There's No Escape From Isms

Reply to TheMadFool ...so you are an ismist. You espouse ismism.

Reply to TheMadFool
I am not sure that we are just restricted to isms. For example, one can be a Jungian and that is not an ism. Generally, I think that isms are about putting ideas into boxes, and I am not sure that we need to make use of such boxes to label our ideas, but rather juxtapose them in the most creative ways to develop our viewpoints.

Quoting TheMadFool

Imagine for a moment that you reject any and all Isms

OK. Imagined and failed. It just isn't possible.
-Isms are a part of our life. Lists of them abound. Even if you just look at the -isms in discrimination.

Quoting TheMadFool

What happens if we now say no to Nihilism too?

I was gonna say 'Escapism' - but there ya go...you just can't get away...and perhaps it is a good thing that we can't avoid -isms.
Without an -ism, how would we acknowledge, describe, analyse or act on e.g. racism, ageism.
Important to name and deal with real consequences - the actual practice of specific human behaviours.
There is no escaping this...no matter what -ism, rightly or wrongly we use...

Definition and examples of -isms:
https://ismbook.com/ism-list/

Here’s a short list of some common isms that we see in society every day.

political isms
cultural isms
social justice isms
systemic isms
philosophical isms

These main categories are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to philosophy words ending in ism, and by no means are these all the isms in the world.

An -ism:
a distinctive doctrine, cause, theory or religion
manner of action or behavior characteristic of a (specified) person or thing
prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a (specified) attritube
adherence to a system or a class of principles

There follows a list of philosophy words ending in -ism.

Quoting Banno

...so you are an ismist. You espouse ismism.

I think he's an anti-ism-isamist

Quoting Jack Cummins

For example, one can be a Jungian and that is not an ism.

I studied Jungianism and Mythos so, perhaps not.

"ism" is just a bit of language, a suffix, which people associate with dogma. But really, from fascism or pacifism, it's a diverse world despite those three letters. From whence we get the notion of acrimonious schisms between the isms.

Quoting Tom Storm

From whence we get the notion of acrimonious schisms between the isms.

Love it :100:

The notion together with emotion and motion...

I suppose an 'ism' is, roughly, a general outlook, a point of view, an underpinning theory, an overarching framework of assumptions. It is possible to reject most isms. You can entertain a general outlook without subscribing to it. Perhaps the easiest way is ignorance, where you don't have a point of view just because you have never thought about something. Some isms are, debatably, not possible to reject. For example (debatably) it's not possible to reject the view that there is a world outside our own perceptions. The consequences of rejecting that view lead us (debatably) into incoherence and contradiction.

Quoting Cuthbert

It is possible to reject most isms.

Of course. But an -ism has to exist before it can be rejected. There is no avoiding -isms, is there ?
As per:
Quoting Tom Storm

"ism" is just a bit of language, a suffix, which people associate with dogma. But really, from fascism or pacifism, it's a diverse world despite those three letters.

Quoting Tom Storm

I think he's an anti-ism-isamist

AH, But antiismism is an ism; and hence self-negating.

Reply to Banno :up:

"There's no escape from isms"- Reply to TheMadFool

Ism there?

Quoting Banno

self-negating.

[ :smile: Yes, I know what you mean in that context, but looking further...]

'Self negation' sounds painful :scream:
But interesting...and hmmm... potentially harmful ? ( see my underline )
https://selfnegation.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/on-the-meaning-of-self-negation/

Self negation simply means doing away with those categories that limit ourselves and others from our full potential, that hinder us more than they assist our understanding.

Self negation cannot be an individual act. White people cannot escape from ‘whiteness’ by simply acting in a way they perceive as being contrary to this identity. Rather, they must work to alter the relationship between themselves and non-whites; and this necessarily means fundamentally altering the society we live in.

....Let us work to negate the present society and with it those aspects of ourselves poisoned by it.

How can you 'negate' the present society ? Extremism ?

Quoting TheMadFool

What happens if we now say no to Nihilism too?

Our teeth continue to rot as if nothing happened.

Yes, this is very easy. Don't think in english.

Isms are paradigms appropriate within their worlds or fields; they are the thought-out conclusions of particular premises within contexts. There is no overarching ism within which all isms must be unified, or with which particular isms must be reconciled or rejected. For example libertarianism does not have to be reconciled with eliminative materialism; or one of them rejected. Scientists don't (necessarily) preach scientism, geologists geologism, economists economism or sociologists sociologism.

Isms are not strictly incompatible, because they work within different contexts; rather they are incommensurable. There will always be those who wish to reify them, render them overarching, though. The troubled search for a theory of everything! TOEism...

