What exactly is a cult?

How would one define the concept of a "sect"?😲

What specific criteria must be met before a group of people can be categorized as a sect?

Walter Chase56 Walter Chase56 said:How exactly would one define the concept of a "sect"? It’s one of those terms that people throw around quite loosely these days—often used as a convenient slur to dismiss any group that doesn't align with the mainstream—but if we're being rigorous about it... there's a deeper, more nuanced layer to peel back.😲

The mainstream... stripped down to its bare essentials—or perhaps just its most superficial layers.

Quincy:

Jonathan Brooks8: The mainstream, in short.

🤣 🤣

Could Master Ivanov’s Great School of Enlightenment for the West (Spirituality/Religion) be classified as a sect?

I am asking because I have been present for the last two posts here.

I caught a discussion regarding this topic.😕

You can call it whatever you want, really—it all just comes down to what you actually mean by it.
Language is all about context. There isn’t some magic, perfect definition you can just pull out of thin air to go show Master Ivan and prove, like, "See? Your little group is definitely a 'sect'."
So, why even bring this up here in Philosophy? If we're just gonna label his whole thing a "sect," why not just move this thread over to Spirituality since that's where his crowd hangs out anyway?

According to Klaić:
sect, Latin secta — a trace, a path, a direction... coming from sequi meaning to follow
1) A religious group that broke away from the dominant church; our term "following" comes from this.
2) (Metaphorically) an insular group that isolates itself from the general public.

If we’re going by those definitions for this debate, we really gotta look at a few things:
is there an actual group involved? — yeah, pretty much certain.
is the group religious? — honestly, that just depends on how you define religion and being religious.
did they split off from something else?
and was that "something else" some kind of "dominant church"?

Or maybe we're talking about a "sect" in the metaphorical sense?
Anyway, Walter Chase56, I'm hoping for some actual arguments here. 😉

mistyfox812 said:So, why even bring this up here in the Philosophy section? If we're just going to let some "sect" from the Spirituality board dictate the terms, why don't we just move the whole discussion over there?

Exactly—and honestly, we might as well rename the thread "Is the Master's school a cult?" just to clear up any potential confusion.
Personally, I've always been partial to that old saying, "Call me crazy, but don't call me a fool."

Walter Chase56 said:🤣 🤣

Could we actually call Master John’s Great School of Western Enlightenment (Spirituality/Religion) a sect?

The reason I'm asking is because of the last two posts I saw here

where there was a whole discussion about this..😕

I think people were debating it because some believe there’s a "real" sect operating behind the scenes—meaning John might actually be running a formal organization.
Others just associate the school's behavior with cult-like patterns, so they treat it as one.

If you really stretch the definition of what a sect is, then maybe it could be called that.

Personally, I find the whole phenomenon of this school pretty fascinating.

wiredcrane5 said:I think the whole debate popped up because some people genuinely believe there’s a "real" sect behind this school, like John actually runs some kind of organized group.
Others just see cult-like vibes and treat them like one...

If you stretch the definition of a cult, maybe you could call it that.

The whole phenomenon of this school is pretty interesting to me.

hhmmmhhhmm ...yeah, yeah, that's about it! So, here’s a quick little summary of our "cultish" manifesto....

anyone who isn't with us is against us, just like we are against them! anyone who isn't against us has a chance to join us, though they won't be themselves anymore! anyone who stands against us might not stay that way, but then they'll just be fighting against themselves! whoever stays with us won't know who they used to be, but they'll definitely know who we are! whoever stops knowing who they are won't even bother asking who they were, because they'll already know! ...there are a few more points to the list, but I'll save those for another time!

if anything was unclear, please reach out to our school secretary, Master Grizzly... eeee, and then you still won't understand a damn thing 🙄

now, cheers to all the sects out there! live long and prosper! 🙄 🙂

klimakos said:Anyone who isn't on our side is against us, plain and simple! If you aren't against us, you have a shot at joining us—but you won't be doing it alone! Being against us doesn't mean you'll stay that way, but if you do, you're basically fighting yourself! Those who stick with us might lose track of who they are, but they'll certainly know who we are! And those who lose themselves won't even bother asking anymore; they'll just know! ... I've got a few more points, but I'll save those for next time!

Look, you're seeing cult theory play out right before your eyes.
It’s a classic hallmark of a cult: they use these convoluted theories that nobody actually understands except for them. 😬

Then there's the rest:

2. They have supreme leadership ( = John Doe ) 😬
3. They have an organized structure (this forum thread) and a secretary (Grizli)—honestly, they're a modern cult—they even have an "online" schedule for operations and recruiting new members. 😬

All they're missing now is some prophecy about doomsday or seeking vengeance against anyone who treated them poorly. 😁

Joke aside. 🙂

So, what exactly defines "cult-like behavior"? 😕

mistyfox812:
So, why on earth are you asking this here, in the Philosophy section?

I was looking for a straightforward answer—a clear definition of "non-subjective."
Since you occasionally guest lecture at that university... your perspective tends to differ from the other two responses I've received.😉

Why don't we just move this thread over to Spirituality, since it seems like one "sect" is trying to hijack the Spirituality board anyway?

