are you an ‘ism-ist’?
you may think it is perfectly acceptable to call yourself e.g. an atheist, but why constrain the mind so? on some of my threads you may think i am an atheist ar on another a christian etc, in truth i am neither and none. i simply like to ask all manner of questions and i don’t mind taking any given perspective to attain the answers i am looking for.
so are you brilliant too or are you an ism-ist 
I am not an -ism; I am not an -ist.
Reductive language punishes the philosophers who associate as such. I can say I am a nihilist for all-intensive purposes, but it only describes a part of my identity. When that relationship is fully explained, then it speaks upon my whole self along with the whole concept of nihilism as I know it.
nice reply
true. what though is in the naming of the rose, each time you say to someone or refer to yourself as a nihilist, the very naming and use of the meaning has an ‘effect’. this effect subconsciously and perhaps consciously constrains you to the given set of ideals. in returns people will refer to you as such to!
secondly, the meaning of nihilism itself, if used as even a metaphor of description itself pertains to a constrained view. in other words in truth you are greater than the sum of your parts and cannot be defined by anything. can you truly say that nihilism is ‘you’?
I believe you can say that any ‘-ism’ or ‘-ist’ is you as long as you are clear that your context is exclusive of your wholistic identity. A lot of posters are good in that area, because me for example, I’m not going to assume that a person is and only is the association that they’re referring to. People use these ‘-ists’ and ‘-isms’ mainly to enhance their life and philosophy. Usually, I see that it is others that tear a person down and confine a person to that specific meaning, when this is hardly ever the case (if at all)…
For example, if I describe myself as an ‘a-moralist’, it is because I am pursuing a path of conversation based on a certain context and direction particularly relating to my relationship with amorality. My intention is not to restrict myself as a whole, because it would be ignorant to do so from my point of view by saying that I am explicitly defined by my association to this ‘-ist’. What my true aim is, is to converse in a discussion where I learn from this usage of ‘-ist’ by learning something about myself in relation to our practical definitions of language and identities. In other words, “for the time being, I will assume and take the identity of this ‘-ist’ in order to learn something about myself, and others, by philosophizing within a set area of contexts and identities”.
Words change. Identities change. Philosophies change. Though, metaphysical beliefs rarely change. Between all this change and identity (of metaphysics), language is guiding us the entire way. We can tear each other down along the way by restricting each other to '-ism’s and '-ist’s, but why would that help anybody or how could that produce a progressive result? It can’t, because doing that is regressive.
I suppose it mainly comes down to how ‘good’ of philosophers we can be with one another while we argue, discuss, and criticize one another. Nobody’s perfect; we will all be guilty of regression sometimes, but I believe that any potential ‘philosopher’ should be very wary of this issue.
this is true indeed. perhaps we all have an inbuilt anti-label trait, i see what you are saying but i also understand why people do that hmm.
i see, isn’t this kind of agreeing with the opening post? you are clearly not someone who thinks in a box, you appear to me as a transpersonal shapeshifter if you will. there is nothing wrong with using labels as you put forwards the meaning, we simply have to use them like that in order to communicate meaning ~ language is labels.
agreed.
perhaps i should have done a longer and deeper opening post, i just get tired of spending hours doing that then often people dont even bother replying or reading it all ~ forumers are so vague lols.
It’s very hit-and-miss when you devote yourself into a post or response, because only certain posters are likely to respond, and during different time frames of the days and weeks…
indeed, i am a strong believer in the circle of knowledge whereby new ideas and revisions of the old can make an impact, i seen many ideas return over the last few years i.e. people quite things that have been said without realising the source lols.
so one must endeavour to contribute eh!