Theism and Atheism, if you're a coherent person, don't really exist either. It just defines where you're inclining to, even though you assure to your interlocutors that your suppositions can be erroneous. Although another problem would occur from there, does agnosticism exists?

Or does compatibilism of determinism and free-will exists? All moderately balanced aspects between each opposing extremes according to you, would be inappropriate.

There are subtle linings of error to that, but I don't really see how:

it turns into mere hyperbolic attacks and sidetracks the heart of the discussion. — I like sushi

Because people tend to associate with ideas through others and if someone says something you deem sensible then you may ask them, or read up on, how they’ve been described and/or how they describe themselves. Given that terms such as “liberal” or “conservative” have wider reaching meaning it is very easily the case that you’ll possibly be lumped in with a bunch of people whose views you strongly oppose.

As an example someone may say that conservatives, in the majority, are homophobic or that liberals, in the majority, are all apologists.

The same thing happens if you question someone’s views. You may agree with them yet they can often resort to thinking of you as “the enemy” - and of course, we all do it to a degree.

My question is whether it is perhaps better not to talk about ourselves, or others, as being this or that unless we treat the term as a “gist” of the position in the said discussion ONLY and seem open clarification by civil means rather than by accusation?

Categorical labels of all kinds are just short hand meant to make communication easier, but in the context of "philosophy" where precise meaning makes a difference, they can actually make communication more difficult. (i.e: someone uses a label to describe their political persuasion, but their interlocutors have an entirely different conception of what those political beliefs might entail).

This isn't just a problem with isms, it's a problem with all kinds of words. To mitigate it, sometimes it is better to take the long-winded approach by avoiding labels in exchange for a description of the thing the label is intended to point to. Your writing will become less concise, but your intended meaning will be much clearer.

A good example is a word like "gender", which can lead to ridiculously prolonged miscommunications. Sometimes people are referring to chromosomes, sometimes they are referring to phenotype or to hormonal balances, sometimes to gender roles, and sometimes to personality or to "identity". If we had different words for all of these different meanings there would be less miscommunication, but it will take time for the language market to fill those relatively new gaps.

I agree.

What happens when one uses descriptors...is that the meaning of the descriptor becomes the main topic of the discussion.

Atheist, agnostic, conservative, liberal...are those kinds of words.

Better not to use them...and instead to describe the position.

Now, after we have established the problem. I would like to address something that was left unanswered.

A middle section of two extremely opposite aspects is inevitable to surface into a discussion by consequential considerations. Evaluating proposed dispositions of each aspect, it is inevitable that people would want the established problem to be resolved by another aspect that's just: moderate, common, the exact middle. For example, atheism and theism = agnosticism. Determinism and free-will = compatibilism. Would that middle section, which is inherently not any different from an ism, be a problem as well?

Yes

Communication, at least to a moderate extent (sarc), demands that to achieve a moderate position by all parties concerned they must have the means to at least explore the 'isms' by example because without opposing extremes either the moderate is never explored or never known. The key to moderation is to know and explore the extremes, the isms. In addition, without the extremes being known, evolution would be unnecessary. Hurrah for the extremes and the isms, hurrah for conflict, they gave us 'fight or flee' and the intellect to overcome obstacles.

Do you think they're less of a problem outside of forums?

:lol:

Elucidation?

Not necessarily. Face-to-face the dance is different and it is certainly not the case for EVERYONE on forums (the occasional slip aside).

You’re still talking about “-isms” and I wouldn’t view the terms you frame as antonyms as antonyms. I was clear enough, or so I thought, about still expressing “-isms” in a manner of enquiry but not of “accusation”.

So only because I talk of 'isms' is it then a problem?

You are accusing though, you have concluded that these utilization of 'isms' is a problem and must be addressed to change. If you meant personal beliefs for enquiry and accusation, then my question remains.

I am talking about a specific, standpoint of these mentioned 'isms' though; which is the middle point. So it is not of much difference to isms, but still different.

Then we’d discuss what you think is apparently “middle”. No problem with that.

The problem is often that people will apply an inappropriate template to someone because of a label, and it can be difficult to get them to think outside of the template.

In a nutshell, let's say that F-ism is often associated with characteristics a, b, c, d, e

You might consider yourself an F-ist because of b and d, which you consider to be two of the most essential aspects of F-ism.

When you announce that you're an F-ist, though, others might assume--"Ah, you believe a, b, c, d, e"

Meanwhile, you might not agree with e, but now the other person has made the assumption that you believe that e, and it can be almost impossible to get them to think otherwise.

Again, Terrapin and I agree. We're on a roll here!

I also think people apply labels to others out of laziness and stubbornness.

They don't want to think someone who ascribes to a, b, c, and d could believe anything but e.

Especially if your entire critique of F-ism depends on your critique of e, it's unnerving if someone says "F but without e" because then you might be forced to give a through d more thought then you had before.