Reply to TheMadFool
Maybe it is about having an encyclopedia or not, crystallizing works to make them comparable to each other.

Like a butterfly collection but with thoughts being held down by the pin.

Quoting Janus

Isms are paradigms appropriate within their worlds or fields...
There will always be those who wish to reify them, render them overarching, though. The troubled search for a theory of everything! TOEism...

Quoting Valentinus

Like a butterfly collection but with thoughts being held down by the pin.

What do you call a collection of -isms ?
A bit of history on the use of -isms:

Quoting wiki

The first recorded usage of the suffix ism as a separate word in its own right was in 1680. By the nineteenth century it was being used by Thomas Carlyle to signify a pre-packaged ideology. It was later used in this sense by such writers as Julian Huxley and George Bernard Shaw.

In the United States of the mid-nineteenth century, the phrase "the isms" was used as a collective derogatory term to lump together the radical social reform movements of the day (such as slavery abolitionism, feminism, alcohol prohibitionism, Fourierism, pacifism, Technoism, early socialism, etc.) and various spiritual or religious movements considered non-mainstream by the standards of the time (such as Transcendentalism, spiritualism or "spirit rapping", Mormonism, the Oneida movement often accused of "free love", etc.).

Southerners often prided themselves on the American South being free from all of these pernicious "Isms" (except for alcohol temperance campaigning, which was compatible with a traditional Protestant focus on individual morality).

[emphasis added ]
Is this an American specialism ?

Not all isms end with “ism”

To reject all isms is another ism. “Rejectism” let’s call it.

Quoting khaled

Not all isms end with “ism”

Example?

Quoting khaled

To reject all isms is another ism. “Rejectism” let’s call it.

:cool: but already taken:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rejectism

Rejectism is the act of people not passing the ball to you in any form of sport with a ball when you are clearly open and asking for the ball.

It is mainly used by people who are not big participaters in sport and when they actually feel like doing something no one passes them the ball

But then again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejectionism

An A - Z of isms:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/playlists/the-a-z-of-isms
Writers, academics and thinkers share their takes on some of the world's most important ideas (plus a few fun ones).

Quoting Nzomigni

Don't think in english.

Non e' possibile :wink:

Britishisms (2:43)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/britishisms-know-your-mucker-from-your-muppet/p06dct2h?playlist=the-a-z-of-isms

Reply to Amity Quoting Amity

Example?

“Jungian”, “Protestant”, etc

Reply to khaled

Re: Jungian-ism See @Tom Storm
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/528637

Same goes for Protestant-ism, no ?

Reply to Amity Sure whatever. I don’t particularly care about this point.

Quoting khaled

I don’t particularly care about this point.

:smile: Is that a shrugism or just a shruggie ? ¯\_(?)_/¯

Quoting baker

What happens if we now say no to Nihilism too?
— TheMadFool
Our teeth continue to rot as if nothing happened.

@TheMadFool is practising absenteethism.

Quoting khaled

To reject all isms is another ism. “Rejectism” let’s call it.

Depends on what you mean by "reject". The purported overarching status of any ism can be rejected without that rejection being an ism, but rather just an observation of the diversity of human fields of inquiry and opinion.

Quoting Amity

Is this an American specialism ?

Ho ho...

Quoting Janus

The purported overarching status of any ism can be rejected without that rejection being an ism

Can it? Rejecting the purported overarching status of any ism looks like an ism...

Reply to Banno I don't see why. It would simply be the acknowledgement that there is no reason to believe any ism to be overarching.

Reply to Janus ...and those who do so are anti-isim-ists. Arn't you simply stipulation that anti-isim-ism isn't an ism? What justification could you have here? :wink:

Reply to Banno Not at all; I don't have to be anti-isms to make an observation about their limited natures.

Reply to Janus But it's not an observation; it's an opinion.

Reply to Banno No, it's an observation that isms are relevant only within their respective contexts, and that even their meanings are open to interpretation. How could it be otherwise? Or perhaps give an example of any isms you think are, or could be, true in a context-less way?

Reply to Janus The context is given... isms. The rejection of isms must itself be an ism, and hence contradictory; the recognition of the universal applicability of ism-ism is the only way to acheive coherence.

Hence the title of this thread holds.

Quoting Banno

The context is given... isms.

The context of an ism, of its workability and applicability, is not isms. Even if it were, per absurdum, any ism would thereby be merely another ism, and therefore could not be overarching. You are making my argument for me; albeit in an absurd way.

Reply to Janus The context is isms, their workability and applicability, not any specific ism. Even if it were, per absurdum, any ism must thereby be part of the totality of isms. You are making my argument for me; albeit in an absurd way.

