From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy / Metaphysics / Religion / Mind (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Additional information:
Taskforce icon
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of mind
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
B checklist
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

A section in Islam[edit]

I've added a refuting statement about Monism in Islam. Surah Al-Kafirun is strongly denying any kind of compromise of Tawhid of the One God. Therefore, I would strongly suggest all other statement of Islam supporting Monism is to be removed within that context.

I've moved the view on Sufism to a new section because it is not compatible with general Islamic world. Sufism itself if different from Islam.

I've also removed this statement;

"According to Vincent J. Cornell, the Qur'an also provides a monist image of God by describing the reality as a unified whole, with God being a single concept that would describe or ascribe all existing things: "He is the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward; He is the Knower of everything (Sura 57:3)".[1]"

Please read the cited sura. It doesn't tell you anything about Islam supporting Monism.

I've also removed this statement;

"Another verse in the Quran is "To God belongs the East and the West, Wheresoever you look is the face of God.(Sura 2:115)"."

The same thing, this is a very blurry attempt to connect Islam and Monism.

  1. ^ Vincent J. Cornell, Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol 5, pp.3561-3562

A section in Hinduism[edit]

I removed the section that said "Monistic theism is not to be confused with monotheism where God is viewed as transcendent-only. In monotheism, the notion of immanence or actual presence of God in all things is absent." As it not only has no evidence, but is also not true. -- (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The section on "A course in Miracles"[edit]

The section on "A course in Miracles" seems almost more of an advertisment for that course rather than discussion on Monism.

Does monism always have to do with the relationship between the physical and the mental? Would "monism" also apply to the claims that, for example, life and non-life are really "the same", that matter and light are really "the same", or that mind and matter are really "the same"? --Ryguasu 00:57 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

While not really a term i think Hinduism should be categorized under the term monopolyism, becuase hinduism worships one essence in many different forms. Any way just a crazy idea,

  thanks, anvilx

Does monism always convey the sense that there is one true and correct level at which to describe all of reality - a sort of extreme reductionism? Can you hold up the banner of "monism" and yet still believe that, say, the biological cell is every bit as "real" as the quark? --Ryguasu 19:37 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)


Does your removal of the parenthetical disclaimer about eliminativism and monism mean that, in your understanding, eliminativism is always a type of monism and never a type of, say, dualism? While I don't know of any dualist eliminativists, this certainly seems a logical possibility. Or perhaps your removal was based only on lack of clarity. --Ryguasu 06:18 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)


The Nazi's were the actual ones that had "disbanded" the "Monist League", in the first place, so to call the "Monist League" Proto-Nazi is really very misleading indeed!

A slandered COSMOTHEIST!

This link is relevant to "Monism" as COSMOTHEISM is NOT MONISTIC, contrary to your mistaken "belief" that it is:

"Other characteristics of pantheism that shed light on Pierce's Cosmotheist beliefs include:

It needs to be underscored that most pantheists are not monists. They aren't saying All is One. They aren't contending that there is only one Being and that all reality is either identical with it or modes of it. They are pluralists. That is to say, they believe that there are many kinds of things. They don't regard the existence of real, finite entities as inimical to unity. As pluralists, these pantheists don't see just one human nature but various human natures. Pierce carries this idea over to race. Where some would see one human race, he sees a number of human races."

MIRV, you are just being an ignorant bigot, as usual.

The link is quite relevant to both Monism and to Pluralism and to COSMOTHEISM.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

If you want to add that link to cosmotheism, you can do that once the issues that led to that page's protection are resolved, but don't add it to other articles: it is not directly relevant to the topic of monism. --No-One Jones (talk) 00:37, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is directly relevant just as pluralism is directly relevant as monisms own opposite.

I am getting tired of your lying hypocrisy and reverts, MIRV.

We can revert until the cows come home, until and unless MIRV, you can demonstrate HOW and WHY these links are irrelevant or not?

Monism is the philosophical view in the area of metaphysics that only one sort of "substance" or "stuff" ultimately exists. Monism is to be distinguished from dualism, which holds that ultimately there are two kinds of substance, and from pluralism, which holds that ultimately there are many kinds of substance.

