Could very well be.

I tend to like dogma. I googled dogma just to make sure, and G offered this synopsis of the movie Dogma at the top of the page:

Two fallen angels who were ejected from paradise find themselves banned in Wisconsin. They are now headed for New Jersey where they find a loophole that can get them back into heaven. The only catch is that it will destroy humanity. A group bands together to stop them. — Google

What I was looking for was "from the Greek 'dogma' (Greek δόγμα) meaning literally "that which one thinks is true" and 'dokein' (Greek dokeo) "to seem good". ("dokeo" went on to have a distinguished career as the expression, "okie dokie" meaning "OK, seems good")

Over time my preferred δόγμα has changed from Christian idealism to a much more materialist realism. I like knowing where I stand, what the world is about, what will probably happen next, and so on. Relativism doesn't mix with dogma much, except where relativism IS dogma, so that's out.

I'm never sure what existentialism is supposed to be, so it makes poor dogma.

Since these three rings encompass such a large circus of ideas, are more possibilities needed?

I'm never sure what existentialism is supposed to be, so it makes poor dogma. — Bitter Crank

Would you like to know what I think existentialism is supposed to be?

Since these three rings encompass such a large circus of ideas, are more possibilities needed? — Bitter Crank

I suppose one could choose to be eclectic. But still, wouldn't one then be an eclectic Dogmatist, Existentialist or Relativist?

I'm trying to decide whether I want to continue as a Dogmatist in search of a Dogma to explain, elaborate on and adhere to, or to just accept Existentialism.

I do like reading about the history of Analytic philosophy (the history of the search for a complete system is fascinating), and I enjoy reading Existentialist philosophers.

I think a better term than dogma would be foundationalism. That seems to be what you have in mind. I think there's a fourth choice: nihilism. Relativism and existentialism still hold to meaning, they just relegate it to a social or individual construction respectively (although I realize these terms can have slippery definitions). Nihilism, on the other hand, rejects meaning altogether.

Would you like to know what I think existentialism is supposed to be? — anonymous66

Of course.

Are there other possibilities? — anonymous66

I was about to say foundationalism instead of dogma until @Thorongil aptly mentioned this, but probably take it one step further in that relativism - but in particular existentialism - do form meaning for the individual or at the very least contrast and ameliorate this epistemic structure that enables or strengthens the formation of our identity. For instance, I personally appreciate phenomenal conservatism because it articulates a difference between propositional content from beliefs. I am not entirely sure about both nihilism and relativism; perhaps radical skepticism?

Nihilism — Thorongil

But isn't nihilism a dogma? It seems like a nihilist has to have this kernel of anti-dogma which repels every other dogma.

For me, existentialism is considering the possibility (for some it may be "accepting") that there truly is no system, no dogma to discover and/or adhere to.

Instead of looking for some system (or accepting some system) an existentialist sees the world afresh as a free being who has the first hand experience of finding himself in various situations.

Instead of looking for some system (or accepting some system) an existentialist insists on taking seriously the fact that he is a free being in an essentially meaningless (no system, no meaning) universe (even Christian existentialists consider meaninglessness or absurdity).

An existentialist wonders, "if no system, then how should I live?"

But isn't nihilism a dogma? It seems like a nihilist has to have this kernel of anti-dogma which repels every other dogma. — Bitter Crank

If nihilism is a dogma, then can't the same be said of foundationalism?

Does it come down to either Dogma or Existentialism or Relativism?

[...]

Are there other possibilities? — anonymous66

Wouldn’t all conceivable stances yet be addressing that which is true (of the ontic)? In which case, there would then be a ubiquitously present meta-position: that of philalethia (the love of truth). … One could add an “-ism” to this term if one likes.

I think a better term than dogma would be foundationalism. — Thorongil

Isn't foundationalism just a theory of knowledge? I'm talking about complete systems of philosophies that would include a theory of knowledge.

If you're talking about the general human condition in general (philosophers and TPF members included), I think some form of dogma tends to be at the root of our understanding and experience of the world. But the word dogma has negative connotations; I think irrational belief, rather, is at the root of all systems of thought, from nihilism to analytic philosophy, to existentialism, to Islamism. A truly rational system of thought would begin with a single root, "I exist", for instance, and then every branch of the system would perfectly follow from that, but no one is so perfectly rational as to be able to develop and maintain such a system. Such a system would actually be incomplete; it would be impossible to live within the world of experience and yet rationally construct such a system from within experience; the system would have to be constructed from outside experience (analysis), but analysis exists within experience. Or, imagine a truly rational system of thought as a straight vertical line, from existence at the bottom, to Truth (or whichever word you like) at the top. There's always a bend in the line somewhere, regardless of the person forming the system.

But dogmatism, as in being unwilling to even question one's own beliefs, is synonymous with fundamentalism; that's why I often argue that atheistic fundamentalism exists just as much as religious fundamentalism does. "Great" thinkers of all beliefs have been dogmatic. The problem with dogmatism is that it sits belief down within a specific cultural chair and refuses to let it move around the room of diverse experience, if you will.

