No-isms

[Advocate]

These (mostly philosophical) ideas are all wrong, bad, illogical, etc.:

ageism, anarchism, animism, anti-reductionism, a priori knowledge, asceticism, authoritarianism, bioconservatism, capitalism, Chevron deference, Chinese naturalism, civil asset forfeiture, communitarianism, compatibalism, Confuscianism, consequentialism, political conservatism, copyright, daoism, deism, democracy, deontology, dogma, dualism,, epistemological idealism, esotericism, ethical positivism, Fajai, feminism, free markets, Hegelianism, absolute idealism, indeterminism, empty individualism, open individualism, innatism, integral theory, Integrated Information Theory, interactionism, internalism, intuitionism, Islamism, Jainism, jingoism, Juche, Kabbalism, the law of attraction, legalism, Mohist logic, mentalism, metaphysical libertarianism, Maoism, moral absolutism, moral anti-realism, moral realism, moral skepticism, mysticism, naive realism, natalism, nationalism, National Socialism, neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism, neutral monism, new age-ism, new realism, mereological nihilism, non-dualism, objective idealism, Objectivism, occasionalism, organicism, paganism, panpsychism, pantheism, patriotism, perennialism, Platonism, populism, possibilism, post-modernism, presentism, qualia theory, quantum mysticism, racial reparations, racism, Rastafari, relativism, religion, scholasticism, scientism, ssexism, shamanism, Sharia, Sikhism, Daoist skepticism, solipcism, spiritualism, subjective idealismn, tetralemma, theism, theology, theosophy, transcendentalism, ubuntu, utilitarianism, value pluralism, verificationism, vitalism, wu wei, xuanxue

(most definitions taken from Wikipedia)

[Peter Kropotkin]

ok, instead of a list, how about the why..
why are these ism's bad, illogical, whatever....

Kropotkin

[Atla]

non-dualism

This one please. Which non-dualism did you have in mind and why is it wrong?

[Dontaskme]

Non-duality or this nondual reality is not an ism.

[Iwannaplato]

These (mostly philosophical) ideas are all wrong, bad, illogical, etc.:

ageism, anarchism, animism, anti-reductionism, a priori knowledge, asceticism, authoritarianism, bioconservatism, capitalism, Chevron deference, Chinese naturalism, civil asset forfeiture, communitarianism, compatibalism, Confuscianism, consequentialism, political conservatism, copyright, daoism, deism, democracy, deontology, dogma, dualism,, epistemological idealism, esotericism, ethical positivism, Fajai, feminism, free markets, Hegelianism, absolute idealism, indeterminism, empty individualism, open individualism, innatism, integral theory, Integrated Information Theory, interactionism, internalism, intuitionism, Islamism, Jainism, jingoism, Juche, Kabbalism, the law of attraction, legalism, Mohist logic, mentalism, metaphysical libertarianism, Maoism, moral absolutism, moral anti-realism, moral realism, moral skepticism, mysticism, naive realism, natalism, nationalism, National Socialism, neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism, neutral monism, new age-ism, new realism, mereological nihilism, non-dualism, objective idealism, Objectivism, occasionalism, organicism, paganism, panpsychism, pantheism, patriotism, perennialism, Platonism, populism, possibilism, post-modernism, presentism, qualia theory, quantum mysticism, racial reparations, racism, Rastafari, relativism, religion, scholasticism, scientism, ssexism, shamanism, Sharia, Sikhism, Daoist skepticism, solipcism, spiritualism, subjective idealismn, tetralemma, theism, theology, theosophy, transcendentalism, ubuntu, utilitarianism, value pluralism, verificationism, vitalism, wu wei, xuanxue

(most definitions taken from Wikipedia)

Well, this might be the record for the most unsupported assertions in an OP. And the competition's stiff.

OH, well let's take a bite of the cake.......moral antirealism and moral realist are both bad or wrong or illogical or some combination of the three. Is there an alternative that you consider good or right or logical?

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Kropotkin" post_id=666813 time=1694448083 user_id=22684]
ok, instead of a list, how about the why..
why are these ism's bad, illogical, whatever....

Kropotkin
[/quote]

choose, please

[Advocate]

I got most of these from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=666824 time=1694449729 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=666812 time=1694447651 user_id=15238]
non-dualism
[/quote]
This one please. Which non-dualism did you have in mind and why is it wrong?
[/quote]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

Goes wrong at self as an illusion. That which continuously replicates is the furthest thing from illusion.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=666894 time=1694464205 user_id=3619]
Well, this might be the record for the most unsupported assertions in an OP. And the competition's stiff.

OH, well let's take a bite of the cake.......moral antirealism and moral realist are both bad or wrong or illogical or some combination of the three. Is there an alternative that you consider good or right or logical?
[/quote]

Morality is a personal understanding of best practices. Ethics is formalized, usually shared, morality. Politics is ethics + scale.

moral realism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
Moral assertions are not objective features of the world.

anti-realism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism
There are objective moral facts.

They are contingent. Here are some ethical universals:
a) Survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals.
b) Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals.
c) Sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals.
d) Reciprocity is a prerequisite for civilization.

Those are within the context of Practical Wisdom. There's a corollary in the context of Truth Wisdom, as in meta-ethics. Good opposes both bad (reflects) and evil. (intent), for instance.