Monism is often seen as partitioned into three different kinds:

  1. Physicalism or materialism, which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental can be reduced to the physical
  2. Idealism or phenomenalism, which holds the converse
  3. Neutral monism, which holds that both the mental and the physical can be reduced to some sort of third, more "neutral" kind of stuff

Certain other positions are hard to pigeonhole into the above categories, including:

  1. Functionalism (philosophy of mind), which like materialism holds that the mental can ultimately be reduced to the physical, but which holds that all the critical aspects of mind as also reducible to some substrate-neutral "functional" level. Thus something need not be made out of neurons to have mental states. This is a popular stance in cognitive science and artificial intelligence.
  2. Eliminativism, which holds that talk of the mental will eventually be proved as unscientific and completely discarded. Just as we no longer follow the ancient Greeks in saying that all matter is composed of earth, air, water, and fire, people of the future will no longer speak of "beliefs", "desires", and other mental states. A subcategory of eliminativism is radical behaviourism, a view held by B. F. Skinner.)
  3. Anomalous Monism, a position proposed by Donald Davidson in the 1970s as a way to resolve the Mind-body problem. It could be considered (by the above definitions) either physicalism or neutral monism. Davidson hold that here is only physical matter, but that all mental objects and events are perfectly real and are identical with (some) physical matter. But physicalism retains a certain priority, inasmuch as (1) All mental things are physical, but not all physical things are mental, and (2) (As John Haugeland puts it) Once you take away all the atoms, there's nothing left. This monism was widely considered an advance over previous identity theories of mind and body, because it does not entail that one must be able to provide an actual method for redescribing any particular kind of mental entity in purely physical terms. Indeed there may be no such method; this is a case of nonreductive physicalism.

For some, monism may also have religious/spiritual implications. For example, it can be erroneously argued that pantheism is essentially a monistic view. Recognizing this, some inveigh against the 'dangers of monism,' asserting that in order to resolve all things to a single substrate, one dissolves the distinction of a Personal God in the process. However, this is not the case when "GOD" is conceived as being the Impersonal "God" of Cosmos, which is the essential Pantheist/Cosmotheist belief.

How does Monism relate to Pandeism? //// Pacific PanDeist * 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Historically, monism has been promoted in spiritual terms on several occasions, most notably by Ernst Haeckel. To the dismay of some modern observers (some contemporary monistic thinkers in particular), Haeckel added various proto-Nazi ideas to his presentation of monism.

There is a growing undercurrent of monism in the modern spiritual and philosophical climate, evidenced by increasing Western fascination with Taoism, Buddhism, Pantheism, Zen, and similar systems of thought which explore the mystical and/or spiritual elements of a monistic philosophy.

See also: Reduction (philosophy), reductionism, Mind-body problem, Naturalistic spirituality, cosmotheism see also:[[1]]


Before "reverting" anything, ask here first! Thanks! :D

Vogel Vandalism????[edit]

What Mirv just removed was NOT vandalism. Actually, I think it was a quality edit. If you are going to persecute Mr. Vogel, I am going to have to ask you to do it carefully. It is unacceptable to revert a quality edit, and even worse to put an innaccurate, slanderous flame into the edit summary. Sam Spade 19:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He deleted valid information without explaining why he did so. That is vandalism. If you consider undoing his damage to be "persecution", well, I'm sorry. --No-One Jones 19:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't consider what he did to be "damage" I view it as a quality edit. What he removed was clearly (in my eyes) POV. What he did was make a quality, NPOV edit, IMO. You may disagree, but calling what he did vandalism was frankly not only innaccurate, but not a good sign for your case against him. I am looking into his case officially now, as a members advocate. If I continue to find examples such as this, rather than actual vandalism, I will become increasingly displeased. You may have a valid case against him, don't let this become a witch hunt. Nazi or no, he must be treated fairly. We cannot allow our pursuit of truth and justice to become mired in mere ideological conflict. Sam Spade 20:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Strange, because you also reverted the particular change Vogel made that you are now talking about. (i.e. him deleting "thereby assuring the ultimate demise of his Monistic Alliance.") And what does this have to do with Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates? - snoyes 20:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I made a revert, apparently an erroneous one. I did so based on numorous other edits thruout the article which were innaccurate (look to my edit summery). As to what this has to do w my being a members advocate, I assume you are contesting my role due to Paul not being a member. Unless you clarify, I am going to disregard the second question as spurious. Sam Spade 20:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"Membership is open to anyone who wishes to help members who are faced with the quickly developing mediation and arbitration processes that are being implemented on Wikipedia in the last few months (since the fall of 2003)." There is no mediation or arbitration going on here, so why do you feel the need to point out the fact that you are "officially" looking into this in your role as a member of Wikipedia:Office of Members' Advocates? - snoyes 20:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Because I reccomended to Mirv elsewhere that he take his complainst to wikipedia:conflict resolution. Also, I don't see what you are quoting above as in any way limiting my abilities to be officially helpful in regards to Paul. To be frank, I feel there is a valid case against Paul, but I also feel he is being treated unfairly, and is redeemable. Sam Spade 21:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mirv and his ilk[edit]