SethRy
87
↪Frank Apisa
↪I like sushi
↪VagabondSpectre


Now, after we have established the problem. I would like to address something that was left unanswered.

A middle section of two extremely opposite aspects is inevitable to surface into a discussion by consequential considerations. Evaluating proposed dispositions of each aspect, it is inevitable that people would want the established problem to be resolved by another aspect that's just: moderate, common, the exact middle. For example, atheism and theism = agnosticism. Determinism and free-will = compatibilism. Would that middle section, which is inherently not any different from an ism, be a problem as well? — SethRy

Perhaps some people suggest a middle point.

I do not.

On the question, "Do no gods exist...or does at least one god exist?"...

...I simply acknowledge that I do not know.

I do not set up a continuum and pretend I can determine probability on it.

Ah, anti-ism-ism.

In a nutshell, let's say that F-ism is often associated with characteristics a, b, c, d, e

You might consider yourself an F-ist because of b and d, which you consider to be two of the most essential aspects of F-ism.

When you announce that you're an F-ist, though, others might assume--"Ah, you believe a, b, c, d, e" — Terrapin Station

If "F-ism' is generally associated with a range of characteristics, all of which your standpoint does not exemplify, then you should not present yourself as an "F-ist"; you can't justifiably blame others if you misrepresent yourself.

you can't justifiably blame others if you misrepresent yourself. — Janus

I think you can blame others when you say "I don't agree with e" and they can't parse it just because you called yourself an F-ist. (I think you can blame them for not being able to learn something that simple, that is.)

If "F-ism' is generally associated with a range of characteristics, all of which your standpoint does not exemplify, then you should not present yourself as an "F-ist"; you can't justifiably blame others if you misrepresent yourself. — Janus

A human is can accurately be characterized as a terrestial, bipedal mammal. If I was born without legs, does that make me no longer a human?

E may not be a necessary component of F, even if it commonly associated with it.

The fault is yours if you proclaim that you are an "F-ist" without accepting everything that goes along with "F-ism" as it is commonly understood. No doubt a tendency to misrepresent oneself goes hand in hand with a tendency to misrepresent others.

In any case it is better to just say what you think without worrying about what ism it might fall into.

The fault is yours if you proclaim that you are an "F-ist" without accepting everything that goes along with "F-ism" as it is commonly understood. No doubt a tendency to misrepresent oneself goes hand in hand with a tendency to misrepresent others. — Janus

If someone can't understand something as simple as saying, "I don't agree with e," then how is that the first guy's fault? It seems like a severe intelligence deficit for someone to not be able to understand the other guy explicitly saying "I don't agree with e."

If I was born without legs, does that make me no longer a human? — NKBJ

It's not a good analogy because even if you were born without legs, the general bilaterally symmetry that allows for two legs will be there; it would just be that for whatever reason your body did not develop properly.

If you explained yourself in the first instance as "I am an F-ist in everything but I don't accept e" there would not be a problem. Why create unnecessary confusion by not explaining your position adequately, and then try to cast the blame for the confusion on others?

It's not a good analogy because even if you were born without legs, the general bilaterally symmetry that allows for two legs will be there; it would just be that for whatever reason your body did not develop properly — Janus

So maybe I had the general bilateral symmetry required for e and decided I'd rather have f or g or h. Anything but e! E is the worst.

Nah, it doesn't work: it's just a bad analogy. That'd be like saying that you had the general bilateral symmetry that enables your body to develop two legs, and you decided to grow two penises instead. That'd be really dumb, because without assistance you wouldn't be able to go anywhere to get all that extra sex you were hoping for.

Here's what I was complaining about:

"Meanwhile, you might not agree with e, but now the other person has made the assumption that you believe that e, and it can be almost impossible to get them to think otherwise."

Well, if it's true that some people form first impressions and are too stubborn to change their minds later, then you should be smart enough to know that, and not do anything stupid like saying you are an F-ist if you don't accept all its tenets; thereby misrepresenting yourself in the first place and creating a false impression that you now have to expend unnecessary time and energy on correcting, only to find that in some cases it cannot be corrected. Perhaps try using your brain in the future; the process in question is called 'learning from your mistakes"!

saying you are an F-st if you don't accept all its tenets — Janus

If the tenets are pretty explicitly set out without variation, sure. Usually they're not.

No, it is the responsibility of the intelligent person not to be hopelessly stubborn about a “first impression” (ASSumption) or preconcieved notion about any given “ism”. The intelligent person knows that they should clarify positions of others before drawing conclusions about a range of views the other didnt state or even allude to.
It is the domain of the half wit, the weak minded and the whiny bitch to demand someone cater all interactions to their lazy and inaccurate conclusions about who someone else is or what they believe.

Nah, it doesn't work: it's just a bad analogy. — Janus

I think it is, but whatever. The point is that e may not be a necessary condition of Fism. And if you attribute it to an Fist anyway, you need to make a better case for it than "well, you called yourself an Fist."