Monism and pluralism are worldview concepts that impact various life aspects, such as teaching, politics, and international relations. Advanced by several philosophers, the monism and pluralism worldviews reflect on existence of things on earth. The monism worldview argues everything on earth is material while pluralism emphasizes the dualism of all things. The extensive analysis of pluralism and monism world views shows how the world views impact the teaching practice today.
Monism
Under monism, all things on earth exist as material form. Even though the earth has many things, they are unified by existence as material, which is common for everything. The monism worldview acknowledges the difference in quality of things on earth, but emphasizes their unification by existing in material form (Cornell, 2016). One philosopher who advances the monism theory is Friedrich Schelling, who attempts to expound the earth’s components and possible unifying factors for everything. According to the theorist, the earth has many different things but they all share a common soul; existence in material form ( Guardiano, 2017) . Therefore, monism emphasizes the earth has many components of diverse qualities but everything is unified by existence in material form.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Pluralism
The pluralism worldview asserts the earth has many components, which exist in dualism. For instance, matter can exist as natural and supernatural, eternal and temporal, or metal and material. Pluralists even insist human beings exist in dual forms of the body and mind. One philosopher who advances the pluralism worldview is Immanuel Kant. The mentioned philosopher argues that everything on earth has a scientific and religious background ( Efstratios, 2011) . Therefore, science and religion should be used in unison to explain the origin of everything on earth. Thus, the pluralism worldview suggests matter exists in dual forms, as explained.
Application in Teaching Practice
Pluralism and monism are applicable in teaching practice in different ways. If a teacher subscribes to the pluralism worldview, they believe students are divided by race, ethnicity, or social class and should be treated accordingly ( Kirchmair, 2016) . In contrast, a tutor who believes in monism understands that learners may be diverse but are unified by their quest for education. The pluralist teacher will treat students of their preferred race, social class, and ethnicity better than their counterparts of unequal circumstances ( Pasquale, 2015). In contrast, the monist tutor will treat all learners as equal because they seek a common goal to excel academically. Therefore, as mentioned, pluralism and monism impact teaching practice significantly.
Conclusion
Monism and pluralism are conflicting world views impacting diverse aspects, such as education, international relations, and politics. Monism claims all matter on earth is unified by existence in material form. The monism worldview is explained by philosophers, such as Friedrich Schelling. The mentioned philosopher insists the earth may have many different things of diverse qualities, but are unified by a common factor, their materialism. In contrast, the pluralist worldview emphasizes all matter exists in dual forms. For instance, one thing can exist as metal and material and another as natural and supernatural. The pluralism and monism worldviews impact teaching practice differently. Tutors who subscribe to the pluralist worldview believe students from different races, ethnicities, and social classes are unequal. Therefore, the mentioned teacher will treat learners differently because they do not have a unifying aspect. In contrast, the educator who believes in monism will treat learners equally because despite their diverse backgrounds, they are unified by a common goal, the quest for education. The monism and pluralism worldviews may create divisiveness on earth from their different advanced perspectives. However, the two worldviews share a common agreement; everything is under one earth, despite their different existences.
Part Two: Reflection
In my original paper, I titled my work “Worldview Foundations.” The paper contained in-depth discussion about the two popular worldviews, monism and pluralism. I explained the origins of each mentioned view and cited information lifted from other scholarly works. Additionally, the paper discussed the application of pluralism and monism in teaching practice. The paper ended with a conclusion about monism and pluralism and my view on the two worldviews. In the concluding sentence, I noted monism and pluralism are separate world views but are unified by one factor, they all agree the earth hosts everything, even though in different forms. I submitted my work for marking and received the below feedback;
I titled the “introduction” part, which is wrong under the new APA 7 format.
My work did not have proper r margins.
I prolonged the introduction and included unnecessary information.
My monism title was not properly indented.
I included the historic aspect of monism, which was wrong as the paper’s instructions did not prompt it.
I discussed substantive and attributive monism forms, which were incoherent and ambiguous. I should have omitted the information altogether.
I wrote on the Lopswrite report and did not cite my work.
I mentioned several monist and pluralist philosophers but did not cite where I lifted their information.
Some of my words were grammatically wrong. In professional writing, “the fact that” is a wrong statement and should be excluded in sentences.
I wrote “goes completely” instead of using one word for the expression.
I contracted words, such as “does not” to doesn’t.
I wrote “Pluralism” in the middle of a sentence using capital P yet it is not a proper noun.
I corrected my work by incorporating my instructor’s feedback. For instance, in the revised work, I have not titled the introduction and the thesis statement is precise and clear. I have also separated core information from the title and used correct grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Finally, I formatted my work properly, cited all lifted information, and deleted the Lopswrite report and explanation on substantive and attributive monism.
References
Cornell, D. M. (2016). Taking monism seriously. Philosophical Studies , 173 (9), 2397-2415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0620-0
Efstratios, T. (2011). From presocratic philosophical monism to religious-scientific dualism and from dualism to monism of the Theory Of Everything [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Athens . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259744700_From_presocratic_philosophical_monism_to_religious-scientific_dualism_and_from_dualism_to_monism_of_the_Theory_Of_Everything
Guardiano, N. L. (2017). Monism and Meliorism. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy . https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/1072
Kirchmair, L. (2016). The theory of the law creators' circle: Re-conceptualizing the monism–dualism–Pluralism debate. German Law Journal , 17 (2), 179-213. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200019738
Pasquale, G. (2015). The teaching methodology in intercultural perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 191 , 2609-2611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.281