Editing solely for a Wiki NPOV is NOT VANDALISM, and no matter what Mirv and his ilk of censoring, banning, and lying and hypocritical Marxist-PC bigots say!

This is becoming really pedantic if not wonton bickering - just let the small stuff go and work on the disputed material itself for crying out loud!

DAYORK-- 17:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Monistic theism[edit]

I disagree that this is a philosophy distinct from other forms of monism generally, and from semetic religions specifically. True, most Abrahamic religions (which is what I think you ment to refer to) are not monist or panentheistic, but some are. Look into the Orthadox Christian Church, Liberal Catholicism, Hassidic Judaism, etc... Sam [Spade] 14:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see that someone already added this part to the article, but I just wanted to add here that some Christians indeed are panentheistic. Actually, I'd say that the overwhelming majority of Christians are panentheistic (Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, etc.), they just don't use that word--perhaps because they are unfamiliar with it, or perhaps because it sounds too much like pantheism. I first came across the word in Marcus Borg, but later I also came across the term in more traditional authors like Bp. Kallistos of the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is really just another way explaining the God hypothesis, akin to distinctions like essence/energy and divine nature/divine economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but Christianity has nothing to do with monism. Borg's scholarship is off the map on this point. Anglicans are not monistic polytheists either...seriously, who wrote that? Christian theism is actually neither monstic or dualistic. Can we get a Christian with a theological or philosophical background to rewrite this section please?--Alastair (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And I would add that the sentence fragment 'While the Christian view of reality is dualistic (in regard to metaphysics) in that it holds to the Creator's transcendence of creation ...' is quite wrong, since in Christian metaphysics all created being is dependent for its being directly on God. There is no other (hence the 'dua' in dual) principle of existence. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I'd mention that the number of "citation needed" tags in the Christian section is superfluous. If anyone needs to hear an argument that Christians who take the Bible literally believe that God and creation are separate (and the several statements following that one), refer to Genesis 1:1, where God clearly predates his creation, and remains separate from it afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therecastle (talkcontribs) 19:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

minor edit to pluralism link[edit]

I changed the See also link "Pluralism" to "Pluralism (philosophy of mind)". The main pluralism article is about diversity in societies. Also, the philosophical pluralism article is very limited; perhaps someone familiar with this page knows enough about pluralism to expand it a bit. --Victoria h 10:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism monist?????[edit]

can anyone state sources for such claims by a credible secondary source???? Since the doctrine of anatta and of emptyness negates essence, how can it be then claimed that all is of one essence???? Also, why are materialist monists omitted, and its incorrectly stated that 'Monism is often seen in relation to pantheism, panentheism, and an immanent God'??? Materialism is a type of monism. Also, Alfred North Withehead is prominently missing in explanation of (neutral) monism.--Aryah 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the dubiousness of buddhism and zen buddhism from the list as monoism/monism. Be bold! hehehe Monkey Brain 17:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


This talk page is in desperate need of cleanup. There is supposed to be some discussion going on as to the proposed merger with holism, but I see no such discussion taking place. If there is one, how could one hope to find it in this mess? The top of the page is an indecipherable mess, with a host of comments but one cannot tell to whom they are directed. Furthermore, some of them are unsigned, and none have been given a title. As I say, this page needs editing and cleanup. --Charles 03:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Merger with Holism[edit]

At the top of the page this has been added:

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with holism. (Discuss)

I believe they are completely different ideas and this notice should be removed from the page. --Who123 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To merge monism and holism in an online encyclopedia would suggest dictacting the evolution of terms which, to me, seems not the purpose of an encyclopedia of any kind. Similar to journalism where one's duty is to report the news rather than make it. Monism is the belief in a singular reality while holism is a persepective in which all reality may consist of smaller parts or components -- this is not the same.