Reply to Banno :up: You sure got them mirror neurones firing there dude!

Reply to Janus :kiss:

It's funny how 'ism' has long had such totemic power . But if most isms are beliefs would we bother to say there is no escape from beliefs or worry about this in the same way?

Reply to Tom Storm The thing about a belief that such-and-such is that it is a belief that such-and-such is true. So yes, most would bother to say there is no escape from isms and worry about this - because they are true.

Reply to Banno I get that. In the 1970's people heavily into pacifism would often say, without irony, 'I'm not into ism's, Man,... peace.' They thought isms were bad beliefs and all other beliefs were ism free.

Any conception can be rejected merely by re-thinking the conditions for it.

While re-thinking is the exchange of conceptual validity, which is an entailed judgement alone, re-thinking is not necessarily conceptual substitution, which is a separated cognition incorporating its own conditions.
(Re: I can easily think some concept does not belong to its cognition, without ever thinking which concept does so belong.)

Therefore, rejecting an -ism, which at the same time explicates rejection of the concept appended to it, does not necessarily require another —ism and its appended conception be substituted for it.

It follows that the statement, “rejection of -isms is itself an -ism, and hence contradictory”, is false.

Quoting Mww

While re-thinking is the exchange of conceptual validity, which is an entailed judgement alone, re-thinking is not necessarily conceptual substitution, which is a separated cognition incorporating its own conditions.

I have no idea what this means but it looks great.

My favourite ism is antidisestablishmentarianism.

Quoting Tom Storm

While re-thinking is the exchange of conceptual validity, which is an entailed judgement alone, re-thinking is not necessarily conceptual substitution, which is a separated cognition incorporating its own conditions.
— Mww

I have no idea what this means but it looks great.

Sounds to me like a special kind of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious-ism :chin:

Quoting Tom Storm

If rejecting isms requires a suffix

My point is that it doesn’t. The common rejoinder is, well, hell, dude, if you reject fanaticism, you’re automatically an advocate of anti-fanaticism. To which I say......horsefeathers.

Reply to Amity
When the shoulders go high, I go low.

Quoting Cuthbert

Some isms are, debatably, not possible to reject. For example (debatably) it's not possible to reject the view that there is a world outside our own perceptions.

Good to know. Reminds me of René Descartes' cogito ergo sum. The proposition, "I think" can't be rejected for to do so requires, most intriguingly, that I think.

However, I'm at a loss as to whether the proposition, "I think" is amenable to the construction of an Ism based on it. I was told or I read it somewhere, I don't recall, that Descartes did exactly that, putting, or attempting to put, all of philosophy on what to him was the firm bedrock of the cogito ergo sum. Ithinkism :rofl: can't be rejected.

Hmmm....@Banno, @180 Proof can you take a look at this.

Quoting Janus

"There's no escape from isms"- ?TheMadFool

Ism there?

Quoting Banno

...so you are an ismist. You espouse ismism.

Though I don't doubt the value of the many Isms that roam the philosophical jungle, I was contemplating the possibility of rejecting ALL of them even if only for my and, hopefully, your amusement but with tiny chance that such a position - no position - might have real and significant consequences for philosophy in particular and life in general.

To my understanding, to reject ALL Isms, including nihilism, itself can be treated as an Ism and that's what the title of this thread spells out - "There's no escape from Isms".

It's something like the Buddhist desire conundrum which defies a solution. Buddhists à la Siddhartha Gautama, believe that desire is the root of all suffering. Thus buddhists are of the view that to end suffering one must put out the fire of desire. Unfortunately or...not, to not want to desire is, salva veritate, to want to not want to desire. In other words, we can't end desire without the desire to do so. :chin:

It's impossible to not be part of an Ism for to not want that itself is an Ism just as its impossible to end desire for to do that one must desire.

Quoting Banno

Can it? Rejecting the purported overarching status of any ism looks like an ism...

:up: :ok: Show the fly the way out of the bottle, sir/madam as the case might be. :smile:

Quoting khaled

Not all isms end with “ism”

To reject all isms is another ism. “Rejectism” let’s call it.

Vide supra...show the fly the way out of the bottle.

Also, expand and elaborate on "Not all isms end with 'ism'". The statement gives off an air of profundity that calls for an investigation. Is it, as I feel, deep or is it, as I think, just another Dennettian deepity? Vide infra my response to Jack Cummins

Quoting Jack Cummins

I am not sure that we are just restricted to isms. For example, one can be a Jungian and that is not an ism. Generally, I think that isms are about putting ideas into boxes, and I am not sure that we need to make use of such boxes to label our ideas, but rather juxtapose them in the most creative ways to develop our viewpoints.

