Is it possible to not belong to any subculture?

DAVMLA:

I didn't bother clicking those links you sent to see what you're peddling, but if you want to give me the SparkNotes version, go ahead. Besides, there’s no such thing as a universal truth. I think some other reader already pointed out to you that you're talking about neutral monism.

If you were too lazy to actually dig through the material I linked—which, by the way, is right there—fine. Here’s my attempt at summarizing that exact same stuff (in about 10,000 words) over in the thread "Why some people struggle to accept we're just animals." Check out post #1177 here: Just keep in mind this isn't some rant; hopefully, it's a decent attempt at putting the whole consciousness versus matter debate on actual scientific ground.

PLANINAR

Look, I was just trying to point out that you’re acting like a spokesperson for an "ism." You're basically promoting a cult-like ideology, which totally contradicts your claim that you don't belong to any specific group.

Wrong. I’m not pushing some "ism." I’m pushing cognitive science—specifically the Science of Self-Preservation. It’s a field the world hasn't even seen yet. Sure, right now it might look like just another "ism" to you and everyone else, but that's only because people haven't actually grasped the core of this Science and realized it's legitimate, not just another fad.

So, what's the actual link or difference between this Science and all those other "isms"?

The similarity is that every "ism," including this Science, tries to tackle the big stuff: consciousness, life, matter, nature, and how they all work. They all try to explain how nature is organized, or how human society and labor should function.

But here’s the kicker: no other "ism" can back its claims with hard scientific data. They can't prove their views are absolute Truth. That’s why they all eventually turn into nothing more than sets of beliefs and dogmas. People end up using their "democratic freedom" to just pick whichever flavor of ideology they feel like joining.

When we’re talking about verifiable, provable science that anyone on Earth can wrap their head around—like how everyone knows 2+2=4—there isn't room for guessing. You can't have people arguing that 2+2 equals 6, 8, or 100. It's just not how it works.

Basically, without knowing the Truth about matter, life, and nature, every person is free to believe whatever they want. They get to choose their own version of reality or their own little "ism." It’s their right to choose their own lie.

But when it comes to Science, we aren't talking about lies; we're talking about Truth. And once you have the Truth, nobody has the "right" to their own lie anymore. Not because lying is illegal, but because you can't trick someone who actually knows what's up. It's like trying to tell someone that 2+2=7. You can't pull that on them. Unless you're dealing with toddlers, I guess. And honestly, most people today are acting like toddlers. They're easily manipulated by all sorts of ideologies and lies because they don't have the tools to debunk them. They lack the cognitive science—the Science of Self-Preservation—which is the fundamental force governing everything in the universe. Once people truly understand this, the era of being lied to is over. Anyone who tries to BS someone will just get hit with a "GTFO." That's my shorthand for when you catch someone trying to play you. It means: "Cut the crap, buddy, I know how the game is played."

Quincy:

I simply cannot fathom why anyone would bother engaging with such trivialities—it is quite frankly exhausting. One would think that after all these years of observing the discourse here, there might be a modicum of intellectual rigor left, yet here we are. It reminds me of a particularly tedious afternoon I spent waiting for a delayed flight at O'Hare back in '08—just endless, circular nonsense while the clock ticked away uselessly. Honestly, if we are going to discuss anything of substance, let us at least attempt to do so without descending into this particular brand of madness. It is quite beneath us, don't you think? Or perhaps I am merely being overly fastidious—but then again, someone has to be. kaže: I know there might be very few people like this here—perhaps even fewer—but I find myself wondering: is it actually possible to exist without belonging to any particular "ism"? I am talking about a person who possesses no rigid philosophical stance, no religious fervor, no political zealotry, and so on. Someone who simply respects everyone else's worldview without feeling the need to adopt one themselves—because, let’s face it, subscribing to a specific ideology doesn't put food on the table. It certainly hasn't paid my mortgage, for that matter. Is it truly feasible to remain entirely indifferent to those deep-seated philosophical, political, or scientific debates? To look at them and decide they are simply irrelevant to one's existence? I have always felt that most people are driven by these invisible forces—this constant need to pick a side, to march in a parade, to claim a label as if it were a shield—but I find the whole spectacle quite exhausting. Are there any others here who live outside the fray? Anyone else who views these grand intellectual battles as nothing more than noise?

