'Everything is one' view

[Marxos]

How would you discuss with statement that 'everything is one but our senses are just unable to perceive it and create illusion of separation'? That, in fact, we're all one with each other and, ultimately, with the Universe.

 

It seems to grow on popularity today, I've heard it a lot of times, but I'm unable to completely undermine it myself yet. I see this view as critique-immune because it rejects human ability to disprove it.

[softwareNerd]

I guess the starting point would be ask: what does it mean... to say that "everything is one" or that there are no specific, individual entities out there in the real world... that they are mental constructs... or to say that its all a mass of atoms (or something smaller)? What exactly does such an assertion mean?

To clarify: does it mean that the universe is a large random collection number of atoms (etc.), with no patterns and no relationships between any of those atoms. For instance, does it mean that when I pick up an unbroken pencil, the bulk of the atoms in what we call a pencil may not come along?

[Reidy]

The claim under examination is either trivial or false.  To say that the universe is itself is to take the first alternative.  If you could show that there are two, then the two of them together would be the universe, and what you were looking at first is not the universe.

 

To say that the universe is a particular entity simply because "the universe", "existence", "being" and the like function gramatically like the names of entities, is false and gets you into philosophical trouble: where in space does it end? when in time did it begin? (most notoriously) what cause brought it about?   Such quandaries vanish when you give this supposition up.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Reidy

[jacassidy2]

The idea that reality is the one in the many was first proposed by Thales, thought by many to be the first philosopher.  So, if you are new to philosophy, perhaps you are asking a good first question.  When participating in discussions with others who propose this idea of "oneness" you might ask, "what do you mean by "oneness"?"  Is it the material basis of matter you are asking about (and wondering how to think about the fact that direct/unaided human senses alone cannot perceive it) or are you proposing something about unity of form in non-material, derivative real things like human concepts?

 

The answer you would find in Objectivism depends, in part, to the real nature of the question being asked.  Because so few people you meet have any fundamental basis for their questions or conclusions, step one should be to get that person to be more specific about the question.

Edited June 10, 2015 by jacassidy2

[StrictlyLogical]

It seems to grow on popularity today, I've heard it a lot of times, but I'm unable to completely undermine it myself yet. I see this view as critique-immune because it rejects human ability to disprove it.

 

It is not critique immune.  On the contrary, in the absence of ANY evidence whatever tending to show that some positive assertion about reality is true (which for here, there is none), holding the assertion as possible, probable, or true is completely futile. 

 

You speak of "disproof".  There is not such requirement.  The onus of proof is on the one who claims the positive.  Far from immune to criticism, a positive assertion lacking any firm evidence becomes the target of criticism because it is an arbitrary statement of no cognitive value whatsoever. 

 

If I say to you there is a little invisible undetectable blue devil in another dimension making you think you are who you are but you are really a poached egg... well that statement is ridiculous, it's fantastic, it's unbelievable,  ... on what basis would I have to even claim such a thing?  None whatever.  What do you need to do in order to disclaim and ignore such an arbitrary statement that I have made?  Simply point out, there is NO evidence which supports my position, NO reason in reality for my saying it or claiming it to be true, and no reason for you to give it any weight. 

 

Why should one not try to disprove an arbitrary assertion for which there is no evidence?  Because if the arbitrary statement is a falsehood, it is a statement about a non-existent, until there is evidence of its existence there can be no appeal to reality to prove its non-existence.  There are no facts of reality that are a consequence of the non-existence of the blue devil... non-existents can have no consequences, and to search for such evidence would be misguided and unnecessary. 

 

You need not "undermine" such an assertion , nor "disprove" it.  You need only observe, that if you choose to be rational, any assertion which is truly arbitrary, i.e. lacking any evidence in reality tending to show its truth, you must completely ignore and dismiss it as cognitively invalid.

Edited June 11, 2015 by StrictlyLogical