You're looking at this from a linguistic perspective, words to be precise and that too only at how they're spelt. Isms aren't about spelling, they're conceptual frameworks usually developed in order to make sense of particular aspects of or the whole of reality. Your view on this, taken to its logical conclusion, would require us to conclude that ethics isn't a study of anything because it doesn't in "ology" like theology, epistemlogy, and so on.

Quoting Janus

Depends on what you mean by "reject". The purported overarching status of any ism can be rejected without that rejection being an ism, but rather just an observation of the diversity of human fields of inquiry and opinion

Interesting to say the least. Kindly explain further. What makes you think this is so? Perhaps one needs to look into the definition of "Ism"

Quoting Amity

I was gonna say 'Escapism' - but there ya go...you just can't get away...and perhaps it is a good thing that we can't avoid -isms.

See my reply to Banno and Khaled vide supra.

I'm going to have to repeat myself I'm afraid: show the fly the way out of the bottle.

Quoting Valentinus

Maybe it is about having an encyclopedia or not, crystallizing works to make them comparable to each other.

Like a butterfly collection but with thoughts being held down by the pin.

Nice metaphor. Unlike the butterfly collection which one can reject and be left with no butterflies, rejecting the entire collection of Isms is, good or bad, itself yet another Ism. It's like this time when I wanted to get adhesive paper off my fingers to which they were stuck firmly. I used my left hand to peel the paper off my right hand but then the paper clung to my left hand. I then used my right hand with the same results. I then proceeded to use my feet and the paper bound itself to my shoes. Suffice it to say that my attempts to free myself were futile just like Isms, which if we want to get rid off results in us being sucked into yet another Ism.

Quoting Mww

Any conception can be rejected merely by re-thinking the conditions for it.

While re-thinking is the exchange of conceptual validity, which is an entailed judgement alone, re-thinking is not necessarily conceptual substitution, which is a separated cognition incorporating its own conditions.
(Re: I can easily think some concept does not belong to its cognition, without ever thinking which concept does so belong.)

Therefore, rejecting an -ism, which at the same time explicates rejection of the concept appended to it, does not necessarily require another —ism and its appended conception be substituted for it.

It follows that the statement, “rejection of -isms is itself an -ism, and hence contradictory”, is false.

The above passage needs @Banno's, @Janus' and @khaled's attention.

As far as I can tell, Mww seems to be saying rejecting an Ism doesn't amount to endorsing another, usually antithetical Ism. Every Ism no matter how complex or expansive, in my humble opinion, can be whittled down, distilled as it were, to a single proposition that can be true, false, or unprovable/unproven.

Let's work with an example, say matters divine. There's theism which boils down to the proposition, "god exists". If I give up theism, I'm essentially saying, either 1. god doesn't exist or 2. we don't know god exists. Both, as we all know, are Isms, atheism and agnosticism respectively.

As the example above illustrates beyond doubt, abandoning an Ism, keeping in mind the three truth states (true, false, unproven/unprovable) of the key proposition of an Ism, results in adopting another Ism.

In conclusion, Mmw view doesn't hold water.

Quoting Amity

TheMadFool is practising absenteethism

Quoting baker

Our teeth continue to rot as if nothing happened.

:rofl: It's all so funny until someone loses an/a [s]eye[/s] tooth.

Having fun, guys/gals as the case maybe?

Carry on!

Quoting TheMadFool

Having fun, guys/gals as the case maybe?

Carry on!

Thanks for the invitation but ''No Thanks'' !
The thread provided some lovely quirky moments - a nice mix of serious and fun...but I'm done... :cool:

Quoting Amity

Thanks for the invitation but ''No Thanks'' !
The thread provided some lovely quirky moments - a nice mix of serious and fun...but I'm done... :cool:

Really? It looked like you two just got started! Thank God!

Quoting TheMadFool

Really? It looked like you two just started! Thank God!

Yeah, have moved on to prisms. Of light. More fun :wink:

Quoting Amity

Yeah, have moved on to prisms. Of light. More fun :wink:

You had to reply didn't you? Nice play on words though. Are you a writer by any chance? You know, like, having written novels, articles, in an official capacity?

Quoting TheMadFool

You had to reply didn't you?

Yeah. I find it difficult not to, sometimes - more's the pity :sad:

Quoting TheMadFool

Are you a writer by any chance? You know, like, having written novels, articles, in an official capacity?

No. Wot wiv my atroshus gramma an' all :gasp:
However, I enjoy writing here - as a way to enlightenment :wink: :sparkle:
You ?