I suppose I might be the right candidate to tackle these sorts of deep-seated philosophical and religious conundrums—though, if we’re being honest, even the word "atheism" is a bit of a misnomer; it implies an active stance when, in reality, it rarely functions that way. In my view, both sides of this particular coin are nothing more than pseudo-problems—intellectual rabbit holes that lead absolutely nowhere.

On the other hand—and I mean this quite specifically—that logic simply doesn't hold water in my particular situation when we start looking at this third group of... well, let's call them outliers. It just doesn't apply.

Just a quick thought—I wanted to circle back and touch upon this for a moment...

Quincy:

Frequently Asked Questions — A Brief Overview I suppose I should probably address some of the recurring inquiries that seem to plague this particular corner of the internet—though, frankly, if one takes the time to actually read the documentation provided, many of these points would be moot. Still, here we are. Regarding the fundamental protocols: please understand that our guidelines are not mere suggestions. They are the structural integrity upon which this entire community rests. When I mentioned last week—during that rather heated exchange regarding the recent policy shifts—that order is paramount, I meant it. We aren't running a chaotic street market here; we are attempting to maintain a level of discourse that doesn't descend into pure madness. On the subject of membership: access is granted based on established criteria. If you find yourself questioning why certain individuals have been restricted, do not come to me with grievances. It isn't personal—well, perhaps it is, but that’s beside the point—it is simply a matter of following the rules as they were written by the administration. If there is a specific issue involving a dispute between users, please refer to the mediation section. I recall a situation back in '19—an incident involving a disagreement over data privacy that lasted for three weeks—where things spiraled because people refused to follow the standard escalation path. Don't be that person. Follow the steps. In short: read the manual, respect the boundaries, and try to keep the outbursts to a minimum. It makes everything significantly easier for everyone involved. As I was saying—though I feel like I’m shouting into a void most days—it seems electricrider16 is under the impression that things work differently than they actually do. It’s a curious perspective, really. One might think—if one were paying even a modicum of attention to the way our systems operate here in the States—that the logic would be self-evident. But no. There is always this insistence on ignoring the fundamental mechanics of the situation. It reminds me of a time back in Chicago when I was dealing with a particularly stubborn insurance adjuster—an individual who seemed to view common sense as a personal affront—who insisted that my policy covered things it clearly did not. Much like this current debate, it was an exercise in futility. We are discussing reality, not some idealized version of it. If we cannot agree on the basic facts of how things function in America, then what exactly are we doing here? It feels like spinning wheels in the mud—purely performative. I honestly don't think anything like that even exists—not in this country, anyway. I mean, you look around at everything we have here, and yet... there just isn't an equivalent. It’s one of those things where people claim they've seen something similar, but once you actually dig into the specifics, the whole argument falls apart. I remember being back in Chicago years ago, trying to find a specific type of service that everyone swore was common, only to realize the entire concept was a myth. It's the same thing here. There simply isn't anything quite like it.I haven't quite figured out what you're getting at here—it seems like a fragment, perhaps a stray thought or just a bit of digital noise—but if there was supposed to be a point behind those characters, I’m still waiting for the rest of the sentence to materialize. It’s a bit like staring at a blank page in a notebook after someone tells you they have a "great idea" but then fails to actually say anything at all. Anyway, if you meant to say something substantive, do feel free to elaborate. I'll be here.There was never any point—nor is there any sense—in pursuing such a thing. To be perfectly blunt, the very essence of any attempt at categorization, division, or forced belonging is that it inherently functions by exclusion. By defining what something "is," you automatically dictate what it "is not." It’s a closed loop. You create a boundary, and in doing so, you immediately strip away the possibility of genuine discourse. It renders any real posting or meaningful exchange entirely moot from the start. 🙂

It’s fundamentally nonsensical—truly, deeply flawed logic—to suggest that showing respect is somehow synonymous with endorsing someone's ideas or swallowing their particular worldview whole. There seems to be this prevailing, rather exhausting notion that holding a firm conviction on a given issue is inherently disrespectful because it precludes total agreement. But that simply doesn't hold water. It's a fallacy. One can maintain a profound level of respect for an individual—and even for the specific stances they advocate—without being forced to adopt those very same positions as one's own. Unless, of course, I am completely misguided about what it means to honor a fellow human being; though, frankly, I find it hard to believe that is the case.

