Everyone had an agenda and perspective. This is a problem if viewed as a problem.

Generally you best of picking who you converse with carefully whilst listening to everyone you can as passively as possible, then with personal intent. By this I mean sketch out your map, find the boarders, and do not let anything outside in BUT view it passively and adjust borders as needed.

That is it really.

‘Philosophy’ is another umbrella term ;)

Is there a problem with how umbrella terms are talked about? — Judaka

I would say that vague terms facilitate poor reasoning and claims that are based largely on emotion, and that umbrella terms are vague terms. The key is to disambiguate ambiguous terms, and to make sure that we understand what someone means when they use a term.

Our last discussion, on fixability and unfixability, was in many ways a disambiguation and clarification of those terms. This doesn't mean we were just arguing about words. We were clarifying words in order to then move forward and decide whether the propositions that those words signify are true or false. Words need to be reasonably clear in order to come to such conclusions and to avoid talking past one another.

My experience of discussing philosophy over the years has been an experience largely consisting of debates centred on umbrella terms. — Judaka

e.g. "Philosophy" ...

I, myself, was never aware of the significance of umbrella concepts either. As you said, Christianity and Islam are good examples. I never thought about Capitalism or Socialism because I considered them as political/ economic terms, not philosophical.

I think umbrella terms are used wrong. But I am not anyone to criticize others because I used to use them wrong too. Umbrella terms have some categories and depend on the field we are debating about. For example, it is not the same as clearly understanding "Islam" and defining "objective and subjective" (if we consider the latter as an umbrella term. Maybe some would disagree with me)

On the other hand, I think that having present umbrella terms can allow users to be more respectful with some topics: religion, for example. Most of the threads are insulting but I bet that all of those who says "Christ and God are not special" cannot define or understand Christianity at all.

I think your umbrellas are too small; you need more vagueness, not less. "Term" for instance is wide and fuzzy enough to cover some ground. Or "commonplace", or "I", or "is".

Example: some folks think that I is all there is. A thought so commonplace it has a name - solipsism. At the level of maximum universality as this is, the universe id taken to be all that is and one, undivided. There is no ambiguity, because nothing is left out. But as soo as one descends from the peak of total universality, where all is one forevermore, there are boundaries and borders, which are always fractal, vague, and usually involve a disputed 'no man's land'. Warlike philosophers are always trying to reduce the no man's land by claiming it or rejecting it - everyone must be either a Christian soldier or a servant of the devil. Whereas peace-loving philosophers prefer a large undefined space where they can play without falling into the trenches of the analytics.

So I am joining your war against vagueness on the opposition side, and staking a claim for no -mans land on my side. Vagueness for ever! Go, someone-or-other! Indefiniteness rules! Maybe, a bit, sometimes.

My experience of discussing philosophy over the years has been an experience largely consisting of debates centred on umbrella terms.
— Judaka
e.g. "Philosophy" ... — 180 Proof

:up: Was going to write the same thing...

"My experience discussing philosophy" is an example of how umbrella terms are supposed to be used. As a convenient way to refer to a broad variety of different things, I'm not against their use, the OP criticises an umbrella term being the focal point of inquiry and analysis. My discussions on philosophy were not discussions centred around the term "philosophy", I didn't expect that wouldn't be obvious.

That's ok. It was just obvious quip to make. Apologies.

Having had some time after writing my OP, I see that the proper question is when an umbrella term can be used in another way, or how we determine whether a term is an umbrella term. As one who understands a term as an umbrella term and approaches it as one will understand where clarification is needed.

Do you think it is appropriate to label terms such as democracy, capitalism, Christianity, Islam, nationalism, and so on as umbrella terms? My argument for why they are umbrella terms is that the terms refer to a variety of distinct interpretations and approaches. In hindsight, it's this question that should've been my OP.

If you agree we can describe these terms as umbrella terms, do you agree that they function to reference more than just the diverse array of interpretations and approaches? To be frank, I'm struggling to describe the problem, there are too many contexts to deal with. Sometimes vagueness is what concerns me, but due to the variety that each term references, a person can't easily make these terms their own. Whereas concepts like "justice", "freedom" and "beauty" are easy to make one's own, it's difficult and inconvenient to reference one's ideology or religion like that.