Quoting TheMadFool

It's something like the Buddhist desire conundrum which defies a solution. Buddhists à la Siddhartha Gautama, believe that desire is the root of all suffering. Thus buddhists are of the view that to end suffering one must put out the fire of desire. Unfortunately or...not, to not want to desire is, salva veritate, to want to not want to desire. In other words, we can't end desire without the desire to do so.

Stop confusing yourself and go study some actual Buddhist doctrine instead of relying on popular pseudobuddhist soundbites.

In Early Buddhism, there are two types of desire: the bad one (tanha) and the good one (chanda). A person is actually suposed to cultivate the desire to make an end to suffering!
There is no catch-22 like some pop-Buddhists would have us believe.

Quoting Amity

Yeah. I find it difficult not to, sometimes - more's the pity :sad:

Same here. What's up with that? Care to share?

Quoting Amity

No. Wot wiv my atroshus gramma an' all :gasp:
However, I enjoy writing here - as a way to enlightenment :wink: :sparkle:
You ?

You have a way with words that I must confess my envy for. Anyway, good to know writing's on your list of favorite things to do.

Speaking for myself, I face a lot of problems putting my thoughts into words but I suspect it's because I don't think as well as one is supposed to for writing (well).

I sense this discussion has come to the end of its natural life. G'day sir/madam as the case may be.

Quoting baker

Stop confusing yourself and go study some actual Buddhist doctrine instead of relying on popular pseudobuddhist soundbites.

I fully second that motion. No one pointed out that particular possibility to me though, except you of course. That said, I wonder if there's a way of parsing the buddhist tenet "life is suffering" that isn't open to an interpretation along lines similar to mine.

Quoting baker

In Early Buddhism, there are two types of desire: the bad one (tanha) and the good one (chanda)

That, acceptable though it is, is, right or wrong, the easy way out. Let's engage in some role play. Suppose I'm your teacher. Your assignment is to solve the paradox as outlined above, keeping in mind "life is suffering" is to be understood as it is with no provisos/caveats/conditions as those that appear in your ingenious solution. Can you?

Reply to TheMadFool

. I want you to understand this ...

. We are existencial: the "ism" is a mind thing. Our approach to reality is not a mind approach; it cannot be a mind approach, by nature ... it is a communication by heart to heart.

. All "isms" have belief systems: we don't have any belief system. Human beings, by nature, cannot have any belief system.

. You cannot believe in the sun ... You SEE IT ... It's an existential phenomenon ... there is no need for a mind approach ... The mind is quiet ... The mind is always utilitarian, not existentialist ...

. You are not required to believe in anything unless you know it; and when you know something you don't believe, it's impossible, because there is no need ... you understand ?

. You believe only things which you don't know.

. Belief grows only in ignorance.

. Knowing something is enough, there is no need to believe. We are seekers, searchers ... the human being is seeking the ultimate, by nature ... we're not believers.

. We, as human beings, don't have or at least we should not have any idea beforehand about what we are going to get in the end, when the search is over.

And this isn't :point: Quoting Anand-Haqq

the "ism" is a mind thing

??? :chin:

I do appreciate the idea though - very zen, always manages to get my juices flowing but my enthusiasm usually fizzles out.

Quoting Anand-Haqq

Human beings, by nature, cannot have any belief system.

That itself boils down to a belief in my humble opinion. After all, it's a proposition which qualifies it as a belief given a good justification.

Quoting Anand-Haqq

You believe only things which you don't know.

Lovely! You're on some kind of wonderful journey I'd like to accompany you on. I find this proposition an impossible one though. Why? If I believe something then I must, in some sense, know it or, at some level, believe that I know it.


Quoting Anand-Haqq

Belief grows only in ignorance

Did you perchance visit this thread: Summum Delirium?

For your information, it's not mandatory to reply to the above.

Reply to TheMadFool

. Belief is against doubt, friend ...

. The moment you say ... For example ... I believe in the communist system of thought ... Or I believe in the catholic priest ... and you know ... all of that rubbish ... it means ... you're against all other systems. You're creating a schizophrenic world. And this leads to war ... it does not lead to compassion ... to love ... to fraternity. Why? Because you're fighting for a system ... and for that ... you don't bother to kill other people ... as long as your system wins ... you understand the chaos of it, friend?

. This is what have been happening through 5,000 years of history, friend ...

. Ironically , all religions ... all the 300 religions ... with no exception ... talk about love ... but they live on constant war ... THEY LIVE FOR WAR ... otherwise they would not exist ... their ego is tremendously subtle ...

. So ... What is my suggestion ... ?

