Pluralism is nothing but a bunch of distinctions without differences. Reductionism is nothing but over-simplification. This thread is nothing but a timely warning and the author deserves nothing but thanks for starting it.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, though? — Janus

Not necessarily, I suppose. Perhaps the brush I’m painting with is too broad. Just seems to me, that which is singular represents nothing other than itself. Pluralism, being a concept of its own, then stands as the condition for any of the -isms contained in it, but stands as representation of none of them.

Interesting topic, fun to play with, but not worth a real argument, to be sure. Knuckle down, drag out fight, I mean.

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? — Janus

No. I'm allowing for the possibility that something, even though it is called an ism, is actually true (and all the explanations, definitions, and theories that go with it), in which case it's not yet another ism.

No. I'm allowing for the possibility that something, even though it is called an ism, is actually true (and all the explanations, definitions, and theories that go with it), in which case it's not yet another ism. — baker

I haven't denied that the assertions, or at least some of them, in any ism might be true, but truth is contextual, and the truth in any domain of inquiry cannot be considered absolute or fundamental to reality, or of first priority across all domains of inquiry without it becoming a nothing-but-ism. That has been my main point: I haven't been arguing that there are no truths relative to domains of thought, domains which might be thought of as isms.

I haven't denied that the assertions, or at least some of them, in any ism might be true, but truth is contextual — Janus

That's an absolute assertion. And a nothing-but-ism.

That has been my main point: I haven't been arguing that there are no truths relative to domains of thought, domains which might be thought of as isms.

And you hold that this should be "considered absolute or fundamental to reality, or of first priority across all domains"?

That's an absolute assertion. And a nothing-but-ism. — baker

No, it's not absolute, it's contextual: it's a truth of human life.

And you hold that this should be "considered absolute or fundamental to reality, or of first priority across all domains"? — baker

No it's not an absolute or fundamental truth in all domains, it's not a truth of physics or chemistry or cosmology, for example, but its a truth about domains. Its just saying that truths (if there are any) are relative to domains of thought and inquiry. The truths (again if there are such) of Buddhism, for another example, are irrelevant outside of the context of Buddhist concerns.

Sorry, missed these earlier:

Pluralism is nothing but a bunch of distinctions without differences. Reductionism is nothing but over-simplification. This thread is nothing but a timely warning and the author deserves nothing but thanks for starting it. — Cuthbert

An apt and neat summation; thanks.

Not necessarily, I suppose. Perhaps the brush I’m painting with is too broad. Just seems to me, that which is singular represents nothing other than itself. Pluralism, being a concept of its own, then stands as the condition for any of the -isms contained in it, but stands as representation of none of them.

Interesting topic, fun to play with, but not worth a real argument, to be sure. Knuckle down, drag out fight, I mean. — Mww

Ha ha good answer to which I can think of no question!

Seems this thread
Is nothing but
Dead