I'm aware I'm probably not making sense, I find topics difficult to think about when they contain too many angles. I'll leave you with this disorganised mess, it won't be worth the effort to struggle to understand it, but if you think you can help, then please do.


Glad you got some value out of the OP. I've used umbrella terms in the manner I'm critiquing in my OP as well, it's unfortunately, a common practice that we learn from each other. I've still yet to replace the practice, and yet to fully grasp a satisfactory understanding of the issue. In terms of a philosophy forum though, yeah, a thread about "Christianity" probably isn't handling any of the nuances appropriately.

There is a trade off between specificity and parsimony when using broad terms.

However, I do think there are ways in which all forms of Islam, all forms of Christianity, and all forms of capitalism are alike. There is tremendous variance in what these terms represent, but there is also an overarching similarity.

I don't think it's impossible to speak about differences between Christianity and Islam meaningfully. But, in general, when we try to do this we will tend to be talking about differences in the core exemplars of each that we are aware of. This, IMO, is where the trouble stems from. We all have different exemplars we are pointing to.

Someone who lives in the US and hasn't spent much time thinking about Christianity might think of modern American Evangelical Christianity as their key exemplar despite this example being a minority of all current Christians and quite different from most past forms of Christianity. This is essentially a case of bad induction, generalizing from an inappropriately small sample to a large one.

But diversity doesn't make a term meaningless. We can well refer to "Christians" in terms of the beliefs held by the largest sects of Christianity throughout history in a straight forward fashion, because on the average there are strong similarities in some core respects, even if outliers like Gnostics, the Amish, non-Trinitarians, etc. do exist and defy the trends for the group as a whole.

So, I think we can use umbrella terms meaningfully, but they are best used in just those cases where we actually want to discuss the broad similarities that define a term. We have to be aware that, the broader the term, the more likely it is that different people have different exemplars in mind.

Even before you responded I sort of realized what you were asking and how I misinterpreted it (I think). Some thoughts:

I think umbrella terms do exist and I also think they are relevant to philosophy. The examples you give are apt. While it is true that umbrella terms are given to vagueness, I think their intrinsic quality is complexity, namely that they denote a complex phenomenon. Beginner philosophers will come to the table with a very simplistic understanding of a complex phenomenon, and this inevitably creates all sorts of problems of communication. Understanding a complex phenomenon requires a great deal of study, and if one person is using 'Islam' to refer to a complex religio-cultural reality, while another is using it to refer to a simplistic notion (e.g. anti-American Islamic terrorism), then they are not talking about the same thing and will end up talking past one another.

If you agree we can describe these terms as umbrella terms, do you agree that they function to reference more than just the diverse array of interpretations and approaches? — Judaka

Yes, but their complexity makes things difficult, and these are the cases where it is most difficult to bridge the gap between divergent interpretations. Aristotle and others have pointed out that the young, immature person is capable of mathematics, but not politics (or political philosophy). The latter requires a great deal of time and real world experience in a way that the former does not. This is because mathematics is not nearly as complex and difficult to understand as the messy real-world realities of human life, such as politics and religion.

I also tend to think that we need to recognize our limitations when it comes to umbrella terms. I don't know a great deal about Islam, and therefore I limit my judgments about Islam. If I speak to an expert I will be deferential, but if I speak to someone with similar knowledge to my own I can be less deferential (so long as we both recognize that our opinions have very limited credibility).

Is that more related to what your OP was getting at?

My experience of discussing philosophy over the years has been an experience largely consisting of debates centred on umbrella terms. — Judaka

As others have noted, umbrella terms are generalizations that lump together ideas that have some properties in common. And ancient philosophers, such as Plato & Aristotle, may be best known for categorizing disparate ideas under broad headings, via Induction : one word to rule them all. Since those pioneers did the heavy lifting, most lesser lights have spent much of their time trying to break-down those generalizations into specific instances, via Deduction. Hence, the application of Philosophy we now call "Science". So, modern philosophy begins with "first define your terms", and be specific*1.


