Stefan Weber

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.

: 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.