[Iwannaplato]

They are contingent.

Morals?

Here are some ethical universals:
a) Survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals.
b) Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals.
c) Sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals.
d) Reciprocity is a prerequisite for civilization.

Those are within the context of Practical Wisdom. There's a corollary in the context of Truth Wisdom, as in meta-ethics. Good opposes both bad (reflects) and evil. (intent), for instance.

It seems to me this is either moral realism, or a non-moral position.
I don't see where one one is saying what is right or wrong, but rather what is effective. If we consider the goals moral, than it seems like moral realism. These goals are good, objectively and these rules lead to the goals. That's a moral realism. Or... this is what people want (like survival) here's what gives them what they want. Nor morals but practical advice.

[Atla]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

Goes wrong at self as an illusion. That which continuously replicates is the furthest thing from illusion.

Ok you're half correct there. A more correct formulation of non-dualism would be that the individual human self is not quite what we think it is. It's a very real psychological thing in the head. It is who/what we people are, individually. Many non-dualists go insane and think they can throw out the individual human self completely.

And you're also half wrong. Almost all Western philosophy attributes the umm "phenomenal consciousness" to the above individual human self, so almost all Western philosophy is probably insane. According to non-dualism, all existence, the natural world IS the "phenomenal consciousness", and there is no reason whatsoever to think otherwise. So in that sense, the individual consciousness of the self is an illusion. Instead, the individual human self is just a small part of the continuous "phenomenal consciousness".

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=666933 time=1694489183 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=666914 time=1694477219 user_id=15238]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

Goes wrong at self as an illusion. That which continuously replicates is the furthest thing from illusion.
[/quote]
Ok you're half correct there. A more correct formulation of non-dualism would be that the individual human self is not quite what we think it is. It's a very real psychological thing in the head. It is who/what we people are, individually. Many non-dualists go insane and think they can throw out the individual human self completely.

And you're also half wrong. Almost all Western philosophy attributes the umm "phenomenal consciousness" to the above individual human self, so almost all Western philosophy is probably insane. According to non-dualism, all existence, the natural world IS the "phenomenal consciousness", and there is no reason whatsoever to think otherwise. So in that sense, the individual consciousness of the self is an illusion. Instead, the individual human self is just a small part of the continuous "phenomenal consciousness".
[/quote]

We each have a unique embodied perspective on the universe and ignoring or dissolving that body is only ever good for a temporary perspective check. Self is that unique perspective. It's a real as anything can be and not shared. The only sense in which morality is shared is the extent to which people share priorities. But i didn't really understand your second part there.

[Atla]

We each have a unique embodied perspective on the universe and ignoring or dissolving that body is only ever good for a temporary perspective check. Self is that unique perspective. It's a real as anything can be and not shared. The only sense in which morality is shared is the extent to which people share priorities. But i didn't really understand your second part there.

Well I was talking about the problem of consciousness, I haven't seen you solve it yet. Or maybe you have, just didn't explicitly say it.
Your individual self is what you are individually, it's a psychological thing in a human head. But where is this individual self happening as a first person perspective experience, who or what is having this first person perspective experience? The answer to this probably lies in nondual philosophy. Absolutely vital to any philosophy that claims to be among the best.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=673261 time=1697393659 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=666945 time=1694497342 user_id=15238]
We each have a unique embodied perspective on the universe and ignoring or dissolving that body is only ever good for a temporary perspective check. Self is that unique perspective. It's a real as anything can be and not shared. The only sense in which morality is shared is the extent to which people share priorities. But i didn't really understand your second part there.
[/quote]
Well I was talking about the problem of consciousness, I haven't seen you solve it yet. Or maybe you have, just didn't explicitly say it.
Your individual self is what you are individually, it's a psychological thing in a human head. But where is this individual self happening as a first person perspective experience, who or what is having this first person perspective experience? The answer to this probably lies in nondual philosophy. Absolutely vital to any philosophy that claims to be among the best.
[/quote]

It's an emergent attribute of cognitive complexity, but there's no technically correct or specific definition yet. Global Workspace Theory is probably closest, but whatever it ends up being probably won't be much like what's understood today. Remember, neuroscience is only a few decades old.

[Atla]

We each have a unique embodied perspective on the universe and ignoring or dissolving that body is only ever good for a temporary perspective check. Self is that unique perspective. It's a real as anything can be and not shared. The only sense in which morality is shared is the extent to which people share priorities. But i didn't really understand your second part there.

Well I was talking about the problem of consciousness, I haven't seen you solve it yet. Or maybe you have, just didn't explicitly say it.
Your individual self is what you are individually, it's a psychological thing in a human head. But where is this individual self happening as a first person perspective experience, who or what is having this first person perspective experience? The answer to this probably lies in nondual philosophy. Absolutely vital to any philosophy that claims to be among the best.

It's an emergent attribute of cognitive complexity, but there's no technically correct or specific definition yet. Global Workspace Theory is probably closest, but whatever it ends up being probably won't be much like what's understood today. Remember, neuroscience is only a few decades old.

That's still the individual mind/self, you don't see the other issue, which is also central to philosophy. Well I guess it's not necessary for the instrumentalist skeleton of philosophy that you're working on.