In the case of the origin of the Chinese nation, there have been lengthy debates over pluralism versus monism, and debates over theories of indigenous origin versus external migratory origin.
This is so because, while the Maoists are now a legitimate force, they are not yet one that is completely given over to pluralism and democracy.
In the area of political philosophy, the most widespread controversy over pluralism concerns its relationship to liberalism.
The debate over pluralism and liberalism raises important conceptual issues; yet it becomes somewhat misleading, both in itself and particularly as a guide to Berlin's thought, if pluralism and liberalism are taken to be comprehensive doctrines, or if they are reified into independently existing, systematic entities.
People assume there's a benign pluralism, with the athletes over here, the vegans there, the sorority types over here, so students pick and choose whom to affiliate with.
Still others contended that this pluralism would gradually disappear over the years, that the American character was still in the process of formation, and that, as this character gradually emerged, it would be enriched by the blending of the admirable features of the various foreign nationalities.
We must, in short, stop treating the democratic principles and federal pluralism we see all over the Western world as if these amount to an implied criticism of Israel, but rather we must see them as an invitation to move to normalization.
Each of the positions below is usually combined with an assumption about pluralism or reasonable disagreement over a wide range of moral, ethical, and other philosophical matters.
This is yet another area where the dispute over logical pluralism runs into an older dispute in the philosophy of logic, and one that is ostensibly a question about meaning.
