I don't generalize humans into predefined categories, so why should I generalize ideas in this way? Everyone seems to have at least one "ism" that applies to them, and while it's rare for them to find flaws in their own isms, when it does happen, they cast them off entirely in favor of wholly new ones. This is silly, because ideas should be scrutinized and refined individually; any other approach is inefficient.
What if you concur wholeheartedly with every facet of a given philosophy, but eventually find one, tiny flaw in it? Do you still steadfastly stand behind it? A lot of people do, and that's called cognitive dissonance. Others repudiate the philosophy as a whole, which I'd consider an emotional overreaction. It makes much more sense, then, to simply talk about ideas one at a time; isms and so-called static "philosophies" are archaic and a detriment to the quality of our society.