. First, drop believing, friend ... Let beliefs be dropped, they are all rubbish! Trust in doubt, that's my suggestion; don't try to hide it. Trust in doubt. That is the first thing to bring into your being: trust in your doubt; trust in your inner voice; truth is your heart; trust in your inner light. And see the beauty of it, how beautifully trust has come in ...

. Please see this ...

. What does it mean when I say ... "I believe in this system of thought ... ?"

. It means ... that I don't know ... I did not understand it for my own ... for my own light ... and I do not want to understand it through my inner voice ... but I will pretend that I know, to the world ... and to myself.

. The moment you know, belief fades away ...

Quoting TheMadFool

To my understanding, to reject ALL Isms, including nihilism, itself can be treated as an Ism and that's what the title of this thread spells out - "There's no escape from Isms".

My question, though, was as to what it could mean to "reject" them all. Could it mean to posit a contrary or opposite standpoint to each and every one of them? That can't be right because impossible, since to counter some would be to support others.

So, could it mean simply to reject the idea that any ism could represent the sole and absolute truth? I think that's right because we know, if we think about it some, that no truth is, or could be, context-independent, which observation rules out the possibility that any ism could represent the sole and absolute truth.

All this without proposing any ism. (You could say this is 'antiabsolutism', and you would be right, but that position is not an ism because the ism in there is the ism of absolutism). The position is not antiabsolutismism, it's simply antiabsolutism.

Reply to TheMadFool

If by "isms" you have in mind different philosophical views, such as rationalism, phenomenalism, liberalism and the like, you could say you reject all of them.

It would be a bit hard. As in, I agree with the tenants of rationalism, but I am not a rationalist or I am sympathetic to libertarian ideals, but I'm not a (market) libertarian.

If you agree with parts of a certain tradition or traditions, I don't see why saying an "ism" implies you follow each school of thought as if it were religious doctrine.

It's more difficult to deny some type of affinity with any school of thought than to say "I agree with parts X and Y of this-ism and I like Z of that-ism, but I'm not a this-or-that-ist". I don't see what is gained. The problem is how other people interpret said traditions and attribute to them things you don't believe in.

So yes, it's possible, but I'm not sure it's practical. Maybe it could be.

Quoting Anand-Haqq

schizophrenic world

I concur but only with the caveat that my grasp of reality is wanting in many respects. Just out of curiosity, what else is on your differential diagonosis? The reasons being that in some circles, probably ones that have a zen kinda spirit, it's believed that "there's method to someone's madness" and that "there's a thin line between genius and madness".

Quoting Anand-Haqq

Trust in doubt

:up: I can't make sense of that but my feelings tell me you're on the right track. If you'll permit me a corollary, trust your enemy. I'd give my eye teeth to be able to do that, assuming, unbeknownst to me, I'm not already doing it.

Quoting Janus

My question, though, was as to what it could mean to "reject" them all.

Vide infra as to what rejecting ALL Isms entail:

1. An ism can be, if all goes well, reduced to a single proposition i.e. an ism can be true/false/unproven but in all cases they're sold to us as truths.

2. If I reject ALL isms, I deny the truth claims made by them. This drops us off at the station where we can catch a train that leaves for nihilism. Nihilism, as far as I can tell, claims that no claims (isms) are true or true enough to be worth belief.

3. I now, just for kicks but with the hope that something substantive might lie at the end of this road, refuse nihilism. Note here that nihilism, to my understanding, claims no claims (isms) are truthful. Ergo, step 3 leads us to the conclusion that some claims (isms) are truthful.

4. Some claims (isms) are truthful...the path forks here. One sets up a task for us to wit, sussing out which claims (isms) are truthful or concord with reality.

The other, more challenging in a logical sense, takes us back to nihilism by assuming, if only in an exploratory sense, that the claim (ism) that's truthful is nihilism itself. This immediately results in a paradox: Nihilism both affirms and negates itself. If it affirms itself, it must negate itself. Nihilism can't be true on pain of a contradiction.

5. Since we rejected ALL isms, even if only for the heck of it, and since nihilism, a result of refusing ALL isms, itself is untenable, we're, in every sense of the word, in some kind of philosophical limbo. Mu???

Quoting TheMadFool

1. An ism can be, if all goes well, reduced to a single proposition i.e. an ism can be true/false/unproven but in all cases they're sold to us as truths.

1.What single proposition could socialism be reduced to? Darwinism? Jungianism? Freudianism? Modernism? Post Modernism? Platonism?

It doesn't seem to me that any of these can be reduced to single propositions. It also seems to be that all of these contains some truths or elements of truth; but these are all dependent on context.