It is entirely possible to exist without belonging to any specific group at all. Such an individual would be someone who shifts their convictions every single week, regardless of the subject matter. For instance, one week they might champion a particular worldview, only to pivot to its polar opposite the next—doing so purely out of spite or sheer contrariness. One week their behavior follows one pattern, and the very next, they act in a completely different manner. This would describe a person in constant flux, perpetually altering their thoughts, their moods, and their fundamental perspectives on life. It would be the life of someone who simultaneously belongs nowhere and everywhere.

Gerald Hill said:It is entirely possible to exist without belonging to any specific group at all. Such an individual would be someone who shifts their convictions every single week, regardless of the subject matter. For instance, one week they might champion a particular worldview, only to pivot to its polar opposite the next—doing so purely out of spite or sheer contrariness. One week their behavior follows one pattern, and the very next, they act in a completely different manner. This would describe a person in constant flux, perpetually altering their thoughts, their moods, and their fundamental perspectives on life. It would be the life of someone who simultaneously belongs nowhere and everywhere.

Well, that certainly isn't me.

When it comes to my lack of affiliation with religious or philosophical "-isms," I view it this way:

a) Religion and faith—I am an atheist. I don't subscribe to anything that could reasonably be labeled as "transcendent." However, my particular brand of atheism isn't some aggressive, affirmative creed; it's simply a void where belief used to be, nothing more. I don't hold strong positions on the cosmological origins of the universe—noting, of course, that Big Bang theory is fundamentally different when you account for Planck's epoch—nor do I harbor any other particularly relevant stances on those matters.

b) Philosophy—for the most part, I find the whole field to be little more than selling smoke. There is, I suppose, a useful distinction between traditional philosophy (which acts as the primary playground for mass "-isms") and, arguably, analytical philosophy (which focuses strictly on conceptual and logical-grammatical problems). Though, even there, the line gets blurry, and I probably ought to break down various "-isms" individually if I want to be precise enough to prove my point.

EDIT: As I mentioned, I do cling to certain "-isms" in other arenas.

But, upon further reflection, perhaps we should first establish a clear definition of what constitutes an "-ism"—in other words, what qualifies as one and what doesn't—since I don't consider atheism (to be perfectly accurate, agnostic atheism) to be functionally equivalent to something like Protestantism in this context. It seems we are lacking clarity on that front.

electricrider16 said:Well, that certainly isn't me.

When it comes to my lack of affiliation with religious or philosophical "-isms," I view it this way:

a) Religion and faith—I am an atheist. I don't subscribe to anything that could reasonably be labeled as "transcendent." However, my particular brand of atheism isn't some aggressive, affirmative creed; it's simply a void where belief used to be, nothing more. I don't hold strong positions on the cosmological origins of the universe—noting, of course, that Big Bang theory is fundamentally different when you account for Planck's epoch—nor do I harbor any other particularly relevant stances on those matters.

b) Philosophy—for the most part, I find the whole field to be little more than selling smoke. There is, I suppose, a useful distinction between traditional philosophy (which acts as the primary playground for mass "-isms") and, arguably, analytical philosophy (which focuses strictly on conceptual and logical-grammatical problems). Though, even there, the line gets blurry, and I probably ought to break down various "-isms" individually if I want to be precise enough to prove my point.

EDIT: As I mentioned, I do cling to certain "-isms" in other arenas.

But, upon further reflection, perhaps we should first establish a clear definition of what constitutes an "-ism"—in other words, what qualifies as one and what doesn't—since I don't consider atheism (to be perfectly accurate, agnostic atheism) to be functionally equivalent to something like Protestantism in this context. It seems we are lacking clarity on that front.

