In my last post or maybe others as well I have mentioned my viewpoint on non-dualism. I don’t believe in good vs evil or unethical vs ethical. This is fairly common behavior for continental philosophers. You use word trickery such as darkness and light cannot be opposite because one cannot exist without the other. An analytic philosopher will then cringe and say that there are too many hidden assumptions in there to actually buy that argument.

My goal is to develop a logically rigorous proof of non-dualism to justify my stance. It will essentially involve the argument I already gave. There cannot be good and evil as mutually distinct entities, since one cannot exist without the other. My feeling is that when I expand this into a logically coherent form, it is going to be insanely convoluted and long.

Some potential problems: 1) I will refute the Law of Excluded Middle during the proof, yet at the same time will need it at some step.
2) I will make some absurd and necessary assumptions that analytic philosophers won’t believe rendering this useless.
3) I will attempt this all by myself instead of re-reading things that could be useful (i.e. The Two Dogmas of Empiricism).