Why the End of Dualism Will Kill You

Reasons to Support an Unpopular Idea

Photo by James Balensiefen on Unsplash

If you are entertained, challenged, informed, or inspired by my words, please do not hesitate to become a paid subscriber to Philosopher's Insight. You will get access to every post in my archive, be able to comment on all of them, and be part of the best community ever!

---

Do you think we should end dualistic thinking? 

A very popular idea is that dualistic ways of thinking are fundamentally bad. It is popular among philosophers as well as non-philosophers. However, there are many things that need to be considered when answering such a question.

In this post, I will argue in defense of dualism. You will see that things are much more complicated than they seem at first glance. My post will be organized around three questions:

1. What is dualism?

2. Why is dualism important?

3. Why might the end of dualism lead to a brutal world?

What is dualism?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains dualism this way:

“The term ‘dualism’ has a variety of uses in the history of thought. In general, the idea is that, for some particular domain, there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles. In theology, for example a ‘dualist’ is someone who believes that Good and Evil — or God and the Devil — are independent and more or less equal forces in the world.” 

And the author continues:

“Dualism contrasts with monism, which is the theory that there is only one fundamental kind, category of thing or principle; and, rather less commonly, with pluralism, which is the view that there are many kinds or categories. In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical — or mind and body or mind and brain — are, in some sense, radically different kinds of things.”

This entry in this famous online encyclopedia explicitly addresses dualism in the context of philosophy of mind — a very popular and active subfield of philosophy.

Nevertheless, such a definition is sufficient to understand that when we speak of dualism, we speak as a generalized category that includes many different kinds of dualism. In other words, there is no such thing as “dualism” (singular), but there are many “dualisms” (plural).

That is why this dictionary, as can also be seen on Wikipedia, distinguishes different kinds of dualism like: body-mind dualism, predicate dualism, property dualism, and so forth.

The problem is that if there is not just one kind of dualism, and if those dualisms refer to different kinds of distinctions, then it would be very unscientific to claim, without case-by-case analysis, that dualism is a general problem and should be avoided at all costs. In addition, the costs may be too high and the benefits simply nonexistent.

Why is dualism important?

Why might the costs be too high and the benefits simply non-existent? It is because not all types of dualism are the same, and some may not be optional.

The main questions are: 

• Does a particular type of dualism result from a real situation or not? 

• Is this dualism a necessity required by the true nature of things? 

• Does it result from our relationship to those things, or from the way we understand that relationship?

If dualism results simply from the way we understand that relationship, then it may be a problem. In other cases, it results from the inherent structure of reality, or from the nature of our interactions with it.

Let’s take a the example of linguistic dualism. In his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein stated: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” 

Although Wittgenstein’s quote has been interpreted differently, his point was merely that our understanding of what reality is for us is limited by the language we use or can use. Our cognitive limitations, our cultural and social experiences, and our ability to articulate thoughts are all shaped by the words available to us.

However, such an argument is impossible if we do not posit a dualism between the word we use to signify something and those very things. Here linguistic dualism is not an option, it is not even a difficulty, it is the very condition for understanding how language can determine how we see things.

Why might the end of dualism lead to a brutal world?

Although dualism is quite unpopular, and even though it may be a problem in some cases, it is a valuable tool for understanding reality. There is also a whole field of inquiry in which dualism is not only useful but vital. That field is ethics.

In everyday life, we distinguish between good and bad behavior. For example, killing someone for pleasure is recognized as bad, immoral behavior. On the other hand, showing compassion to a child who has been hurt is recognized as good behavior.

Imagine a world in which killing someone for pleasure would not be considered bad behavior at all, and showing compassion to an injured child would not be considered good behavior. I am not talking about a reversal of moral values and norms, but a complete absence of the good/bad dualism.

It would not be an anarchic world, but a world without an ethical compass, a world without the very idea of the value of life. In such a world, it would be indifferent if you or your loved one were discriminated, injured, or even blindly killed. Your own death would mean nothing to anyone.

Dualism is not always justified, but when it is, we should rather be grateful for its existence in our minds.

---

If you enjoyed this post, please like it, restack it, and share it with your friends. Your support will help me reach new readers.