Stefan Weber

Context: Non-dualism suggests a new way of utilizing language without the assumption of categorically extralinguistic objects denoted by language. Problem: What is the innovative potential, what is the special value of non-dualism for science? Is non-dualism a fruitful conceptual revision or just a philosophical thought experiment with no or little significance for science? Method: We provide a concise introduction to non-dualism’s central new proposals and an overview of the papers. Results: Fourteen contributors show how this way of thinking and speaking can be operationalized creatively, but also address some of its boundaries. Implications: Since not all of the aspects and problems highlighted for discussion in the original Call for Papers were answered satisfactorily, further research is necessary. For example, research is needed on the relationship between dualism’s distinction between object language and metalanguage on the one hand and non-dualism’s distinction between descriptions so far and descriptions from now on on the other; or on the infinite regress allegations by non-dualism against dualism. Constructivist content: Some authors show that non-dualist thinking is anti-essentialist, in a similar way as constructivist thinking. Some also show that comparable questions arise; for example, the question of whether non-dualism denies the material world (containing extralinguistic objects)

Excerpt: Is Josef Mitterer's non-dualizing philosophy yet another philosophical flavor, of which there are so many in the academic world? Yet another philosophical trinket that arouses the short-lived attention of some people and disappears quickly thereafter? Yet another dalliance without implications either for philosophy or for science? We are convinced of the contrary. For many years Mitterer has steadily built up a reputation as an innovative but at the same time also very careful thinker. His claims have been discussed in various circles, but, unfortunately, this has so far happened in German- and Polish-speaking countries only. Meanwhile "take your time" has taken time and Mitterer celebrated his 60th birthday in July 2008, an opportunity we used to gather connoisseurs of his work to discuss, for the first time in the English language, his achievements and impact. The result is in no relation to the limited spread of his ideas so far. We have collected some 22 contributions covering a large variety of intellectual terrain and pointing out the potential impact of his philosophy from now on

: Even though all my commentators defended non-dualism, they could not convince me that I had misunderstood Mitterer’s position. My response focuses on six topics: The question of changing one’s philosophical position; the problem of the infinite regress; the concepts of descriptions and objects in classical philosophy and in non-dualism; the non-dualistic distinction of descriptions so far and descriptions from now on; the problem of time and the time arrow; and the question of ethical consequences. I argue for a more moderate version of epistemology, avoiding the inconsistencies and contradictions of non-dualism.

Context: Mitterer’s non-dualism is considered to be a major conceptual alternative to realism and to constructivism and idealism - with more sympathies towards constructivism. For von Glasersfeld non-dualism is the “third conceptual revision” in philosophy, while for others it is the “most radical position,” even more radical than radical constructivism. While outside of philosophy non-dualism is sometimes applied emphatically, in mainstream philosophy it is ignored. Problem: My two questions are: Is Mitterer’s critique on dualistic philosophy consistent Is Mitterer’s non-dualism consistent? Method: I critically reflect on central theses of non-dualism with the help of established concepts of contemporary philosophy such as the distinctions between object language and metalanguage, and between benign and vicious infinite regresses. Results: The non-dualistic critique of dualism seems to be misleading. Central arguments of the non-dualistic alternative to dualism are self-contradictory. Even worse, non-dualism could lead to solipsism. Implications: Non-dualism has so far been discussed in various disciplines such as communication science, geography, and even informatics. It is important for all these disciplines to reflect the arguments developed in this article to prevent non-dualism from being applied uncritically.