Unfortunately, the post was closed to further comments before I could read and respond to comments that were made on the excerpt from my post. I’d like to just briefly respond to one of those comments now (and the other person who responded to the comment in question, Nick Ritter, is most appreciated for what he said there!).
Someone called JB, first quoting my post, writes:
“Monism is a philosophical choice that is often adopted in order to relieve the necessity of getting the details on the differences between things correct, and doing adequate research on and accurate accounting of those differences.”
This argument is intellectually lazy. No two ice crystals are the same; and yet, they’re all made of water. There is no incompatibility between recognition of apparent differences between things and phenomena and the position that all are essentially comprised of one substance or essence.
There is, unfortunately, one very fatal flaw in this metaphor–though I won’t comment on how intellectually lazy it might be to have missed this flaw in the process of telling me that I’m intellectually lazy: the reason that all of those ice crystals that are made of the same substance are different is not because of anything inherent to the ice, it’s because ice crystals form around the most minute of dust particles and other microscopic debris. If one has water at a temperature of zero degrees, but it is entirely pure, no ice crystals will form. The thing which gives each ice crystal its uniqueness, therefore, is not an inherent property of the water or ice, but instead something else into which it comes into contact. We cannot talk about the purity of the water, therefore, and its oneness and sameness any longer, because it is not purely one thing; and no matter how minute that part of an ice crystal is which gives it its unique shape, nonetheless we’re no longer dealing with simply one thing.
Remember that part in my quote above about not doing adequate research into things when monism is assumed to be correct? Yeah…