-I monist (i.e. idealism), is also viable solution.
That was the point of my post with regards to Galen Strawson (who denies free will in any meaningful sense, but at the same time also upends the cart that is materialism in the Dennett/Churchland/etc sense) and the rest, who all come close to each other one what the universe is 'really' made of, while at the same time they call it materialist, not-materialist but monist, or out and out dualist.
I don't think of my belief system as monist or dualist … it only so happens to appear dualist, in that I factor out Mind and think of it as distinct from matter.
Regardless of the extent to which the Supremacy Clause reflects a monist approach to treaties, I think you need to remember that in the 18th Century, treaties were about diplomacy and statecraft.