I also oppose any merge between holism and monism. — goethean 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. They are not even necessarily related ideas. — Coelacan | talk 15:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merger between holism and monism. The two concepts are, by definition, different, distinct. Maybe there is a "philosophical theorem" which effectively says that monism = holism. In that case, Wikipedia should include a conclusive proof of it. But I doubt it: in Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, the author discusses holism versus reductionism. I do not think that it would make sense to discuss "monism versus reductionism". Just because (assuming) everything is made of the same substance does not necessarily imply that things cannot be explained reductionistically, or does it? —AugPi 06:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If holism is equivalent to monism, then since holism is the opposite of reductionism, and monism the opposite of dualism, then reductionism should be equivalent to dualism. Contradiction: because Descartes introduced dualism in order to prevent complete reductionism (e.g. non-human animals are monistic, so they can be reduced to mechanism). Hence, holism is not equivalent to monism. At least not historically. So I removed the merger notice. My apologies to whomever put it up there. —AugPi 07:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Forms of Hinduism"[edit]

Since when are Taoism and Rastafari forms of Hinduism? 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Marxism, Plekhanov?[edit]

Monism was also been used as a synomym for dialectical materialism. For example, Plekhanov, the 'father' of Russian Marxism, wrote a introduction to Marxism titles 'The Development of the Monist View of History'.[2] --Duncan 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

from article[edit]

The West is inundated with physicalistic monism, which is not surprising since physicalist claims are in general more easily confirmed or denied using empirical methods than are the claims of mentalist monists. There is therefore a widespread belief, supported by a preponderance of the available evidence, that everything will eventually be explained in terms of matter/energy by science. The familiarity of this worldview can make the ideas of mentalistic monism hard to grasp, and even paradoxical. One way to begin to grasp the idea is through analogy. One analogy is the movie screen, which can be thought of as a modern equivalent to Plato's "cave of shadows". If we next consider "Star Trek's holodeck", keeping in mind that it only exists in our experience as an aspect of a fictional world's fictional technology, it takes us a step further toward the mental monist's worldview, as what appear to be physical objects on the holodeck are only illusions. Next consider the movie "The Matrix". In "The Matrix", which is also a fictional technology postulated within a fictional story, even people's bodies and identities are projected. Then--in your imagination--replace the machine with a vast and powerful mind whose ideas create the illusions we perceive to be real. A last analogy is our dreams at night. We seem to be in a world filled with other objects and other people, and yet nothing of it is real. These analogies allow us to begin to think along these lines, and wonder just how we might verify the objective existence of the objects we perceive through our senses. [verification needed] However, while absolute knowledge of objective reality may well be out of our reach, it has generally been quite difficult to collect hard evidence from repeatable experience that will support the validity of the theories proposed by supporters of mental monism.

  • the above seems opinionated and unhelpful.

Some Christians inveigh against the 'dangers of monism', asserting that in order to resolve all things to a single substrate, one dissolves God in the process[citation needed]. Much Christian thought has insisted that while the universe is dependent on God for its existence, it is also of a separate substance from God[citation needed]. Some contend that this means that monism is false, while others argue that there is a distinction between Ultimate Essence, and the differentiated essences (substances), so that the "single substrate" essentially is God. Theological arguments can be made for this within Christianity, for example employing the Christian doctrine of "divine simplicity" (though a monistic interpretation of that doctrine would not be considered orthodox by the Roman Catholic Church)[citation needed].

  • This section also seems distressed and in need of review.

