Worldviews

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, May 10, 2016.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    It is sometimes tempting to think your own worldview is shared by most everybody. But seriously, if we put a billionaire CEO, an ISIS jihadist, a buddhist monk, and a scientist in the same room and asked them to agree on a worldview, we would probably never get there. Worldviews vary from generation to generation, and from culture to culture. Wikipedia defines it as:

    "A comprehensive world view or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics."===https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

    Do you have a grasp on what your own worldview is, if indeed you have one? Is there a label for it? Does Western science define what is real for you? Do your moral values incorporate democratic values of innate individual rights, ideals of communal altruism, and capitalist self-interest? Are you a fatalist, or a freewiller? What are the ideals defining the future of the human race? What would be the ideal society for you? Would you enforce your worldview on everybody thru education and socialization? Or would you allow for a diversity of worldviews? Should certain worldviews be suppressed? On what basis?
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,654
    Good queston.!!!

    I highly suspect that the universe is deterministic an my world view (for over 45 years now) is that free-will is an illusion.!!!
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,100
    I order you to change your world view the moment you finish reading this response?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,100
    My world view is that anything that is conscious (comes into being, grows, produces, and so on), is essentially spiritual in nature.
    And nature is the medium where the spiritual nature can act out it's fantasies.

    jan.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Quantum physics makes the future indeterminate.

    I held the POV that free will is an illusion longer - for more than 50 years and still think that is quite probably the case; however, genuine free will is not impossible even through the discharge of every nerve is deterministically controlled by the natural laws (neuro chemisty, mainly). See:


    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...fe-is-it-an-illusion.49127/page-4#post-905778

    however you will need to accept idea that you are part of a simulation running in Parietal brain, mainly, and not a physical body, as that is deterministically controlled.
     
  9. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,654
    Hay... you dont have any power over me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ... well... almost none

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ... sinse i will admit that you'r reply was an influence in my response

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,805
    Yes, even the provincialism of fly-over regions can't be relied upon to be pristine nowadays. Due to the social and information isolation that once maintained unique "thought & value enclaves" disappearing with the steady rise of new travel and communications mediums. The latter have mongrelized cognitive orientations everywhere, not just at the traditional crossroads of worldly seaports and globally popular academic institutions.

    Thus many people may be deceptively confined to whatever purported, single weltanschauun they openly espouse. Superficially there might still be some safe, banal lifestyle of the surrounding community which they externally sport in everyday conversations, behavior, and group meetings. But then Archailect only knows how many other privately held unconventional, eccentric, or radical worldviews they either toy with or become covert disciples of. Worldviews variously crafted by systematic intellectuals, think-tank wonks, conspiracy engineers, both secular and holy war crusaders... Or arbitrarily composed by opportunistic authors / lecturers who seize upon the latest marketplace trends.

    There are bound to be internal conflicts between such multiply entertained weltanschauuns, and especially with the conforming outward lifestyle. Little wonder some individuals alternate from Jekyll to Hyde demeanors or eventually go berserk, postal, or jihad in the course of dealing with the dissonance. Would be best for the latter not to become overly fixated with coherence in human reality as actually experienced, as it's always been an idealized objective primarily accomplished in the formal affairs of documents / papers.
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,820
    Here's some worldviews that are currently popular in our time:

    Materialist

    Nihilist

    Spiritualist

    Humanist

    Postmodernist

    Idealist

    Individualist

    Globalist

    Futurist
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2016
  12. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,654

    I thank most people who have looked into it at all... woud agree wit you.!!!

    Do you thank thers somethin non-biological (a higher power) that influences the simulation runnin in the Parietal brain.???
     
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Although there is no evidence for that*, that possibility can not be ruled out, but I agree with La Place's reply to Napoleon, who had asked: "And where is God in you description of how the universe works?"


    La Place said: "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis."

    * Absences of proof is not proof of absence.

    BTW, LaPlace had published a large two volume book on essentially all of physics and mathematics then known. Napoleon had not read it, but was informed that there was no mention of God in either volume.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2016
  14. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,654
    @ BT
    Even wit "God" ruled out as an influence... isnt the Parietal brain still influenced to behave the way it does.???
     
  15. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,659
    Maybe. I suspect that the ISIS jihadist would be the odd-man-out in that group.

    I'm not convinced that world-views exist as distinct individuals that people embrace or reject all at once (even though I often use the phrase). What people have instead is a broadly heterogeneous collection of beliefs and opinions on all kinds of topics. Many of these ideas do often occur together and may have similar historical origins.

    As for me, I'm kind of loosely a physicalist, more methodological than metaphysical. I'm very much a metaphysical realist and believe that the reality of the universe is in no way dependent on me or on me knowing it. That metaphysical realism pushes me away from metaphysical physicalism, since if the universe exists independently of me knowing it, then it's almost certain that there are things that I don't know about it. I'm inclined to think that reality contains many mysteries and many surprises that I know nothing about. So my current views on what the universe is and how it works are tentative, provisional and can't be the last word.

    That inclines me towards being an agnostic when it comes to the big metaphysical questions associated with religion. I haven't got a clue why there is something rather than nothing, why the laws of physics are what they are, or what the first cause was (if any). And I'm an atheist when it comes to Yahweh, Allah or Krishna. I don't believe that these mythical figures correspond to anything in reality.

    Politically, I'm probably best described as a 'classical liberal'. I'm most emphatically not what most Americans think of as 'liberal'.