I assumed that if I asked here, I wouldn't get an unbiased definition, but rather a defensive reaction instead.😉

We can move it now, once I have received at least two general answers.🙂

Casey Jones9 said:That's basically how cults work—they use all this weird jargon that nobody else can wrap their head around😬

Man, that hits the nail on the head. Most cults—any group trying to sell you some "alternative" lifestyle—develop this super specific lingo that just sounds like gibberish to anyone on the outside. They also love to act like being rational or making sense is actually a flaw, like it's a sign that you're just one of those people who "doesn't get it."
By trashing logic like that, they make sure no one can actually question the "doctrine." See, if you start asking questions, they immediately label you as someone who's "stuck in their ways" or "too rigid to just let go and accept the truth." It’s a total trap. It puts this huge, unspoken pressure on everyone to keep their mouths shut about anything that feels off. Because if you do speak up? Well, then you're not part of the "inner circle" anymore and you lose all that sweet, sweet validation from the rest of the group.

mistyfox812:
So, Walter Chase56, I am expecting some actual argumentation here.

I genuinely enjoyed reading your breakdown of the concept based on real-world experience...
but once Casey Jones9 and those other guys jumped in with their specific case studies, I honestly couldn't stop laughing at their take on it.🤣 🤣
though a conventional approach works too...
at this point, I'm giving up on finding a formal definition...🙏

still, it is interesting to hear what others think about it.🙂

mistyfox812 said:That’s actually a solid point regarding cults. Most groups offering some kind of alternative lifestyle develop this specific jargon that makes zero sense to outsiders. They also tend to dismiss common sense or logical reasoning as a flaw belonging to "those who just don't get it."
By ditching rationality, they make sure a member—or anyone thinking about joining—doesn't start questioning the "doctrine." See, just asking questions puts you right in the category of someone who "doesn't get it," or someone who is "stuck in their rational ways" and "can't just relax and accept things as they are." I guess there's basically an unspoken pressure on members to shut up about anything that feels suspicious, because if they do, they risk losing their status and the approval of the rest of the group.

Yeah, but you can't use that as the sole definition of a cult, because that applies to other organizations too, like... maybe certain scientific institutions.

To me, any religious group that focuses on manipulating its followers for personal gain could be called a cult. That idea of "gain" is such a broad spectrum... it can range from straight-up financial exploitation to just feeding the leader's massive ego. A lot of modern cults don't even go after your wallet anymore, but they find plenty of other ways to take advantage of people. I think there are a few core traits that define them. One big one is the constant need for followers to suck up to the leader—everything has to go exactly their way, without question. Most followers end up accepting every single word out of the leader's mouth as absolute truth, often becoming aggressive or openly hostile toward anyone who dares to have an opinion different from the "official" party line

Casey Jones9 said:Yeah, but you can't just label something a cult based on that. I mean, that logic applies to all sorts of groups... like scientific organizations, for example.

I don't know, man, I gotta disagree. Science—at least how it's supposed to work, anyway—is all about clarity. It actually expects you to dig deep and clear up every single doubt you have, rather than just swallowing questions just to fit in with the crowd.

mistyfox812 said:I disagree. Science—at least in how it’s supposed to work—is meant to drive clarity. It expects you to iron out every single doubt, rather than just suppressing questions just to fit in with the crowd.

It doesn't push for clarity; it just trains you to accept their specific version of the truth...
I think some famous mathematician or philosopher—I can't recall which one right now—once said that you don't actually learn math; you just get used to it and bend your thinking to fit the patterns.

It's similar to how certain cults encourage their followers to ask questions, but only as a way to pull them deeper into the group's specific jargon and system.

Try seeking actual clarity from your physics professor and watch what happens. They won't clear things up; they'll just "explain" it away using more complex concepts and formulas. That's exactly how cults operate... 🙂

Casey Jones9 said:It’s not really about providing clarity... it's more about conditioning people to accept their version of the truth.
I think some famous mathematician or philosopher once mentioned that you don't actually "learn" math... you just get used to it and adapt how you process things...

It’s similar to how certain cults push questions on their followers, but the goal is just to pull you deeper into their specific system and jargon.

Try asking your physics professor to clarify a concept and just listen closely to the response—you won't necessarily get an answer, you'll just get "explained" using a whole new set of concepts and formulas. That's exactly how cults operate... 🙂

>
Scientific communities can act just like religious ones if you consider how often they rely on dogma.
Cults are a different animal entirely, and that's where the real issue lies. The danger with cults is their aggression, how they force their views on everyone else, and the way they exploit their followers.

Joseph Ramos11 said:>
Cults are a different beast entirely, and they present a unique set of issues. The real problem with cults is how aggressive they are—always trying to force their views on everyone else while blatantly exploiting their followers.

I guess I agree. Those are pretty much the defining traits of a cult. You can find weird, niche terminology in just about any group, so that isn't really the deciding factor.

Joseph Ramos11 said:>
Scientific communities can basically function just like religious ones, considering how often they end up leaning on dogma.

science = religion ☕

mistyfox812 said:Try asking your physics professor for some clarity and just... watch how they respond. They won't actually clear things up; they'll just bury you under a mountain of new concepts and formulas. Honestly? That’s exactly how cults operate... 🙂

So basically, you end up with this set of core terms and procedures that nobody in the scientific community dares to question as long as the whole thing keeps "working." (Of course, philosophers will tear those "fundamental" ideas apart, and even scientists do during those massive "scientific revolutions.") The internal logic of the system is constantly being scrutinized.
But I feel like with cults, there's this specific tactic where they deny that questioning is even a valid way to learn. They use those "explanations" about "clinging to concepts" or being "incapable of seeing beyond logic" to shut you down. Basically, they refuse to even attempt an answer by loudly labeling anyone who asks questions as "someone who just doesn't get it," unlike the rest of the group who supposedly "gets the essence." It builds this crazy sense of cohesion, and it injects this fear of being cast out among the members—including potential ones—which totally kills any desire to keep asking questions.