Help with establishing the Field!

[AndrewB]

Hi There!

This is my first post on here, even though I have been reading it diligently for quite a while. I painfully realized how broad the vocabulary connected to the discussion of epistemology actually is and I find myself getting lost a lot of the time, trying to navigate all the potential metaphysical interpretations : naive realism, direct realism, indirect realism, empirical realism, idealism, analytical idealism, transcendental idealism, enactivism, skepticism....

I was wondering if anyone could help me point to a concise overview of all the main *isms that are pertinent to the discussion.

Have a lovely weekend.

[SanteriSatama]

Hi There!

This is my first post on here, even though I have been reading it diligently for quite a while. I painfully realized how broad the vocabulary connected to the discussion of epistemology actually is and I find myself getting lost a lot of the time, trying to navigate all the potential metaphysical interpretations : naive realism, direct realism, indirect realism, empirical realism, idealism, analytical idealism, transcendental idealism, enactivism, skepticism....

I was wondering if anyone could help me point to a concise overview of all the main *isms that are pertinent to the discussion.

Have a lovely weekend.

The problem is that there are no consensus definitions and meanings of what could be counted as main isms. My method has been and stays doing internet searches of relevant terms when I'm engaged in a discussion. Here's the SEP introduction article to metaphysics, for starters:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

[arinochka123]

Hi there,
My personal 20 cents are: try to distance yourself as much as possible from Jargon, names and especially 'isms'. True philosophical insight does not consist in those terms, which are usually very vague and sometimes altogether incoherent. How you wonder/cogitate, analyze, listen, evaluate and even criticize is what matters.

[AndrewB]

Much obliged for the replies, i really appreciate the input.

Im not personally that tied to "the isms" but a lot of the times in conversations my fellow interlocutors will try and surmise a position into a bracket like..."ah so you are a material monist?" and so on. Getting the general formulations down just makes me easier to converse the difference in clearer terms. And a lot of the times I meet people who are philosophy bookworms and know a lot of factual information but personally arent really capable of creative synthesis, which arguably is the whole point of philosophizing. So in a way im trying to equip myself with most common parlance about the topic so that I can navigate conversations regardless of who sits on the other end.

The Stanford encyclopedia is a good one, Ive already gone through that a few times, but if you guys point to it Ill dig deeper into it.

[SanteriSatama]

The Stanford encyclopedia is a good one, Ive already gone through that a few times, but if you guys point to it Ill dig deeper into it.

Chalmer's paper gives good oversight of varieties of idealism:
http://consc.net/papers/idealism.pdf