In your view, you belong to an "-ism" precisely because you hold the stance of not believing; therefore, atheism is itself an "-ism." What I have outlined above represents both non-affiliation and total affiliation. To follow your logic, one would be a person who deliberately changes their views every single week—for instance, being an atheist one week, a believer in some religion or a non-religious believer (like a deist or pandeist) the next, then an agnostic, and finally an apatheist. The same would apply to philosophical views. Such a person would be someone who intentionally refuses to commit to any single worldview, mode of thought, or state of being.

Gerald Hill said:In your view, you belong to an "-ism" precisely because you hold the stance of not believing; therefore, atheism is itself an "-ism." What I have outlined above represents both non-affiliation and total affiliation. To follow your logic, one would be a person who deliberately changes their views every single week—for instance, being an atheist one week, a believer in some religion or a non-religious believer (like a deist or pandeist) the next, then an agnostic, and finally an apatheist. The same would apply to philosophical views. Such a person would be someone who intentionally refuses to commit to any single worldview, mode of thought, or state of being.

I'm not so sure it's quite that black and white.

What you've described—this idea of people "changing their minds every week regarding any given stance"—which you've expanded into this notion of people intentionally avoiding any commitment to a worldview...

Again, neither of those categories applies to me, at least not when I'm in the middle of the debate. My stance on faith and those "ultimate" questions that religion and philosophy obsess over is essentially twofold: a) they are pseudo-problems—convoluted riddles that simply cannot be solved—and b) they are utterly irrelevant to my actual life. It isn't that I am actively dodging a commitment to a worldview; rather, I find these views fundamentally insufficient—in fact, completely inadequate for my own needs and my desire to understand myself and the world I inhabit.

Furthermore, there is a significant issue with grouping someone with my perspective into the same bucket as people who swap "-isms" like they're changing socks. You see, atheism cannot be meaningfully converted into an affirmative stance. It isn't that I maintain a specific "position" of non-belief—it's simply that I don't believe. Period. It isn't an affirmation of any particular thesis; it is merely the absence of belief. If the question is "do you believe?", the answer is no. If the question is "do you assert that gods do not exist?", I do not make such an assertion—though I will add the caveat that proving the existence of transcendence is impossible (hence why agnostic atheism is the only coherent form of atheism when you actually look at the definitions of the terms involved).

The chasm between this and religious convictions that carry that "-ism" suffix is massive and unbridgeable. That is precisely why I am asking for a clearer definition of what we are discussing here and what, if anything, is truly common to all these "-isms."

electricrider16 said:I'm not so sure it's quite that black and white.

What you've described—this idea of people "changing their minds every week regarding any given stance"—which you've expanded into this notion of people intentionally avoiding any commitment to a worldview...

Again, neither of those categories applies to me, at least not when I'm in the middle of the debate. My stance on faith and those "ultimate" questions that religion and philosophy obsess over is essentially twofold: a) they are pseudo-problems—convoluted riddles that simply cannot be solved—and b) they are utterly irrelevant to my actual life. It isn't that I am actively dodging a commitment to a worldview; rather, I find these views fundamentally insufficient—in fact, completely inadequate for my own needs and my desire to understand myself and the world I inhabit.

Furthermore, there is a significant issue with grouping someone with my perspective into the same bucket as people who swap "-isms" like they're changing socks. You see, atheism cannot be meaningfully converted into an affirmative stance. It isn't that I maintain a specific "position" of non-belief—it's simply that I don't believe. Period. It isn't an affirmation of any particular thesis; it is merely the absence of belief. If the question is "do you believe?", the answer is no. If the question is "do you assert that gods do not exist?", I do not make such an assertion—though I will add the caveat that proving the existence of transcendence is impossible (hence why agnostic atheism is the only coherent form of atheism when you actually look at the definitions of the terms involved).

The chasm between this and religious convictions that carry that "-ism" suffix is massive and unbridgeable. That is precisely why I am asking for a clearer definition of what we are discussing here and what, if anything, is truly common to all these "-isms."

