I've seen people complain about "isms" as if they are above isms. But people don't get to choose their labels. If they believe that everything that isn't the norm counts as an ism and should be avoided, they still believe in capitalism and whatnot, whether they want to admit that that's what supporting the norm entails or not. Is there a scenerio where someone could be totally void of isms? Would that make any sense?
-
Indeed 'ism' could be said to be nothing else but the good old Platonic forms unshakable for many, people may think or believe they can freely choose or select but merely remember either self-consistent or inconsistent histories per Plato if not all the time. There's a view called ontological nihilism which strictly speaking is not a 'ism', at least in its colloquial sense...– Double KnotSep 15 at 23:58
-
People complain about "isms" because those are overused and abused as loaded invectives, not because they go all abstract and make grandiose generalizations about not falling under any "ism" whatsoever. So what is the point of this strawman?– ConifoldSep 16 at 0:04
-
No, you can literally search 'the problem with isms' and find multiple articles that say exactly that. Either their saying, 'all isms are bad except mine' (but then why talk about the problem with isms in general) or are they are talking nonsense. Or is there a specific scenario where such talk would make sense, which is what I'm asking.– user67835Sep 16 at 0:12
-
e.g., quora.com/What-is-the-problem-with-ideology-i-e-isms, like what, there are people that can exist without ideologies? They actually believe, 'everyone has ideology but me'? Sounds ridiculous, I'm not sure when that ever can make sense.– user67835Sep 16 at 0:16
-
If they aren't all making a generalized statement, it'd be quite the coincidence. They are the ones making these statements, I'm just asking if it makes any sense, since I doubt any are saying, 'the problem with me'– user67835Sep 16 at 0:19
|
Show 7 more comments