*1. Umbrella Terms :
a word or phrase used as a unifying term under which a group of specific and related things, words, phrases, subjects, or functions belongs
___Dictionary.com

It's common to see discussions centred around such terms as Islam and capitalism, and an assertion or question to do with them. Something along the lines of "Is Islam really a religion of peace?" or "The Effect of Capitalism on Culture" wouldn't be out of place on any philosophy forum

True. The umbrella (or "open to different interpretations") term I have weighed in the most recently is: vengeance. As in "do you approve of vengeance?"

So, I think we can use umbrella terms meaningfully, but they are best used in just those cases where we actually want to discuss the broad similarities that define a term. We have to be aware that, the broader the term, the more likely it is that different people have different exemplars in mind. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree with your analysis of the issue of misrepresentative exemplars, however, I'm not sure that umbrella terms always have representative exemplars. If we take the average of the sum of all parts, that can still be misrepresentative, and an umbrella term may do more than just refer to the sum of all its parts, especially in philosophy. Consider also that terms such as Islam and capitalism don't have to be understood as umbrella terms.

You can talk about the differences between Christianity and Islam, provided the differences are a comparison of the most basic of basics. The nuances are all lost, the context is constrained to the utmost generalities, just the prerequisites for the applicability of the umbrella term. If the prerequisites for applicability are insufficient to understand the things being referenced, then the problems begin. We can't actually understand any of the approaches to Islam or any of the capitalist economies in that way.

I can't succinctly capture the entirety of the problem with my words just yet, but umbrella terms comprised of complicated ideas, especially those that aren't explicit as a reference of grouped ideas, there's something very wrong with them. There's so much confusion surrounding them because they're so removed from the ideas they're used to refer to. I can't describe it well yet, I'll need to think about it.

Is that more related to what your OP was getting at? — Leontiskos

You've reiterated the complexity of such terms, but avoidable and unnecessary complexity is objectively bad, and I wonder if that's why I don't like these umbrella terms. Of course, a term will be complex if it references a large number of hugely complicated and loosely connected ideas, but is there a good reason why we have to do that?

To just fathom the entirety of what such umbrella terms reference is a challenge before any analysis has begun. It's too much to think about, let alone think about in any detail. These terms facilitate misunderstanding, and I think that's shown in how prevalent misunderstandings of capitalism and Islam are, as they are with many such terms.

Though, perhaps my conclusion could be just that an umbrella term needs to be an umbrella term, and nothing more. If we had a term for "Islamic Approaches" that references all ways of practising Islam, then it'd be fine. "Islam" can't be a religion/ideology, the various interpretations of that religion/ideology and the practice of that religion/ideology. Maybe my point is just that such terms set us up to fail.

...namely that [umbrella terms] denote a complex phenomenon. — Leontiskos

You've reiterated the complexity of such terms, but avoidable and unnecessary complexity is objectively bad, and I wonder if that's why I don't like these umbrella terms. Of course, a term will be complex if it references a large number of hugely complicated and loosely connected ideas, but is there a good reason why we have to do that? — Judaka

Well if there is a complex phenomenon and we want to talk about it then we will need to use a word to reference it, no? But umbrella terms do facilitate misunderstanding, I think you are right about that.

"Islam" can't be a religion/ideology, the various interpretations of that religion/ideology and the practice of that religion/ideology. — Judaka

Language tends to do that, and it is confusing. There is currently a thread about the grand-daddy of all umbrella terms, "How's actual existence not a predicate?" The idea there is something like, "Hey, this umbrella is so big that it can't even be a term!"

Well if there is a complex phenomenon and we want to talk about it then we will need to use a word to reference it, no? — Leontiskos

What phenomenon? The examples of umbrella terms I've given are entirely intellectually manufactured groupings. Arguably, the entire problem here is that we're pretending like there is some phenomenon at play, something to study when there isn't.

