Worldview

[nPeace]

Okay; now you seem to be saying something different. Before philosophies, facts, opinions, observations were all listed as equal contributors of a world view, and when I asked if opinions and a worldview were the same, I was told in the same sense that a steering wheel and a car are the same. But you saying that a worldview does not exist where there are no opinions is something that makes perfect sense to me

I just used less word. It's not limited to opinions. "where there are no opinions, or views..." The ... means etc.
You ought to take what others have said, and include those. Remember, I am not an Encyclopedia.

Where philosophies, facts, opinions, observations etc., come in, relates to the various experiences, or pursuits. For example, there are also scientific worldview, philosophical worldviews, etc.

 

[Kfox]

Where philosophies, facts, opinions, observations etc., come in, relates to the various experiences, or pursuits. For example, there are also scientific worldview, philosophical worldviews, etc.

Are you suggesting multiple world views?

 

[nPeace]

Are you suggesting multiple world views?

Not me. That's the way it is.
There are multiple motorcades; multiple ducks; multiple elephants in the room...
One is singular. The other, plural.

 

[nPeace]

Worldviews and their relation to science​

Abstract​

Worldviews are not only about whether God exists or whether the world has a purpose. They can contain a lot more, or they can differ in excluding the existence of God and/or a purpose for the world. In this article we define worldviews as answering a variety of worldview questions, which we list. Once this is recognized, it becomes clear that scientific worldviews are also a species of worldviews that should not be dismissed categorically. We then distinguish between the project of constructing a scientific worldview and asking whether science itself has any worldview content. We argue that science, even when it is characterized quite minimally, does have worldview content. This has some important implications for science education, which we draw.

@Kfox I haven't read it, but I believe it will be helpful.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you're a paradigm shifter. Welcome to the club. Though it's a bit unfair to call those that aren't narrow-minded, IMHO.

Nevertheless, being a paradigm shifter doesn't mean you don't have a "central" or "default" lens. One can't not have one of those - it's the product of being oneself and contained within the confines of one's own body/mind/spirit/self. No matter how good one is at paradigm shifting, one cannot be anything other than oneself. Worldview is inseparable from our identities - it's how we see/think/view/understand. Like identities, it is not fixed or stagnant and one may try on a new fashion every now and again, but there's going to be some sort of clothing and style preferences in there. Having those preferences doesn't make one narrow-minded either. It just is.

I don't understand why you call that paradigm shifting.

Imo, the world just looks different from different angles. Not all layers are the same. And being different, they might require a different approach.

You can try and tell me what my supposed "central lens" through which I filter everything then supposedly is, because I'm not seeing it.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't understand why you call that paradigm shifting.

Imo, the world just looks different from different angles. Not all layers are the same. And being different, they might require a different approach.

You can try and tell me what my supposed "central lens" through which I filter everything then supposedly is, because I'm not seeing it.

Ironically, inability to see is very clear evidence of a "default" or "central" lens one interprets reality through. Our primary way of seeing and understanding the world is so deeply engrained it creates blind spots or an inability to understand certain things. It can't be removed to attempt a different approach or another way of seeing or interpreting reality. There are sometimes ways around that. Paradigm shifting, for one. Or if you prefer to call it looking at things from different angles, whatever floats your board.

 

[Augustus]

A worldview (sometimes called with the German "Weltanschauung", needlessly) is how you view the world - as you think it is, not as it should be

I’d say a worldview certainly includes normative aspects about how the world should be.

It is both the is and the ought.

It is basically how you construct narratives to explain to yourself the way things work, and underpins your value system which judges how things ought to be.

You could say that but I feel the word "opinion" doesn't really fit. For me, "opinion" includes value judgement while worldview doesn't. It is opinion as it may not be factual or objective but it is just your opinion of what things are.

Worldview is significantly about the axioms which you use to make sense of the world and the interpretive framework created by these.

Like you mentioned, a theist might see something as a miracle, and an atheist as coincidence. A collectivist sees the harm to the community whereas an individualist sees the expression of diversity and individual liberty.

Axioms relate to the is and the ought though, and we can't really help but see things in both these terms. We can emotional and intuitive as well as calculating and rational.

For example, many people have strong views on Israel/Palestine, they can't think about how it is without feeling how it ought to be.

Some people (not saying you) think they don't have a worldview or ideology, and just "see the world as it is", without the biases that result from subjective axioms, but this is a conceit based on a lack of self-awareness. A fish might not understand it is in the ocean, but they can't live without it.

 

[Heyo]

I’d say a worldview certainly includes normative aspects about how the world should be.

It is both the is and the ought.

It is basically how you construct narratives to explain to yourself the way things work, and underpins your value system which judges how things ought to be.

It is often used in that sense but I think that is wrong. But it is also hard to differentiate. "There is a god and I have to worship it" may be seen as a worldview and it includes is and ought as if the ought results from the is.
The ought should be categorised under philosophy and not mixed in with the worldview. The worldview is part of the philosophy, not the other way around.
I like my terms well defined but I don't need to be normative. If you use other definitions, I can adapt. Just be clear.

 

[Augustus]

It is often used in that sense but I think that is wrong. But it is also hard to differentiate. "There is a god and I have to worship it" may be seen as a worldview and it includes is and ought as if the ought results from the is.
The ought should be categorised under philosophy and not mixed in with the worldview. The worldview is part of the philosophy, not the other way around.
I like my terms well defined but I don't need to be normative. If you use other definitions, I can adapt. Just be clear.

I've personally never seen it used in a way that would exclude 'oughts'. It is similar to ideology or philosophy, although perhaps slightly wider in scope.

