Question

As a novice in philosophy, I haven't read all the material available on the subject ofdualitybut I find it fascinating for both its profound simplicity and for being responsible for my brain telling me THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE whenever I attempt to process it. Anyway, here's what I know ... Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher, is said to have viewed the world as aharmony ofopposites; Empedocles, another Greek philosopher who allegedly threw himself into a volcano, built his philosophy onloveandstrife(twoopposing forcesas it were). Now let's travel east, the mysterious orient and we meet Laozi, the founder of Taosim. This ancient Chinese philosophy has exactly the same idea - opposites in equilibrium (yin-yang). What is it that Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Laozi are talking about. In the simplest sense,pairssuch as hot-cold, light-dark, man-woman, love-hate, you get the idea. So far so good. We now journey to Hindoostan aka India and there we encounteradvaita(no two) -dualityorunity. The floor is open for all. Please ... CommentCorrectCite resourcesEtc. and help me deepen my understanding ofdvaita. Merci beaucoup mes amies. Start with the concept ofis/isn't. The human mind tends to objectify. We identify an objectasan object and separate it (mentally) from the background. In other words, we walk into a room and our minds automatically snap things into focus:thisis a chair,thatis a table, the room is warm, everything else is not-chair, not-table, not-warm. This objectification isn't essential — an intelligent squid-like alien from Europa would not necessarily pick out a table and chair as objects, or appreciate the concept of warmth — but it is such an automatic and engrained response that we think of these things as 'ontologically real'. But that isn't the case. Imagine, for instance, walking through the woods and finding a flat tree-stump. You can sit on it, so it might be a chair; you can put stuff on it, so it might be a table; you can admire it as an old tree stump; you can trip over it (making it a mere obstacle) or ignore it as part of the seamless natural background... It is what it is (in some trivial way), but it is also what we make of it, and it isalsonotwhat wedon'tmake of it. Whatever our mind constitutes as a 'thing' is necessarily separated from and opposed to everything that is not that thing. That is the act of objectification. We see a yellow patch in the sky and we say "that is the sun", but we only know it's the sun because there is a lot of sky that isn't yellow. If the entire sky were uniform yellow, we wouldn't have a sun. The world itself is a continuity. Mountaintops and valley floors are nothing more than a momentary balance among competing forces, subject to ongoing change. Intelligent beings (humans) separate mountaintops from valley floors and think the mountaintops will always be mountaintops and the valleys will always be valleys, because they think of them as separate objects. The intelligent mind tries to create monads — single objects that exist without reference to anything else — but that merely creates theis/isn'tduality out of the continuity of what is. A very partial answer: In physics a duality is a pair of dissimilar sets (e.g. particles, probability waves) with one-to-one correspondence (e.g.thisparticlecorresponds tothisprobability wave) on which an analogous operation (these two particlescompositedtogetheris analogous tothese two wavescompositedtogether) generates one-to-one correspondence of the resulting set element (thissystem of two particlescorresponds tothissuperposition of waves). Since physics is the application of formal logic to a logical universe, this narrow definition may be of some use in philosophy. A. Compare different philosophers' views on duality and unity. B. Discuss how human perception objectifies reality. C. Explore the idea of continuity versus separation in our perception. D. Explain duality in physics and its relevance to philosophy.

Answer 1

Philosophy examines duality through opposing concepts like Heraclitus's flux and Parmenides's unchanging unity. Advaita and Daoism advocate non-separation and continuity. Physics' particle-wave duality also reflects on philosophical inquiries into the nature of reality.

Step-by-step explanation:

The concept of duality has been explored by philosophers from various historical backgrounds and traditions. Greek philosophers like Heraclitus and Empedocles discussed the harmonious opposition and the forces of love and strife, respectively, while ancient Chinese philosophy, represented by Laozi and Daoism, emphasizes the balance of yin and yang. The Indian philosophy of Advaita (non-dualism) challenges the perception of duality by positing that the ultimate reality is a singular unity without a second.

When we consider the perception of reality, it's clear that our minds tend to objectify and separate things, creating a binary of is/isn't. This natural tendency to identify and categorize objects based on our human experience overlooks the inherent continuity of the world. Contrastingly, the Dvaita philosophy from Indian schools acknowledges the non-separation of reality, highlighting an underlying unity.

Continuity versus separation is another theme present in philosophical discussions on duality, where thinkers like Parmenides argue that what exists is one and unchanging. In contrast, Heraclitus posits that all is in flux, embodying a dynamic process rather than static entities.

In physics, duality is seen through concepts like particle-wave duality, where entities can be understood as both particles and waves depending on the context. This physical concept of duality may inform philosophical investigations into the nature of reality, where everything contains multiple aspects or properties simultaneously.