Talk:Dualism

From RationalWiki

""Soul" is a completely religious concept, and science should no longer consider it." Does that mean science currently does consider it? Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:39, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

There are "scientists" who insist on it, mostly the wacko types. Perhaps i can reword--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 21:47, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

What about non-"mind/matter" dualism? For example, the dualistic philosophies of East Asia that revolve around yin/yang? Researcher 18:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

What about them? Dualism usually refers to substance/non-substance. Other philosophies usually go by different names. Yin/Yang, unity of opposites, or the other Eastern concepts of complimentarism, are, I think, unrelated to this concept.162.82.215.199 19:51, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps because of my own idiosyncratic training, I've always seen dualism to refer to any tradition which has a strong duality within it, not just the dualism of "soul/matter." For example, Zoroastrianism is usually referred to as a "dualistic" religion due to the supposed equivalent strength between the forces of good and evil, even though neither is necessarily affiliated with matter or mind. Researcher 19:58, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I think those are two different types of dualism. The most common usage is in mind-body dualism. We need a different name.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 20:06, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Or perhaps a disambiguation? I'd be willing to write the other article on dualism as a classification, but I don't know how to write a disambiguation Researcher 20:48, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Alternately, I could write a page called "dualistic" since it's more of a descriptor in the sense that I mean. Researcher 21:03, 17 October 2007 (EDT)