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. — TheMadFool

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.

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

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.

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. — Janus

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.

. 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 ...

I fully second that motion. — TheMadFool

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

Fairy Nuff Mad Fool

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

Yes. In a prison.

. 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 ...

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

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.

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

What do you expect me to do?

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

Referred to for the n-th time:

Life Isn't Just Suffering — baker

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, Saṃsāra. An excerpt from the Wikipedia page vide infra:

Saṃsāra in Buddhism, states Jeff Wilson, is the "suffering-laden cycle of life, death, and rebirth, without beginning or end" — Wikipedia

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.

What do you expect me to do? — TheMadFool

Read with more precision.

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. — TheMadFool

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*

. 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 ...

Dunning-Krugerism

. 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 ...

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

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

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

Source?

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

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?

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

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.