Evolutionary monism[edit]

The should maybe be discussions on the philosophical relations between monism and evolutionism. Both these systems have been very popular during the 20th century, to the extent that some scholars have used the expression evolutionary monism to describe some systems of the recent period. ADM (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Social monism[edit]

Another type of monism goes by the name of social monism (or political monism). It is sometimes presented as a philosophical alternative to contemporary socio-political pluralism. ADM (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Split article / dab[edit]

I suggest that this page be split into monism (theology) and monism (philosophy) and then disambiguated. Another possibility: monism (stuff), monism (Gods)

Monistic theism and ontological monism may both pertain to metaphysics, but the first is a question for philosophy of religion and theology and the second for ontology and the philosophy of mind. Ostracon (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Monism[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Monism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "britannica":

  • From Paul Tillich: "Tillich, Paul." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. retrieved 17 February 2008 [3].
  • From Supreme Being: Britannica 1992
  • From Transcendence (religion): {{cite encyclopedia | year = 1988 | title = The Bahá'í Faith | encyclopedia = Britannica Book of the Year | publisher = Encyclopaedia Britannica | location = Chicago | id = ISBN 0852294867}}
  • From Unity: "The Bahá'í Faith". Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1988. ISBN 0-85229-486-7.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 16:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

this has been repaired. - Salamurai (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"quotation meeded"[edit]

In the article it says "Christianity strongly maintains the Creator-creature distinction as fundamental, and tends to reject most definitions of metaphysical monism [citation needed]." I do not how to do that (with superscript and superscript numbering etc.), but I do have a quoot. It is from Boëthius, (De duabus naturis): "persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia". It was (as a philosophical heritage) adopted by Aquinas by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Need to split this article?[edit]

This article doesn't seem to differentiate between two different senses of "monism". I came here because physicalism links here when describing physicalism as a form of monism, and someone editing that article was apparently confused by the predominance of this article being about an entirely different sense of monism than is used in discussing ontology.

The two different senses of monism I see here might be described succinctly as:

  • The position that there is only one kind of stuff; that all the different things in the universe are ultimately made from the same kind of substance.
  • The position that there is in some sense or another actually only one particular thing; that all the different things in the universe are really parts of some unified whole.

The latter entails the former and so some people have held both to be true, but not everyone who holds the former to be true holds the latter to be true. The former position is what is meant when physicalism, idealism, neutral monism, or various other monistic ontologies are called "forms of monism". This article gives brief lip service to that kind of monism in the first section and the beginning of the second section, and then moves on to the entirely different second sense for the rest of the article.

I think this article needs either to be split into two separate article (e.g. "Ontological monism" and ... I don't know what I'd title the other), or it needs to be very clear from the lede that there are two senses of the term that do not both entail each other. Looking around at places like Pluralism (philosophy) (into which Ontological pluralism was apparently merged), there appears to be a similar problem with conflating two senses of pluralism: there are several kinds of stuff, and there are several particular things. So maybe this is a bigger project than just this one article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Materialistic monism section!?![edit]

I couldn't help myself, I have to say that the materialistic monism section is priceless. 1st it speaks of "one" then goes on to describe the "parts". Did the person who wrote that not understand the meaning of "one" or the concept of unity. Blatant contradictions like that, all within a few short sentences, must definitely take away a bit of faith in the cogency of Wikipedia.


The introduction only mentions pluralism (2—) and dualism (2) as views opposing monism (1), but does nihilism (0) qualify as well? Everything Is Numbers (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It does seem so to me. If there will be no objections, I'm likely to add a mention of nihilism in the introduction. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi. I have removed the part on the Five Ranks, because it was unsourced, and did not explain what was the link with monism. Looked like WP:OR to me.

The article needs a clean-up anyway. There's a lot on Asian religions, with a lack of sources, and very little on (western) philosophy. Spinoza isn't even mentioned! What I'm missing are some basic definitions from reputable sources, a short history of the use of the concept, and a comparison with related topics. Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge on this topic. I may be able to catch up, but that would take a while, and it's not my main area of interest. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


I've moved the notes on dualism and pluralism to the "Definitions"-section. They're essential, but it's weird that they are in the lead, and not in the article itself. The lead should reflect the article. So, they first have to be mentioned, and eventually expanded, in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the lead section should reflect the article. However it should also help the reader to grasp the basics of the subject mentioning dualism and pluralism in it did this and had the additional advantage of locating monism in the wider context of its competitors. Jpacobb (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Kataphatic and apophatic theology[edit]