Existentialism, to me, is the closest to a rigorous philosophy. It begins with "I exist", but rather than attempting to construct a truly rational system of belief from that perspective, it simply passively acknowledges the existential root, the starting point, and it integrates all aspects of experience into it's necessarily incomplete system, including rationality. Existentialism doesn't attempt to remove itself from the sea of experience; it acknowledges that the fish can't survive on the shore of pure rationality.

Relativism is just lazy epistemology.

Nihilism seems like less of a set of beliefs held by an individual (other than the occasional 20-something TPF newbie), and more of an ethos in our current milieu. Meaninglessness is a latent theme in consumerism at this point, at least in America, I think.

Well, you have highlighted the self-refuting nature of nihilism. I only stated what nihilism claims, not whether it is coherent.

Isn't foundationalism just a theory of knowledge? I'm talking about complete systems of philosophies that would include a theory of knowledge. — anonymous66

I guess I don't understand you then.

Thought it might be worth pointing out that this conversation is in English.

Further, the participants do not doubt that the conversation is in English.

Funny, that.

I take it then that you’re for the alternative position of English-ism for those here involved, no?

Just pointing out that there are plenty of things that we do not doubt until some philosopher asks us to.

Folk take it as read that we ought not believe unless we have a justification.

Ought we doubt the obvious without justification?

Does it come down to either Dogma or Existentialism or Relativism? — anonymous66

Are you familiar with the Buddhist 'parable of the raft'?

One of the Buddha’s most famous teachings is the Parable of the Raft. In it he likened his teachings to a raft for crossing a fast-flowing river.

A man is trapped on one side of a river. On this side of the river, there is great danger and uncertainty; on the far side is safety. But there is no bridge spanning the river, nor is there a ferry to cross over. What to do? The man gathers together logs, leaves, and creepers and by his wit fashions a raft from these materials. By lying on the raft and using his hands and feet as paddles he manages to cross the river from the dangerous side to the side of safety.

The Buddha then asks the listeners a question. What would you think if the man, having crossed over the river thought to himself, That raft has served me well I will carry it on my back over the land now? The monks replied that it would not be a very sensible idea to cling to the raft in such a way. The Buddha went on, What if he lay the raft down gratefully thinking that this raft has served him well but is no longer of use and can thus be laid down upon the shore? The monks replied that this would be the proper attitude. The Buddha concluded by saying, So it is with my teachings which are like a raft and are for crossing over with—not for seizing hold of.

Actually there's a parallel in recent Western philosophy, which is Wittgenstein's analogy of the ladder:

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

I think that's true, as far as it goes, but it leaves far too much unsaid, as I am sure very few will actually realise that goal of 'seeing the world aright' from reading Wittgenstein - some other ingredients are required. But it is similar in spirit to the Buddhist view, as has often been noted.

Just pointing out that there are plenty of things that we do not doubt until some philosopher asks us to.

Folk take it as read that we ought not believe unless we have a justification.

Ought we doubt the obvious without justification? — Banno

Well, personally, I’m here only speaking on behalf of some of the more traditional forms of philosophical skepticism, such as that upheld by Cicero (insert: “global/radical/etc.” in place of “philosophical” if one pleases; this so as to definitively contrast it to philosophical dogmatists who finds “skepticism” for that which they are fully certain not be the case from the very get go … like the hardcore materialist who’s “skeptical” of ghosts):

There is never a good reason to doubt when no contradictions are present to one’s awareness. So, unless one gets to a situation that indicates both Q and not-Q both at the same time and in the same way, not an inkling of doubt is justifiable … but there’s always space for inquiry into anything one wants (from God almighty to … pick your poison) during the leisurely parts of the day. As life has it though, the more one inquires the more apparent contradictions one encounters, and, so, justifications are required to resolve the inconsistencies. But this basic, aforementioned principle is as steadfast as anything.

Not sure how the non-philosophical-skeptics would address this issue, though. A different recent thread on this form now comes to mind.

Edit: Speaking on behalf of the same perspective, I should add that when these contradictions become available to one’s awareness—though one’s life moves on with its hierarchies of priority—these contradictions are nevertheless accepted as givens that need to be addressed so as to be resolved. Whether they’re all remembered becomes a different issue. But rejecting their presence on account of one’s emotive dislike for their presence would, I believe, here be termed dogmatic prejudice regarding what is … and hence not the path of a philosophical skeptic.

I dont know any relativist philosophers who believer that all opinions are equal.

or one could become a Relativist (there is no possibility of objectivity, only opinion- and all opinions are equal). — anonymous66

Hello anonymous.

