106 posts shown.
Michael Robinson9 said:"A man without a philosophical stance." What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Lisa Jackson7 said:I think you're taking the whole "label" thing way too broad—like you're grouping every single social clique together.
As Aristotle put it, man is a "political animal," so anyone who is completely detached from that is either a god or a beast.
And as for not having an opinion... I already told you, we don't all need to have a take on everything.
Jerry Edwards3 said:I was actually thinking the exact same thing. I’ve looked everywhere, and honestly, you won't find a definition for that in any standard American dictionary.
Michael Robinson9 said:But what specifically shouldn't we have a stance on?
Lisa Jackson7 said:Which "-ism" are you even talking about? Someone can be interested in philosophy, religion, or politics without being boxed into a specific ideology—you can't just shove everyone into a little ideological corner.
Then you have people whose beliefs clearly fit into an existing ideology.
And finally, there's a whole group that just doesn't care about any of it.
Oh, and don't forget about "clientelism"—that's a very specific "-ism," and those folks definitely make a living off it. 😁