To explain how things are requires axioms and values, these and our experiences act as a perceptual filter and modifier of reality.

In reality, we can't really draw a nice clean line between is/ought as we often experience them simultaneously.

 

[Augustus]

What is a worldview? And is this something that only applies to religious people?

Why would it only apply to religious people?

It is the framework we use to perceive the world around us and our experiences within it. The meta-narrative by which we explain to ourselves how the world is and how it should be.

It encompasses all axioms, values, knowledge, beliefs, ethical principles, cultural and experiential influences and personality factors that filter and shape our perception of the reality we experience. It guides how we think we should act, how we interpret the actions of others and how we view past experiences and how we respond to new experiences.

If there is a defining human characteristic that separates us from other animals (as far as we can tell), is that humans require a worldview to make sense of the world where other animals can live without the need to explain and justify their existence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ironically, inability to see is very clear evidence of a "default" or "central" lens one interprets reality through. Our primary way of seeing and understanding the world is so deeply engrained it creates blind spots or an inability to understand certain things. It can't be removed to attempt a different approach or another way of seeing or interpreting reality. There are sometimes ways around that. Paradigm shifting, for one. Or if you prefer to call it looking at things from different angles, whatever floats your board.

I note that you simply repeated your claims and didn't actually clarify or explain anything.

 

[Quintessence]

I note that you simply repeated your claims and didn't actually clarify or explain anything.

Okay? I note that your response doesn't help move the discussion forward because it doesn't help me understand what you're not understanding (or what these "claims" are I'm supposedly making). What now?

 

[Kfox]

Why would it only apply to religious people?

I explained that on post #89

It is the framework we use to perceive the world around us and our experiences within it. The meta-narrative by which we explain to ourselves how the world is and how it should be.

Why do we need frameworks and meta-narrative to do these things? Why can’t we just observe the world around us, and have opinions based on what make sense to us?

It encompasses all axioms, values, knowledge, beliefs, ethical principles, cultural and experiential influences and personality factors that filter and shape our perception of the reality we experience. It guides how we think we should act, how we interpret the actions of others and how we view past experiences and how we respond to new experiences.

If there is a defining human characteristic that separates us from other animals (as far as we can tell), is that humans require a worldview to make sense of the world where other animals can live without the need to explain and justify their existence.

Do you really believe most people feel a need to explain and justify their existence?

 

[Augustus]

Why do we need frameworks and meta-narrative to do these things? Why can’t we just observe the world around us, and have opinions based on what make sense to us?

Because our brain doesn’t work that way.

What makes sense to us is based on our worldview. We can’t escape that.

Much of our knowledge is acquired through language and socialisation rather than direct experience. This is why we have such long childhoods compared to other animals. Much more of our development is “software” rather than “hardware” compared to other animals.

This allows us to build complex societies, but means we can never see things as they truly are.

Even our vision is trained through experience, let alone the rest of our perception of reality.

We can’t help but see the squares A and B as being different colours, even if we know they are exactly the same.

Our brain is optimised for survival, not objective and dispassionate identification of truth.

Do you really believe most people feel a need to explain and justify their existence

Yes, we don’t just walk around experiencing random events and start each new experience as if it were our first.

We explain the world around us in one way or the other, and this is a cumulative process.

 

[Kfox]

Because our brain doesn’t work that way.

What makes sense to us is based on our worldview. We can’t escape that.

Much of our knowledge is acquired through language and socialisation rather than direct experience. This is why we have such long childhoods compared to other animals. Much more of our development is “software” rather than “hardware” compared to other animals.

This allows us to build complex societies, but means we can never see things as they truly are.

Even our vision is trained through experience, let alone the rest of our perception of reality.

We can’t help but see the squares A and B as being different colours, even if we know they are exactly the same.

Our brain is optimised for survival, not objective and dispassionate identification of truth.

View attachment 84555



Yes, we don’t just walk around experiencing random events and start each new experience as if it were our first.

We explain the world around us in one way or the other, and this is a cumulative process.

It sounds to me (as pointed out before) that worldview is what most might call having opinions on various issues. Would you agree?

 

[Augustus]

It sounds to me (as pointed out before) that worldview is what most might call having opinions on various issues. Would you agree?

No, I’d say that is not at all accurate.

Worldview is what allows us to have opinions on things.

It is the basis by which we can judge things better or worse.

Without axioms, values, etc. we can’t differentiate.

 

[nPeace]

It is the basis by which we can judge things better or worse.

You are saying we form opinions based on how we see the world?
Isn't that the same as saying, all our opinions are based on a biased lens through which we peer?

 

[Augustus]

You are saying we form opinions based on how we see the world?
Isn't that the same as saying, all our opinions are based on a biased lens through which we peer?

Yes, I’d agree with that.

That biased lens is our worldview.

 

[nPeace]

It sounds to me (as pointed out before) that worldview is what most might call having opinions on various issues. Would you agree?

A worldview is not exactly "having opinions on various issues".
One can have opinions on various issues, and those opinions not be connected to any worldview.
Your worldview is however, made up of a culmination of ideas, views, opinions, philosophies, etc., all combined into one overall view.

Think of it like a person who is headed one direction.
The person is going that direction because he does not like colored people. He does not like too much sun. He want to have access to clean water.
His worldview is shaped by the various ideas, and views he has.

It would be more accurate to define a worldview as an accumulation of those opinions, ideas, views, etc.
Am I confusing you? I don't mean to. Sorry.

...and yes, ones worldview can determine one's opinions on various issues, as @Augustus said... Only after the worldview has been shaped.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I’d agree with that.

That biased lens is our worldview.

I'll see if any atheists want to defend their position before I respond.