Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus

Everything is nothing but something. You can't really define or describe something without saying what it is and what it is not.

I agree that reductionism is a common problem, and that many of the examples you've given are cogent. But I think you're drawing the net a bit wide. The first five examples are pretty close to what a number of materialistically-inclined scientists have actually written:

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.” — Francis Crick

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. — Daniel Dennett

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!')

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus

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

Reality is nothing but appearances — 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".

There seems to be a common will to fundamentalism — Janus

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.

Depends on the scope used in the statement, no?

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:

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus

Only if all explanations, definitions, and theories are isms.

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus

I’m pretty much ok with that. All -isms are concerned only with the affirmation or negation of the essential root conception, right?

There seems to be a common will to fundamentalism, to foundationalism — 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.

Reductionism good.

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus

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?

It's 5.44 am here and I,m going to work soon, so I'll start working through responses in order.

Everything is nothing but something. You can't really define or describe something without saying what it is and what it is not. — 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.

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!') — 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.

Isms are nothing but nothing-but-isms. — praxis

That's a neater formulation!

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". — 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.

Yes. And depending on the prevalent fundamentalism of the time, you be metaphorically or literally burned at the stake for not falling in line. — Noble Dust

:up:

Depends on the scope used in the statement, no? — Shawn

Isn't "nothing-but" a pretty well-defined scope? — Noble Dust

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus


Only if all explanations, definitions, and theories are isms. — 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?

I’m pretty much ok with that. All -isms are concerned only with the affirmation or negation of the essential root conception, right? — Mww

Yes, but as @Daemon points out below, the exception might be pluralism.

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. — Mww

Makes sense to me!

When working with a model, you need to simplify parameters.

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.

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 — Janus

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.

The other point to comment on is that reductionism is intrinsic to the methods of scientists and engineers. It comprises reducing a complex whole to its most elemental parts, through which you hope to discern the governing principles and fundamental parts at the most basic level. And that approach has yielded many astonishingly successful results. The problem arises when you try and apply the method of scientists and engineers to the problems of philosophy - or also, for instance, environmentalism, where a holistic approach is required.

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.

All -isms are concerned only with the affirmation or negation of the essential root conception, right?
— Mww

Yes, but as Daemon points out below, the exception might be pluralism. — Janus

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.

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms

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.

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms


Do you mean, all isms are nothing but nothing-but-isms?

I don't agree, that seems reductive — Count Timothy von Icarus

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.

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. — Janus

The last sentence doesn't follow. How does narrative become dogma?

The last sentence doesn't follow. How does narrative become dogma? — Shawn

Are you claiming that the stories we tell each other never become dogma?

Are you claiming that the stories we tell each other never become dogma? — Janus

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?

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? — Shawn

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.

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. — Mww

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?