Thinking about it, umbrella terms that are underpinned by something real, and represent convenient ways to talk about reality, might be fine. Perhaps that explains my issue. What I dislike are terms that group things using meaningless patterns and vague logic. Referencing various bits and pieces that have no business being thought of as parts of a whole, and the mistake is in trying to make sense of it.

I don't agree that the examples you have given are not underpinned by something real. For example, do you say that there is no real phenomenon in the world and in history that the term 'Islam' refers to?

I don't agree that vengeance is an umbrella term in any sense. I could understand why different interpretations of the concept add to the complexity in a way that's somewhat similar though.

So, modern philosophy begins with "first define your terms", and be specific*1. — Gnomon

Does defining one's terms work in reality? The logic of what a term refers to, and the interpretation of that logic is at the heart of philosophy, and language. If someone offers an understanding of a concept you don't agree with, it makes sense to dispute it, doesn't it?

I don't agree that the examples you have given are not underpinned by something real. For example, do you say that there is no real phenomenon in the world and in history that the term 'Islam' refers to? — Leontiskos

Islam refers to a host of real phenomena, an unfathomable number, well beyond human capacity for comprehending. That's not the point though, the problem is the logic of what is being referenced by the umbrella term, and whether that logic has a meaningful pattern. The issue isn't umbrella terms at all, it's about whether the term's prerequisites are specific and meaningful or not.

Each Muslim understands Islam differently, there's no consistency in how Islam is interpreted and applied, or what is and isn't part of it. Why would there be any pattern to that? It's like looking to understand a grouping of animals, cars and pianos, there's nothing meaningful in it. If a term's prerequisites haven't established a meaningful pattern, then there's no value in analysing that term, right?

The issue isn't umbrella terms at all, it's about whether the term's prerequisites are specific and meaningful or not. — Judaka

What do you mean when you say, "The term's prerequisites are specific and meaningful"?

A complex phenomenon is hard to see, like a faraway object. Different viewers will perceive different things, but some have better vision and some worse. Whether there is value in knowing about the object will depend on the case, but it is difficult to claim that there is never value in knowing about it. For example, we might be interested in knowing whether it is a meteor, headed for Earth.

I think there is value in analyzing the umbrella terms you have noted. All of them concern human welfare (democracy, capitalism, Christianity, Islam, nationalism). For each of those terms, some people think they are very good and conducive to our welfare, and others think they are very bad and destructive of our welfare. If that indistinct object on the horizon is a meteor then we should shoot it down; if it's Prometheus with a new gift then we ought to start cooking his favorite meal; if it's nothing important then we can move on and stop expending energy looking at it. But there are reasons to learn about it.

On the other side of the coin, scapegoating and umbrella terms go hand in hand, so whenever someone attributes good or ill to an umbrella term we should take it with a grain of salt.

So, modern philosophy begins with "first define your terms", and be specific*1. — Gnomon
Does defining one's terms work in reality? The logic of what a term refers to, and the interpretation of that logic is at the heart of philosophy, and language. If someone offers an understanding of a concept you don't agree with, it makes sense to dispute it, doesn't it? — Judaka

Sure. But rational dialog must follow from a clear understanding of how ambiguous words are intended to be applied. When those words are not made specific, what follows is usually emotional "dispute" based on a misunderstanding. The same word can be interpreted differently from the speaker's and hearer's perspective. Don't you agree? :smile:

Dialog : a calm exchange of ideas and opinions

Dispute : a passionate disagreement, argument, or debate.

As long as dogmatisim or even biases caracterize a discussion, "umbrella" or any other terms become automatically "unfit for philsophical examination". Philsophical examination needs to be impartial in order to lead to a truth or stay on the path that leads to a truth.

I don't agree that vengeance is an umbrella term in any sense. I could understand why different interpretations of the concept add to the complexity in a way that's somewhat similar though

Well, I guess I meant that I use vengeance as a specific term (which it is) in conversation with those who use it as an umbrella term (synonymous with "justice").