2. & 3. What do you take nihilism to be claiming apart from the usual denial of objective meaning? Are you extending that to the claim that there is no objective truth? If so, then nihilism would be saying that there are no context-independent truth, and more, that there are no subject-independent truths just as there are no subject-independent meanings (according to nihilism as it is usually understood).

What about empiricism? It claims that there are empirical truths; truths that can be confirmed by observation. This seems irrefutable to me. My understanding of rejecting isms is not to deny that they contain any truth but that whatever their truths are; they are relevant only to a context. I actually think this is also pretty much irrefutable, that it is not correctly referred to as nihilism, and does not itself constitute an ism at all; it is merely an acknowledgment of the limited and contextual nature of all human claims.

Quoting Janus

1.What single proposition could socialism be reduced to? Darwinism? Jungianism? Freudianism? Modernism? Post Modernism? Platonism?

That's true in the sense it hasn't been done but my hunch is it's not impossible and thereby hangs a tale. Why do I think so? Mantras. In the vedic tradition of India, despite its many flaws, there's a long history of word contractions à la "will not" as "won't" and perhaps even along the lines of acronyms e.g. "UN" for "United Nations". The rationale behind it is lost to history I suspect but the word "Om" or "Aum" is supposed to be stand for ALL creation, everything there was, is, or will be. If the universe itself can be summarized as it were into a two-lettered, one-syllable, single word, doing this (coming up with a mantra) for all the isms in your list above and beyond should be, in a manner of speaking, child's play.

That said, a mantra seems more about sound than propositional content although we could tweak it to perform in such a capacity. I maybe mistaken of course but expect, at the very least, a grain of truth in what I say.

Quoting Janus

2. & 3. What do you take nihilism to be claiming apart from the usual denial of objective meaning? Are you extending that to the claim that there is no objective truth? If so, then nihilism would be saying that there are no context-independent truth, and more, that there are no subject-independent truths just as there are no subject-independent meanings (according to nihilism as it is usually understood).

What about empiricism? It claims that there are empirical truths; truths that can be confirmed by observation. This seems irrefutable to me. My understanding of rejecting isms is not to deny that they contain any truth but that whatever their truths are; they are relevant only to a context. I actually think this is also pretty much irrefutable, that it is not correctly referred to as nihilism, and does not itself constitute an ism at all; it is merely an acknowledgment of the limited and contextual nature of all human claims.

I've come to the rather disappointing conclusion that it's all a game but not in the sense of a game game but that life, living it, and the cosmos itself, operates under some rules and that the idea is to play by the rules, sometimes cheat (break/bend rules) if possible so long as the umpire/referee doesn't notice, and so on. Don't get me wrong, this particular viewpoint is not meant as advice on how to live life but is largely a description of the status quo. There's room for improvement in my humble opinion.

Coming to what I'm trying to get across to the reader, consider my enterprise - rejecting ALL isms - a game. So long as we adopt this attitude that it's just play, we free ourselves from the constraints of isms, any and all, which your post by and large is about. It's just an experiment.

[hide][/hide]

Reply to TheMadFool

. I do not belong to any system ...

. I´m multidimensional ... I'm a Life ... You cannot imprision a free being ... You cannot imprision Life ... Can you ?

. A truth will always be a truth even if one's opinion goes against it.

. The ocean will always tastes the same in any corner of the world, even if one do not believe in it ... right ?

. Life is a fact ... None human's systems are a fact ... They are a search for power ... They are an ego trip ... and sure we produce Genghis Khans; Hitlers; Mussolinis ... and so on so forth ...

. Nobody talks about the beautiful phenomena of History ... they just talk about murderers ...

Quoting TheMadFool

I fully second that motion.

What do you intend to do about it in the next 24 hours?

That, acceptable though it is, is, right or wrong, the easy way out. Let's engage in some role play. Suppose I'm your teacher. Your assignment is to solve the paradox as outlined above, keeping in mind "life is suffering" is to be understood as it is with no provisos/caveats/conditions as those that appear in your ingenious solution. Can you?

Unlike some, I have not fallen asleep at the wheel.

Referred to for the n-th time:

Life Isn't Just Suffering

Reply to Anand-Haqq Fairy Nuff Mad Fool

Quoting Anand-Haqq

I´m multidimensional ... I'm a Life ... You cannot imprision a free being ... You cannot imprision Life ... Can you ?

Yes. In a prison.

Reply to Tom Storm

. hahahah ... Such mediocrity of yours friend ...

. You can imprision the body ... yes.

. But you cannot imprision human consciousness ... and ... Life means ... consciousness ... Life means ... awareness ... a quintessence awareness.

