Proper Nouns

evil-monkey

Hi all,

Are philosophical hypotheses proper nouns?

For example: utilitarianism, simple subjectivism, emotivism etc etc.

Surely, if religions are proper nouns, then so are these, no? I would have thought that they are proper nouns, as they refer to specific set of principles, but in most places I have seen they are not capitalised.

For example, I've seen the following example used:

A democrat supports democracy, but a Democrat identifies with or is a member of the Democratic party.

So, if it is a democrat supports democracy, would a determinist support determinism? Surely not, if a Christian supports Christianity?

Moreover, if a democrat supports democracy, would I say that "what democrats support is wrong", or what "Democrats support is wrong"? In this sentence, I don't refer to the specific Democratic Party. So, do I capitalise or not? In other words, is the capitalisation based on the context of whats written in the actual sentence or paragraph, or is it in the meaning?

Thanks in advance

pickarooney

I imagine that if you can produce some paperwork to say that you belong to an organisation that espouses these ideals then you should use a capital letter. As far as I know atheism doesn't merit a majuscule while e.g. Protestantism does.

evil-monkey

pickarooney wrote: »

I imagine that if you can produce some paperwork to say that you belong to an organisation that espouses these ideals then you should use a capital letter. As far as I know atheism doesn't merit a majuscule while e.g. Protestantism does.

So does an ideal have to belong to an official organisation before it counts as a proper noun? For example, in every text that I have ever come across, Futurism is capitalised. If Futurism is capitalised, then why not atheism, or utilitarianism etc etc etc etc?

pickarooney

Which type of Futurism is that?

evil-monkey

pickarooney wrote: »

Which type of Futurism is that?

The artistic movement, but particularly the literary strand.

pickarooney

Hmm, I have to say I don't know then. I can't think of a clear distinction between non-physical schools of art and schools of thought.

Does 'art' have a capital A, by the way?

evil-monkey

I would say no, even 'the arts', refers to a collection of things, rather than a specific thing.

I think that I am going to capitalise the schools of philosophical thought - at this point I can't see any reason why I would not.

For example, Utilitarianism refers to a specific set of ideals, the same way as Futurism.

Agreed??

pickarooney

This article has it with a big U:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15241c.htm

I don't see any compelling reason not to do the same.