> chinese taoism? Or stoicism?
There are both something resonating and something out-of-sync with current scientific-philosophical progress in many -isms, including stoicism and taoism. Any combination is possible, yet I think normally many perceive that if we call ourselves a particular -ist—that means we agree on most or the entire discourse. I find it hard to imagine how that would be possible with old enough -isms; for example, agreeing on Marcus Aurelius' meditations would mean that I'm in agreement with the related mythic-religious tradition he was subscribed to or I'm somehow separating this stuff (but how exactly isn't obvious; these seem to be deeply interconnected, at least to me). There is more recent neo-stoicism stuff though, that would be possibly less confusing.
I haven't seen a synthesis (that would skillfully synchronize language games between the -isms and explicitly refine them properly) that would be resonating enough with my belief system. Or just a new -ism, with the least confusing terminology for a contemporary reader. Metamodernism looks like a healthy starting point; I can't currently confidently say whether I agree or disagree with them for a couple of reasons: there are many Metamodernism authors, so I'm not capable of learning each of them thoroughly; they are currently possibly avoiding going too deep in some topics.
codonaft
npub1al…7rg94
2026-08-22 10:30:33 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…j3nu
Author Public Key
npub1alptdev5srcw2hxg03567p4k6xs3lgj7f6545suc0rzp0xw98svse7rg94Seen on
wss://nostr.codonaft.comPublished at
2026-08-22 10:30:33 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "0e29e11f0da1aced3a7827791748b02633be9754e382dae8f9e04438a6db674c",
"pubkey": "efc2b6e59480f0e55cc87c69af06b6d1a11fa25e4ea95a439878c41799c53c19",
"created_at": 1787394633,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"00000c509926753a7b85a1db221c2597b76ae8b78c06cc9102dde1d592399689",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"root",
"b7cf9f42a796b091e843dce919d3ef4c0dc82e029452edf0bdbcdeb9ecb93e78"
],
[
"e",
"00000c509926753a7b85a1db221c2597b76ae8b78c06cc9102dde1d592399689",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"reply",
"b7cf9f42a796b091e843dce919d3ef4c0dc82e029452edf0bdbcdeb9ecb93e78"
],
[
"p",
"efc2b6e59480f0e55cc87c69af06b6d1a11fa25e4ea95a439878c41799c53c19",
"wss://nostr.codonaft.com/"
],
[
"p",
"b7cf9f42a796b091e843dce919d3ef4c0dc82e029452edf0bdbcdeb9ecb93e78"
]
],
"content": "\u003e chinese taoism? Or stoicism?\n\nThere are both something resonating and something out-of-sync with current scientific-philosophical progress in many -isms, including stoicism and taoism. Any combination is possible, yet I think normally many perceive that if we call ourselves a particular -ist—that means we agree on most or the entire discourse. I find it hard to imagine how that would be possible with old enough -isms; for example, agreeing on Marcus Aurelius' meditations would mean that I'm in agreement with the related mythic-religious tradition he was subscribed to or I'm somehow separating this stuff (but how exactly isn't obvious; these seem to be deeply interconnected, at least to me). There is more recent neo-stoicism stuff though, that would be possibly less confusing.\n\nI haven't seen a synthesis (that would skillfully synchronize language games between the -isms and explicitly refine them properly) that would be resonating enough with my belief system. Or just a new -ism, with the least confusing terminology for a contemporary reader. Metamodernism looks like a healthy starting point; I can't currently confidently say whether I agree or disagree with them for a couple of reasons: there are many Metamodernism authors, so I'm not capable of learning each of them thoroughly; they are currently possibly avoiding going too deep in some topics.",
"sig": "2bb7df0d0deaba5026f929d9b3101b6d47cc8022119913f8a70f4703819915640f0c15fde94ede17bb12c851e82b310b1c84c660513a00bde7f8dd896c45f99e"
}