. You're not the body ... you have a body ... you're witnessing the body ... you're just a pure witness ... nobody can take away from you, your consciousness ... No stupid politician or no stupid priest, right ... ?

. Buddha, once, was recorded for saying - "Even in Hell, I'll be well" ... Meditate upon this, friend ...

Reply to Anand-Haqq Quoting Anand-Haqq

Buddha, once, was recorded for saying - "Even in Hell, I'll be well" ... Meditate upon this, friend ...

Yes, but you missed the entire quote - "Even in Hell, I'll be well, but I'm really, really afraid."

Your posts are very familiar. J Kirshnamurti said very similar things.

Quoting baker

What do you intend to do about it in the next 24 hours?

What do you expect me to do?

Quoting baker

Unlike some, I have not fallen asleep at the wheel.

Referred to for the n-th time:

Life Isn't Just Suffering

Read that article you provided a link to. A good exposition by all standards. The writer, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, explains that the idea that "life is suffering" is a misconception, and those who think Buddhism is pessimistic/negative, as he puts it, have got the wrong end of the stick so to speak. However, several paragraphs down he admits that there is suffering in the world and he pinpoints its cause as craving/clinging. Thanissaro then proceeds to talk about the Buddha's antidote for the craving/clinging which is, as every schoolboy knows, the 8-fold path. This is all very good, nothing seems amiss insofar as my own knowledge of Buddhism is concerned.

However, it looks as though he forgot one important detail to wit, Sa?s?ra. An excerpt from the Wikipedia page vide infra:

[quote=Wikipedia]Sa?s?ra in Buddhism, states Jeff Wilson, is the "suffering-laden cycle of life, death, and rebirth, without beginning or end"[/quote]

Clearly, Thanissaro is way off mark, at least in a Buddhist sense, in saying "life is not suffering", the title of his short, interesting but completely wrong exposition of the place of suffering in Buddhist philosophy.

Quoting TheMadFool

What do you expect me to do?

Read with more precision.

Quoting TheMadFool

Clearly, Thanissaro is way off mark, at least in a Buddhist sense, in saying "life is not suffering", the title of his short, interesting but completely wrong exposition of the place of suffering in Buddhist philosophy.

Now, did Thanissaro Bhikkhu actually say "life is not suffering", or did you perhaps miss out on a word?

And clearly, you don't know who Thanissaro Bhikkhu is or what other texts he's written and about which topics. To accuse him of what you just did is ... *sigh*

Reply to Tom Storm

. Yes ... friend ... Krishnamurti was a man of great insight ...

. He was a true master ... A rare master ... Because the majority of the so-called masters from the 20 st century and even now were just charlatans ... for example Sathya Sai Baba ...

. But ... I have my way ... and Krishnamurti had certainly his way ... we both reached the peak of the himalayas ... but we went from different paths ... whose ultimate is the same though ...

. His path was the intellectual path ... the dimension of human awareness ...

. My path is wider ... His vision was too narrow but tremendously clear cut ... He was in the line between philosophy and mysticism ... he was a beautiful man ... my vision is a bit more foggy ... it's a synthesis of all the great masters ...

Reply to Anand-Haqq Dunning-Krugerism

Reply to emancipate

. Thanks for the jargon word, friend ... You must have found that term recently ... you want to exhibit your undigested knowledgeability trash ... that's good ... go on ...

. I would be surprised if you had understood ...

. Because, if you had you would be simpler and wiser ... with no jargons ...

Quoting baker

Now, did Thanissaro Bhikkhu actually say "life is not suffering", or did you perhaps miss out on a word?

Life isn't just suffering. Apologies, my bad. If so, why all the fuss about nirvana?

Quoting Anand-Haqq

Buddha, once, was recorded for saying - "Even in Hell, I'll be well"

Source?

Quoting TheMadFool

Life isn't just suffering. Apologies, my bad. If so, why all the fuss about nirvana?

Because there is suffering. The usual course of a person's life is that it swings from grief to joy, and again to grief, and again joy, and so often, it ends in grief. It's this swinging and the uncertainty of joy that is so exhausting.

And don't apologize to me. It's unproductive, to say the least, to read with insufficient precision.
Also, I'm guessing that you don't know where to start to read up Buddhist doctrine.

Is it possible to actually have a conversation about whether or not the epistemological break is even possible within this thread?

Reply to thewonder Thus, a metaism? It's still an ism.

Reply to baker
I'm just saying that I thought that this thread was an off the cuff inquiry into whether or not you can reject all isms and have been wondering about that since I followed a link to an article about it on Wikipedia.