What all positions share is having a relationship with a question and adopting a specific stance; since your stance is that you do not believe, that itself constitutes a stance. In other words, providing an answer to any question related to a worldview or an opinion on any matter falls under the umbrella of an "-ism." People who would swap their belief or disbelief in God as easily as changing clothes wouldn't belong to any "-ism" at all, because they would view all stances, thoughts, states, and worldviews as essentially empty and inconsequential.

Gerald Hill said:What all positions share is having a relationship with a question and adopting a specific stance; since your stance is that you do not believe, that itself constitutes a stance. In other words, providing an answer to any question related to a worldview or an opinion on any matter falls under the umbrella of an "-ism." People who would swap their belief or disbelief in God as easily as changing clothes wouldn't belong to any "-ism" at all, because they would view all stances, thoughts, states, and worldviews as essentially empty and inconsequential.

The term is totally misused here. It's so incredibly broad that you could practically invent millions of "-isms," even though the questions being asked and the positions taken are radically different from one another. We've reached this point of massive inflation where people act like holding any single opinion automatically qualifies you as having an ideology—even when there isn't a coherent, systematically linked web of beliefs involved. That's the most common way people misunderstand what an ideology actually is.

What you're really asking is whether there are people out there who don't think at all.

Gerald Hill said:I realize there might be very few people here who feel this way, if any at all, but is it truly possible to belong to no school of thought whatsoever? I am talking about a person who holds no specific philosophical, religious, or political dogma—someone who simply respects everyone else's worldview while recognizing that adhering to any particular ideology offers no practical benefit to their daily life. Is it actually feasible to remain entirely indifferent to deep philosophical, political, or scientific inquiries and view them as irrelevant to one's existence? Are there any individuals among us who live this way?

Not a single one....

.....so it's just not possible

electricrider16 said:The term is totally misused here. It's so incredibly broad that you could practically invent millions of "-isms," even though the questions being asked and the positions taken are radically different from one another. We've reached this point of massive inflation where people act like holding any single opinion automatically qualifies you as having an ideology—even when there isn't a coherent, systematically linked web of beliefs involved. That's the most common way people misunderstand what an ideology actually is.

What you're really asking is whether there are people out there who don't think at all.

If someone identifies as a communist one week, a fascist the next, then switches to surrealism, hyperrealism, atheism, or becomes a believer just to change things up again, it proves they lack any lasting convictions. In other words, they don't truly belong anywhere because they don't actually subscribe to any specific ideology.

ironfox9 said:Not a single one....

.....so it's just not possible

Nihilism does not exist.😁.

Gerald Hill said:If someone identifies as a communist one week, a fascist the next, then switches to surrealism, hyperrealism, atheism, or becomes a believer just to change things up again, it proves they lack any lasting convictions. In other words, they don't truly belong anywhere because they don't actually subscribe to any specific ideology.

That’s just eclecticism.

Gerald Hill said:Nihilism does not exist.😁.

Well now...

Is an element of a set that doesn't belong to any set actually part of a set consisting of elements that don't belong to any set?

Isn't that just
Russell
paradox in disguise?

Gerald Hill said:If someone identifies as a communist one week, a fascist the next, then switches to surrealism, hyperrealism, atheism, or becomes a believer just to change things up again, it proves they lack any lasting convictions. In other words, they don't truly belong anywhere because they don't actually subscribe to any specific ideology.

But that misses the mark entirely.

The term itself needs to be narrowed down based on the specific problems it's addressing. Take Protestantism, for instance—it isn't some monolith of practices and beliefs comparable to the stances taken within evolutionary theory (which, let's be honest, doesn't even have "practices" in the traditional sense, unless we're talking about intellectual inquiry and research). While certain theological articulations might touch upon how one lives their life on Earth, in a strictly defined sense, the internal divide between gradualists and saltationists within the scientific "evolutionary camp" has absolutely nothing to do with religious "-isms." The subject matter being debated is fundamentally different, and the methods used to resolve those disagreements are worlds apart.

And don't even get me started on political "-isms"—those frameworks are essentially just calls to action, which makes them inherently unlike the divisions found among evolutionists or between believers and religious authorities. Sure, a political ideology might incorporate views on natural history (or other empirical matters) and even ideas regarding the transcendent, but only insofar as they serve as supporting material for the core demand for specific social or political action.