Well, I guess I meant that I use vengeance as a specific term (which it is) in conversation with those who use it as an umbrella term (synonymous with "justice"). — LuckyR

The tricky thing here is that there is a legitimate disagreement about whether vengeance is equivalent to (commutative) justice or is only a synecdoche. In that conversation, which I was also a part of, there seem to have been at least four options:

1. Vengeance and justice are the same thing
2. Vengeance is a part of justice
3. Vengeance is any form of retaliation
4. 'Vengeance' is a pejorative and nothing more ("I am not willing to tell you what I mean by vengeance, only that I consider it to be bad")

When the parties resist disambiguation the wagon is inevitably stuck in the mud, going nowhere.

What do you mean when you say, "The term's prerequisites are specific and meaningful"? — Leontiskos

That the term refers to things with specific, shared characteristics.

A complex phenomenon is hard to see, like a faraway object. — Leontiskos

I dispute that ideologies and religions are singular things, within English, they are expressed as singular, but this was a mistake. Islam exists as "a religion", and nationalism exists as "an ideology" but these terms aren't unpinned by anything real that holds them in place. There are a near-infinite number of ways to interpret and practice a religion or ideology, the ideas can expand endlessly and can be influenced by a myriad of different factors. There are no rules that prevent Islam from taking on new interpretations, new cultures, and new practices. We're never comparing like-to-like, and we never really know what we're dealing with.

Islam prerequisites could be argued to just be a belief in God and in that Muhammad was his prophet, and that's it. That's not nearly good enough. A term needs far stricter prerequisites to be worthwhile to analyse. The vast majority of what we think of as Islam is optional, and can be removed or added, without any difference to how we reference it. It's like trying to conduct a critique on a book that changes each time it's opened. We need better tools for referencing that have stricter prerequisites, or else analysis is a wasted effort.

In the context of vengeance, I don't think justice is an umbrella term either. When vengeance is fair and right, we call it justice, but if it isn't fair and right, then it isn't justice. We reference things as justice when they are fair and right, to assert that they are fair and right, but that doesn't make it an umbrella term. That being said, I am using the term umbrella term rather liberally in my OP, so I'm not one to talk.

The same word can be interpreted differently from the speaker's and hearer's perspective. Don't you agree? — Gnomon

Sure, but what matters is why it's being interpreted differently. I see you interpret the word "dispute" as emotive while I do not, but I wouldn't mind using a different word to avoid confusion. I have many synonyms at my disposal and no reason to care which I use.

If our difference in interpretation represents something more substantial, it may not be in either of our best interests to let the other define the term for the debate. Disambiguation, in my view, is best served by expressing ourselves without using the contested term. Ideally, we use terms where agreement exists, rather than establishing agreement by defining terms, I think. Though the context matters, and sometimes defining one's terms can be necessary. I'm not sure that there's any disagreement between us, we might agree if the context was made clear.

The tricky thing here is that there is a legitimate disagreement about whether vengeance is equivalent to (commutative) justice or is only a synecdoche. In that conversation, which I was also a part of, there seem to have been at least four options:

Vengeance and justice are the same thing
Vengeance is a part of justice
Vengeance is any form of retaliation
'Vengeance' is a pejorative and nothing more ("I am not willing to tell you what I mean by vengeance, only that I consider it to be bad")

When the parties resist disambiguation the wagon is inevitably stuck in the mud, going nowhere

Yeah that ended up being a reasonable conversation... once the ground rules (definitions) were identified.

I believe the OP meant your third definition, as I did. Most posters used the fourth one, at least initially.

That the term refers to things with specific, shared characteristics. — Judaka

Okay, that's a good definition.

I dispute that ideologies and religions are singular things... — Judaka

Ideologies and religions are things with "specific, shared characteristics," are they not?

Islam exists as "a religion", and nationalism exists as "an ideology" but these terms aren't unpinned by anything real that holds them in place. — Judaka

I think that once we know what a religion is, then we can say that Islam is that religion that was founded by Mohammed. Similarly, once we know what an ideology is, then we can say that nationalism is that ideology that privileges one's national citizenship.

