Response to Andrew (A preference for pluralism)

Response to Andrew (A preference for pluralism)

I certainly found Andrew’s response to the critical pluralism/ monism debate to be intriguing. Andrew centered his support of critical pluralism on its practicality. I certainly understand this viewpoint, as monism does seem to represent an unreachable idea.

This post does raise an interesting theme in regards to the two sides of this debate. It seems as though this debate could be framed in a way that associates pluralism with practicality, and monism with idealism. I think that it can easily be agreed upon that monism represents an ideal. If monism were true, the process of interpretation would turn into a sort of science. Of course, pluralism is beneficial in its own right because of the fact that it accepts a diverse range of interpretations, rather than scolding someone for arriving at the incorrect interpretation. However, this debate seems almost pointless because of the fact that, as Andrew points out, monism seems unpractical.