What I am attempting to clarify here—and please bear with my long-windedness—is that your conceptualization of what an "-ism" actually is is flawed. You are trying to cram far too much into one overly simplistic and, frankly, inappropriate bucket. The solution would be to establish a meaningful distinction between "-isms" (and indeed any general stance on a topic) on one hand, and the various distinct categories of "-isms" themselves on the other. This distinction is vital because the gulf between something like atheism and something like evolutionism is so massive that any attempt to categorize people who don't adhere to a specific "-ism" will end up being neither precise nor particularly coherent.

coastalwalker said:That’s just eclecticism.

I disagree; I would call it philosophy—a genuine search for answers. A philosopher would approach this from various angles, perhaps even using a bit of satire to poke fun at all the different exceptions.

Well, you all certainly have a lot to say... yet somehow you can't seem to grasp a simple Paradox...

A Paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true (or wrong at the same time)

-Behind it lies a collection of specific definitions.

Not belonging to a set of certain positions makes it a member of a set that lacks defined positions which ultimately makes it a set that does have defined positions (specifically, the lack of a defined characteristic), which finally makes it—ism.

So, we have pure Russell's Paradox, which goes like this:

If I examine the set of all sets (-isms) that do not contain themselves as an element (are not -isms). The question is: does that set contain itself as an element? (meaning, is it then an -ism?)

ironfox9 said:Well, you all certainly have a lot to say... yet somehow you can't seem to grasp a simple Paradox...

A Paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true (or wrong at the same time)

-Behind it lies a collection of specific definitions.

Not belonging to a set of certain positions makes it a member of a set that lacks defined positions which ultimately makes it a set that does have defined positions (specifically, the lack of a defined characteristic), which finally makes it—ism.

So, we have pure Russell's Paradox, which goes like this:

If I examine the set of all sets (-isms) that do not contain themselves as an element (are not -isms). The question is: does that set contain itself as an element? (meaning, is it then an -ism?)

That is just Russell's nonsense. It creates a set without defined positions, while simultaneously being a set with defined positions, wouldn't you agree? In the scenario I described above, we aren't actually discussing a mathematical set or an element, but rather the constant shifting of stances. That volatility is precisely what ensures it belongs nowhere and everywhere at once. If it isn't an "-ism," then what is it? To put it simply: what I have outlined is a state of non-belonging and total belonging—an intentional shifting of perspectives that prevents one from ever truly belonging to a single, unique "-ism.

Gerald Hill said:That is just Russell's nonsense. It creates a set without defined positions, while simultaneously being a set with defined positions, wouldn't you agree? In the scenario I described above, we aren't actually discussing a mathematical set or an element, but rather the constant shifting of stances. That volatility is precisely what ensures it belongs nowhere and everywhere at once. If it isn't an "-ism," then what is it? To put it simply: what I have outlined is a state of non-belonging and total belonging—an intentional shifting of perspectives that prevents one from ever truly belonging to a single, unique "-ism.

All at once? Really? We are discussing individuals who flip-flop on their most fundamental convictions across various categories—it’s a pattern of inconsistency, not a synchronized event. To use the word "simultaneously" in this context is, quite frankly, a logical impossibility.

Gerald Hill said:That is just Russell's nonsense. It creates a set without defined positions, while simultaneously being a set with defined positions, wouldn't you agree? In the scenario I described above, we aren't actually discussing a mathematical set or an element, but rather the constant shifting of stances. That volatility is precisely what ensures it belongs nowhere and everywhere at once. If it isn't an "-ism," then what is it? To put it simply: what I have outlined is a state of non-belonging and total belonging—an intentional shifting of perspectives that prevents one from ever truly belonging to a single, unique "-ism.

So, they belong to a group defined by their own inconsistency.

I've gone ahead and labeled this non-declarative-ism, or perhaps intentio-variabil-ism, and there's really nothing you can do to argue against it.

The moment you define something, you've essentially created it—you've shoved it into a category, a set, or whatever label you choose. You call it an "ism," but the terminology is secondary.

Every form of categorization or classification is just a man-made construct designed to make things easier to handle.

.