There are a near-infinite number of ways to interpret and practice a religion or ideology... — Judaka

Sure, but one way to practice religion is Islam, and we are fairly clear on how this is different from the practice of Christianity or Buddhism.

There are no rules that prevent Islam from taking on new interpretations, new cultures, and new practices. — Judaka

I think the nature of Islam will determine which new interpretations are possible and which are not, and these possibilities will be different than those of other religions. For example, there was a debate in 20th century Japanese Buddhism about whether Buddhism is capable of grounding personal responsibility and individualism (i.e. whether Buddhism can accommodate Western values). The answer was not obvious. Masao Abe did not say, "Well religions can become whatever we want them to become, therefore Buddhism can accommodate Western values." So I would say that religions and ideologies have a great deal of plasticity, but they still have natures and boundaries.

It's like trying to conduct a critique on a book that changes each time it's opened. We need better tools for referencing that have stricter prerequisites, or else analysis is a wasted effort. — Judaka

I would say that at a scholarly level there is often an attempt to clarify what aspect of a religion is being considered, and this sometimes happens at lower levels as well. But at the same time, scholars are not altogether precluded from talking about Islam in itself.

I guess I agree with your central claim that umbrella terms are unwieldy and difficult, but I would not go so far as to say that they are impossible or meaningless.

Ideologies and religions are things with "specific, shared characteristics," are they not? — Leontiskos

Yes, the problem is that any analysis of an ideology or religion will go beyond those specific, shared characteristics, and that's the problem. We stop comparing like with like very quickly.

Sure, but one way to practice religion is Islam, and we are fairly clear on how this is different from the practice of Christianity or Buddhism. — Leontiskos

A comparison of Islam to Christianity will probably limit analysis in its scope, to keep it closer to the specific, shared characteristics that define Islam and Christianity. Therefore, such a comparison might not be quite so problematic and might represent a case where using the terms isn't so silly.

I think the nature of Islam will determine which new interpretations are possible and which are not, and these possibilities will be different than those of other religions. — Leontiskos

I agree, but focusing on where we can't go might be misleading since where we can go is so vast, it could be considered infinite. Comparing different versions of Islam that exist today reveals how different they can be.

But at the same time, scholars are not altogether precluded from talking about Islam in itself. — Leontiskos

Sure, scholars may talk about Islam with no qualifications, though, that's not a convincing defence of it, especially when one actually stops to listen to a "scholar on Islam". Not exactly a standard to aim for.

I guess I agree with your central claim that umbrella terms are unwieldy and difficult, but I would not go so far as to say that they are impossible or meaningless. — Leontiskos

I wouldn't go that far either, it depends on the context, and there are many angles to consider. From a cultural & political perspective, using umbrella terms can make sense, and sometimes it may be necessary, no matter how undesirable. It's too nuanced a topic to make any definitive claims, and I need time to process this topic.

Maybe we should turn to the gods:

Nemesis was the Greek goddess of vengeance, a deity who doled out rewards for noble acts and punishment for evil ones. The Greeks believed that Nemesis didn't always punish an offender immediately but might wait generations to avenge a crime. In English, nemesis originally referred to someone who brought a just retribution, but nowadays people are more likely to see simple animosity rather than justice in the actions of a nemesis (consider the motivations of Batman’s perennial foe the Joker, for example). — Merriam-Webster Word of the Day (Nemesis)

Capitalism is a recent example, the more I learned, the more I realised, this is an umbrella term and no comprehensive understanding is appropriate, more specificity is needed. — Judaka

The problem is when a term means totally different things to different people. There usually is a consensus about the actual definition of the term, but there ends the agreement on anything.

If you ask a Marxist and a classic liberal "What is typical for a capitalist society?", you will get totally different answers starting from totally different premises, viewpoints and theories. Still the Marxist and the classic liberal can agree that capitalism has something to do with just who owns stuff.

but for those of you who agree or partially agree, feel free to share any thoughts on the topic. — Judaka

Well, you simply will disagree with smart, educated and informed people with no "Leibnizian" way to "compute" a correct solution that will solve your differences once and for all.

That's simply a part of philosophy, politics and life.