The Unfortunate Prevalence of Nothing-But-ism
Here are just a few examples in no particular thematic order:
There seems to be a common will to fundamentalism, to foundationalism, and an ignorance of the fact that what might work in one domain of discourse is inappropriate to others in all these reductionistic kinds of formulas that.seem to plague human thought and life.
Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms?
Have at it!
- Reality is nothing but microphysical particles interacting
- Our thoughts are nothing but neuro-chemical interactions
- Emotions are nothing but the effects of hormones
- Reality is nothing but the physical
- Reality is nothing but appearances
- Our selves are nothing but social constructions
- Life is nothing but suffering
- Human life is nothing but a journey of the soul or spirit from darkness to light
- There is nothing but the will of God
- Faith is nothing but belief despite the evidence
- Human history is nothing but the evolving manifestation of power relations
- The reality of power relations is nothing but a matter of who controls the means of production
- The evolution of the universe is determined by nothing but entropy
- The problem of global warming and environmental degradation is nothing but a political one
There seems to be a common will to fundamentalism, to foundationalism, and an ignorance of the fact that what might work in one domain of discourse is inappropriate to others in all these reductionistic kinds of formulas that.seem to plague human thought and life.
Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms?
Have at it!
Comments (37)
Everything is nothing but something. You can't really define or describe something without saying what it is and what it is not.
[quote=Francis Crick]The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.”[/quote]
[quote=Daniel Dennett]An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe.[/quote]
I think that's the context in which the criticism of 'nothing but' is cogent. The other examples can be couched in the same verbal formulation but I don't know how often they would be encountered, if at all. And to say that they're also examples of reductionism might be nothing but an example of 'whataboutism'. ('You say materialists are reductionist! What about some of those spiritual types/marxist historians/etc!')
Isms are nothing but nothing-but-isms.
As usual in these types of discussions :100:
Yes, this phrase "nothing but" reminds me of another one, quite similar, as is the case when someone says something like colours are just waves of light, emotions are just chemicals. By saying these words, it's clear that hard problems are put to the side.
So take your example Quoting Janus
What is an appearance? Is the questioner implying that this person suffering because of some famine or some war is an appearance? Well that seems to take a lot away from what I'm experiencing. And likewise with selves being social constructions. Yeah, probably they are constructions, but we don't treat them as we would characters in a novel...
It's easy to say, but big problems remain with all of them by using "nothing but" or "just".
Yes. And depending on the prevalent fundamentalism of the time, you may be metaphorically or literally burned at the stake for not falling in line.
Isn't "nothing-but" a pretty well-defined scope?
You ain't nothing but a hedgehog...
You don't even know me brah...
'brah' ?
You ain't nothing but a heartache...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rMPzgCLNCHs
Care to respond to the thread?
I was...
Nothing but...no less than...
Hound-dog-ism.
Cool
Nothing but ice, ice, baby :wink:
Only if all explanations, definitions, and theories are isms.
I’m pretty much ok with that. All -isms are concerned only with the affirmation or negation of the essential root conception, right?
Quoting Janus
The intrinsic human need for certainty on the one hand, and the lazy folks’ intrinsic wish to have decisions ready-made for them on the other. Hence.....everything from the Logical Laws of Thought to the Planck Constant to expiration dates on consumables. And of course, the Ten Commandments and variations thereof.
Pluralism (philosophy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pluralism is a term used in philosophy, meaning "doctrine of multiplicity," often used in opposition to monism ("doctrine of unity") and dualism ("doctrine of duality"). The term has different meanings in metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and logic.
In metaphysics, pluralism is the doctrine that—contrary to the assertions of monism and dualism—there are in fact many different substances in nature that constitute reality.
In ontology, pluralism refers to different ways, kinds, or modes of being. For example, a topic in ontological pluralism is the comparison of the modes of existence of things like 'humans' and 'cars' with things like 'numbers' and some other concepts as they are used in science.
-----------------------------------------------
Is Pluralism a nothing-but-ism?
Quoting T Clark
This is in response to the question as to whether all isms are nothing-but-isms. Of course they are not in themselves, so that question is badly formed and I agree with what you when you say that you can't describe something without saying what it is and what it is not.
But all descriptions are from a perspective, and it is the thinking of a particular perspective as foundational or fundamental and the claim that all other perspectives are reducible to this one perspective that I am attempting to address.
Quoting Wayfarer
Right, but I was not making any claim as to how often, in particular domains of thought, this kind of reductionism is encountered, but pointing out that all domains of thought are plagued with this human tendency to foundationalism, fundamentalism, absolutism, reductionism or whatever else you might want to call it.
You always seem to want to pass everything through the lens of your pet polemic between materialism and idealism, which you seem to see as a kind of struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil . I actually see this as another example of reductionism; thinking that the whole of human thought and philosophy is reducible to this polemic, this fundamental struggle between darkness and light.
You seem to want to reduce this inquiry to "whataboutism" only when it shines any light on the shortcomings of your favorite side.
