This page explains a conceptual relation between two terms within Shahrur’s thought, and how this relation functions in the construction of meaning.
Within a broader family
This relation falls within Shahrur’s reading of monism as the negation of plurality in social life and politics. Its witness illustrates one aspect of the outcome, and the family gathers together forms of backwardness, injustice, tyranny, and ruin.
The meaning of the relation
This relation means that monism leads, in its social and historical course, only to negative outcomes, represented by injustice, tyranny, and ruin. The meaning here is not a passing description, but a judgment on the fate of monism when it turns into a closed pattern in rule or social life, as it leads to a breakdown of justice, the entrenchment of oppression, and then decline and destruction.
The two terms of the relation
- First term: monism
- Relation: ends in
- Second term: injustice, tyranny, and historical and social ruin
Evidence
- The State and Society through History and society judge monism by injustice and ruin
- Witness: History and society judge monism by injustice and ruin presents this axis as the negative counterpart to the idea of pluralism, as it explains that monism and tyranny lead to ruin, the laws of collapse that afflict closed societies
Its effect in the cognitive map
This relation gains importance because it links the concept of monism to its final outcomes in the historical and social field, thereby placing it in opposition to pluralism as an option open to balance. It also helps build the conceptual map around the idea that systems of closure and tyranny are not stable, but rather carry within themselves the causes of collapse, which makes them a central node in understanding the state and society and the course of their transformation.