Of your three options, I'd say I feel closest to the Relativist position, as I expect the universe is fundamentally incomprehensible, so that objectivity is impossible. But I would not go on to say that 'all opinions are equal'. If 'equal' in that statement means 'identical' then one can easily observe that all opinions are not equal, if only because they are spelled differently. If it doesn't mean 'identical' then I presume it assumes there is some measure that objectively places a real, numeric, value on every opinion so that they can be ordered by value, and that that measure gives the same value for all opinions. But that conflicts with the belief that objectivity is impossible - how can there be an objective measure of the value of an opinion if objectivity is impossible?

Rather, I suggest that being a 'Relativist' implies that one can see no objective way of comparing the worth of opinions. There are of course subjective measures. In my case, I like opinions that are conducive to flourishing.

I guess I don't understand you then. — Thorongil

What about the differences between Aristotle's views and Plato's views? Weren't they each basically promoting a different set of dogma? (and didn't each have a complete system? they covered knowledge, ethics, etc.).

One could decide to look at each of those systems and decide which of those systems (and aren't there other complete systems? Berkely's, Kant's, etc)is closer to some objective truth, or better at explaining reality, or comes closest to describing the "basic furniture of the world". One could even create one's own system. Or one could become an existentialist, or a relativist or a nihilist.

I started thinking along these lines when I was reading Shestov (I think it was him). He suggested that one couldn't be a "real" philosopher and hold a teaching position. Because to hold a teaching position means that one must adhere to and teach a set of dogma, and a "real" philosopher challenges accepted dogma.

Rather, I suggest that being a 'Relativist' implies that one can see no objective way of comparing the worth of opinions. There are of course subjective measures. In my case, I like opinions that are conducive to flourishing. — andrewk

I think we're on the same page. I see no reason to disagree.

But dogmatism, as in being unwilling to even question one's own beliefs — Noble Dust

Dogmatism isn't all bad. I've been looking into Hilary Putnam. He seems to have been on a quest to find "that system" and promoting it's dogma. But.... he also changed his mind several times. He was willing to listen to criticism and change his mind when he deemed it necessary. It seems to me that searching after a system doesn't have to make one a rigid fundamentalist who is unwilling to question his own beliefs. If I were to search after a system (become a Dogmatist) Putnam is a good example to follow, IMHO.

What about the differences between Aristotle's views and Plato's views? Weren't they each basically promoting a different set of dogma? — anonymous66

Plato is transparently non-dogmatic. The Platonic dialogues often entertain widely divergent viewpoints, and frequently encounter aporia, questions about which no real answer can be found. They are suggestive, poetical, sometimes humorous and ironic. Quite often one of his characters will relate a myth that conveys a profound truth, but then say 'oh well, it's a myth'.

Dogma comes along much, much later - when insights have been turned into formulae and repeated by generations of students who maybe don't have much understanding of the original question. That demonstrably happened in the case of the way Aristotle’s works came to be treated in medieval Europe.

Plato as non-dogmatic? Maybe. I think others have made the case that he was pretty sure that his theory of the forms was "the right way" to view knowledge. (Although he definitely challenges the notion himself in Parmenides).

But, I think I could probably change my title to "Systems or Existentialism or Relativism or Nihilism" and it would still convey the same idea. Meh... it's a work in progress.

I think it could be said that some seek after systems (some of those who seek after systems are more dogmatic than others)... if not systems, then Existentialism or Relativisim or Nihilism. If one was to seek after systems, then it's healthier to continue to doubt one's system, vs dogmatically assert that it is THE correct way to view reality.

I kinda doubt we'll ever find that complete system, and I wonder if trying to find an analytic way to describe everything could cause one to miss out on living a fulfilling life. For me Existentialism is more down to earth in that it deals with how to live our day to day lives, vs sitting around thinking about stuff. On the other hand, theories of knowledge seem pretty important, and I wonder how existentialists deal with the subject of knowledge.

I think I may start describing myself as an Existentialist who has an affinity for analytic philosophy (although I plan on looking into Phenomenology and other continental ideas).
My two favorite philosophers right now are Gabriel Marcel and Hilary Putnam.

. It seems to me that searching after a system doesn't have to make one a rigid fundamentalist who is unwilling to question his own beliefs. — anonymous66

Yeah I agree, and I don't think i suggested that. It looks like we're using "dogma" differently.

What do you think of this definition?
Definition of dogma
plural dogmas also dogmata play \-mə-tə\
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets

I think of dogmatism as being unwilling or unable to question ones own positions; the inability to entertain other sources of knowledge than a given set of accepted sources, for instance. But that's probably more of a shade of the meaning of the word, but I'd argue it's probably the dominant one these days.

That definition is ok as a baseline, though. But what you're describing, searching after a system of philosophy, sounds to me more like subjectively searching for the objective, which I think is what we all do anyway, whether consciously or not. I think being conscious of the conditions of the search, as you seem to be, is valuable and will take you far. Actually, a simpler way of putting it is "the quest for truth", But that's too colloquial, right?...

Edit: anyway, there's nothing dogmatic about being on a quest for truth, as far as I can see.