To give an example of reductionism in the context of Hinduism and Buddhism I would point to the idea that the circumstances we find ourselves in are entirely down to karma, that we are just reaping what we have sown in previous incarnations. It is a well-worn observation that this kind of common fundamentalism leads to political indifference and entrenchment of the established order, just as the notion that everything is as it is according to the will of God does.
Quoting praxis
That's a neater formulation!
Quoting Manuel
Yes, probably they are, from a certain perspective, constructions, but, as you say, we don't treat them as characters in a novel, which would be to treat them as nothing but constructions. The point being that they are not nothing but constructions, even if it might be valid to say that they are, in a certain sense, constructions.
Quoting Noble Dust :up:
Quoting Shawn
Quoting Noble Dust
Quoting baker
I'm missing the logic here. Are you saying that all explanations, definitions and theories are
essentially nothing-but-isms, with the corollary that all isms are nothing-but-isms only if all explanations etc, are isms?
Quoting Mww
Yes, but as @Daemon points out below, the exception might be pluralism.
Quoting Mww
Makes sense to me!
But, your point seems apt in describing complex phenomena with general statements about their described state in terms of accepted norms for their respective behavior.
I wouldn't put it in those terms, but there's definitely something in it. But, yes, I agree that it can take the form of religious fundamentalism and dogmatism, but they are fringe elements in our culture, whereas scientiific reductionism is mainstream.
In fact, holism as a philosophical idea arose as a reaction to reductionism. There was an early 20th c book, Holism and Evolution, Jan Smuts, which explored those ideas. Then Arthur Koestler coined the term ‘holons’ as ‘something which is a whole in itself whilst also being part of a larger ensemble which constitute a whole’. It applies very well to, for example, the living cell. (Interesting wiki article on that here ). And a holistic approach is also basic to many of the assumptions underlying systems theory and biosemiotics, as we’ve learned from Apokrisis.
Maybe, but I would treat pluralism as a singular conception in itself. Pluralism is still different than the myriad of separate -isms contained in it. If pluralism was a pot, it matters not to it, that there is something, or there is nothing, in it.
Do you mean, all isms are nothing but nothing-but-isms?
I don't agree, that seems reductive. For example, take nominalism vs idealism. While nominalism generally has to reduce names of things (i.e. forms) to "nothing but" a name, idealists don't necessarily have to reject the reality of the material. You can be an idealist and not hold that reality is "nothing but" ideas. Hylomorphism is a "yes, and..." ism.
It was a question, not an assertion of my own belief. The point was, as I already stated, that isms becoming nothing-but-isms when they claim to be absolute, or independent of particular perspectives or domains of inquiry. Narrative becomes dogma; that kind of thing.
The last sentence doesn't follow. How does narrative become dogma?
Are you claiming that the stories we tell each other never become dogma?
Without context they, even worse, become some kind of proselytizing or propaganda. Within the framework of their thought, then it's nothing but a contextual statement. No?
Proselytizing and propaganda is usually in the form of dogma, but dogma is not necessarily proselytized or propagandized, it may be just held as a personal belief that one thinks is the one true Truth. So I'm not seeing the distinction you are apparently wanting to make.
If pluralism allows for all the other isms within their proper contexts, (but obviously not as absolutes) then I still don't see how it would qualify as "nothing-but-ism". Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, though?
Not necessarily, I suppose. Perhaps the brush I’m painting with is too broad. Just seems to me, that which is singular represents nothing other than itself. Pluralism, being a concept of its own, then stands as the condition for any of the -isms contained in it, but stands as representation of none of them.
Interesting topic, fun to play with, but not worth a real argument, to be sure. Knuckle down, drag out fight, I mean.
No. I'm allowing for the possibility that something, even though it is called an ism, is actually true (and all the explanations, definitions, and theories that go with it), in which case it's not yet another ism.
I haven't denied that the assertions, or at least some of them, in any ism might be true, but truth is contextual, and the truth in any domain of inquiry cannot be considered absolute or fundamental to reality, or of first priority across all domains of inquiry without it becoming a nothing-but-ism. That has been my main point: I haven't been arguing that there are no truths relative to domains of thought, domains which might be thought of as isms.
That's an absolute assertion. And a nothing-but-ism.
And you hold that this should be "considered absolute or fundamental to reality, or of first priority across all domains"?
No, it's not absolute, it's contextual: it's a truth of human life.
Quoting baker
No it's not an absolute or fundamental truth in all domains, it's not a truth of physics or chemistry or cosmology, for example, but its a truth about domains. Its just saying that truths (if there are any) are relative to domains of thought and inquiry. The truths (again if there are such) of Buddhism, for another example, are irrelevant outside of the context of Buddhist concerns.
Quoting Cuthbert
An apt and neat summation; thanks.
Quoting Mww
Ha ha good answer to which I can think of no question!
Seems this thread
Is nothing but
Dead