Can't we just remove this section, or move it to another page? It's WP:UNDUE - and almost incomprehensible. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Pandeism, Pantheism and Panentheism[edit]

I checked Theists etc at Wikipedia; some seemed unlikely, which I removed. I added info on Pandeism; seemed soemwhat likely. But I haven't sought sources for that. Does any more knowledgeable editor know if Pandeism fits in here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarity needed[edit]

First, an alert, the section "Philosophical Monism" is heavily dependent on Luke Mastin's web-site to the point of being a WP:Copyvio and Mastin himself is not an WP:RS, see here Second, a recent editor has asked if there is such a thing as "religious monism" the answer is yes in that the philosophical dynamic underlying many of the religious beliefs described in that section is monistic.

On reading through recent edits it seems to me that the philosophical section at least is confused by a lack of awareness of as to the variety of meanings given to the term "monism". In the lead section, it is stated correctly that there are two different definitions (i) what I shall call here the wide definition in that a thinker is monistic if they postulate unity of origin of all things; and (ii) the restricted definition that requires there also be unity of substance or essence.

So far as normal philosophical and theological usage is concerned, this second "restricted" definition seems to be the norm. Hirschberger's 2 volume History of Philosophy which runs to well over a thousand pages in the Spanish edition lists under Monism: The Stoics; Spinoza; Hobbes; Haeckel plus two further entries, One-All and Pantheism. These add the following possibles (apart from some minor figures): Some Presocratics; Neoplatonism plus later adherents; Malebranche?; Schelling?; Fechner; Bergson. Abernethy and Langford's Introduction to Western Philosophy clearly classes Leibniz and Berkeley as pluralists. I am not going to make any alterations in the article (for the moment at least) but I shall tag some statements in line with the above comments. Jpacobb (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Having checked WP:COPYVIO it seems I have no option apart from blanking the section - I certainly cannot rewrite it now. Jpacobb (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The section on "Types of monism" was indeed copied from Mastin, though rewritten. Deletion is justified, I'm afraid. To rewrite the section I'd first have to look for reliable sources which give the same extensive overview. The older version of the page contained a short overview of types of monism, which could be restored. My apologies for the inconvenience. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources[edit]

Parking some links to sources here, for later use:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


  • Maybe separate sections shoud be used for "Philosophy of mind", "Other monist philosophies", and "Religious monism". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I've moved the rewrite of the types-section to "Philosophical monism", and provided additional references.
    • "Religious monism" is being referred to in the lead and the definitions-sections
  • Some references to Mastin remain, but most references fort he typology are now to reliable sources.
  • The original types-section could be removed, I'd say.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


In Christianity there is no monism, but monotheism, these two are different significantly. (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing introduction[edit]

The introduction comes across as confusing to casual readers, particularly the 'Stuff-monism' vs 'Thing-monism'. A rewrite from someone who knows this topic would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Types of Monism[edit]

Is there a reference available for Type #6? SquashEngineer (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monism. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger with Monotheism[edit]

How is Monoism different from Monotheism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

monotheism says there is only one god. monism says there is only one kind of stuff, or alternately, only one thing at all. atheistic physicalism is a kind of monism but definitely not monotheist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Buddhism and Jainism could also be argued to be forms of atheistic monism. Zoroastrianism was monotheistic but not monistic. Dvaita Vedanta could be monotheistic (if the gods are understood to be facets of the one God), but is dualistic. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New section needed?[edit]

In other articles I've seen, there is a section on "Popular References." The popular reference that brought me to search Wikipedia for this article is "[There's Only] One Everything", a catchy children's song on existence monism performed by They Might Be Giants, lyrics by John Linnell. If someone wants to add the section, it deserves mention as a 2:53 simple explanation for kids learning their numbers. (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monism. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 15:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Bible quote: We should probably remove or add context[edit]

The section "Rejection of radical dualism" [ ] currently contains an isolated quote from the Bible. (Apparently added by user on 8 June 2017‎.)

We should probably remove this or add some context (i.e., why it's being quoted here.)

-- (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)