    No, but science is perhaps the best means that we currently have for obtaining knowledge about the physical world. So I treat it as a work in progress, as a working approximation of reality. I base my own mental image of physical reality on science, while admitting that it might be wrong and is almost certainly is incomplete.

    I admire the ancient Athenian model of democracy, restated very ably by Thomas Jefferson in the US Declaration of Independence, where soverignty and power reside in the people. That inclines me towards favoring small local-scale government and the market system. I don't like the word 'capitalism', don't use it myself and don't really know what it is supposed to mean. I'm not a hard-core libertarian though, and don't believe that government is the source of all evil or that the way to solve any problem is less government. Government does have some important functions.

    I believe in free-will, but I guess that you could call me a compatibilist.

    I'm not a utopian and I'm not especially alienated. So I don't dream of changing everything and imposing some imaginary scheme that's supposed to be so much better than anything existing. Those kind of projects always seem to turn out badly.

    No, no, no, no. We have far too much of that now.

    I think that societies have to have some sense of common identity. People need to be able to think of the people around them as 'us' rather than 'them'. There needs to be a sense of social cohesion that makes people willing to sacrifice for the community when needed. That means that individual societies need to have some fundamental principles in common. Western civilization certainly does with its ideals of democracy, individual freedom, free speech and free inquiry, and so on. I agree with all of that and am willing to defend it. I'm very much a child of Western civilization.

    But there are other 'world-views' out there. There's Islam and the ideal of Islamic law as the most obvious alternative contender. There's the highly statist/paternalistic Chinese scheme with everything flowing down from the emperor/party up on top.

    So I think that one of the advantages of retaining the nation state, instead of smearing states out of existence in one globalized world civilization, is the opportunity it provides for different kinds of societies to coexist, without imposing a one-size-fits-all uniformity on everyone. So if Iran or Saudi Arabia want to be Islamic States, they can do that. They shouldn't have to copy the US and Europe if they don't want to.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2016
  16. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,805
    A thing behaving within the parameters of its nature, in response to external influences, is part of what maintains it being _x_ thing. While it therefore can't be totally unpredictable, it can still be selecting from those choices which its own system allows. Access to total "freedom" would destroy what it is. I'd love to leave it in that small suitcase, but unfortunately any clarification requires an attempt to unpack it below ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "Free" doesn't really add anything to "will" (unless it's an absolute definition of free). We can view will as being about having options and the ability to care about them and choose one and exercise it. The "freedom" is already there in the limited "room" of choices which volition entails. For instance, a rock lacks will (among other items) and gets swept away by a flood; whereas a human may decide to remove itself from the path of the flood. The presence of complex causes in the human and the long history of causes (evolution, etc) which engendered them is what provides the volition rather than negating it. The rock lacks that mechanism and deep history.

    What about block-universe determinism? As an analogy: Even in a movie where the events are set (they never vary each time the film is played), the human characters still demonstrate a will which leaves floating down a river do not exhibit. IOW, the determinism of the movie does not eliminate that distinction. Again, this needs to be unpacked further...

    Let's return to the issue of the adjective that is popularly attached to "will" (i.e., "free"). To avoid being redundant, the version of "free" which people try to apply to "will" is apparently of the absolute or unlimited ilk. Since, again, "free" in the mitigated sense of just having ANY options (like die or don't die), is already part of volition's necessary equipment. Here's an example of the former, in that the doors are wide open, no cut-off measurement is supplied:

    free - immune from obligation or duty; unregulated; not restricted by principles or scheme.

    But such complete freedom is impossible (at least for a natural entity). A thing is unavoidably going to be confined to the boundaries of its identity: What makes it distinguishable from other entities / affairs. Even if a thing exhibits modifications over time, those changes will still be determined within the borders of its identity (properties, characteristics, tendencies, etc of _x_ thing): What its identity allows. If a thing was completely or absolutely "free" it would exceed its form -- its structure and operation (if applicable). Thus no longer classifiable as goat, lake, storm, turtle, planet, etc. A pig that flies of its own power is no longer a conventional pig, it transitions to another category, a different identity.

    A universe and a human have different identities, just as a kitchen sink and the house it occupies are distinguishable. The cosmos "proceeds" as a cosmos does according to its nature (or according to its specific type if authorities claim there is a whole varying set of them). A human proceeds according to its limited possibilities or those of a particular person.

    To be something that possesses volition involves being bound to or constituted of an organization / system that can yield decisions, choices, and determinations. As opposed to a rock which can't act on its own or a situation of random disorder, arbitrary changes, anarchy, etc.

    A thing that has will does not qualify as being free in an absolute context because having volition in the first place means being restricted to the parameters of an organization / system which enables will (that source in turn being part of the properties of the overall identity of the thing, which is accordingly its greater "prison").

    However, to make a decision requires beforehand that there are options available to choose from. So that which enables volition allows some degree of "room" for variables. It's just not absolute "freedom", it couldn't be the latter without the thing losing its status as a thing with will or possibly ceasing to exist completely as _x_ (its overall identity). Thus, volition already embraces "free" as long as it is one of the very mitigated or compromised definitions of the word.

    In the case of a human faced with merely two choices (like "You must reveal the secret password or die!"), she's still making a decision which a rock or a cloud of atmospheric dust could not do. Declaring that it's not really a free choice (on the grounds that she will predictably decide to live) doesn't negate that she is making a choice within the mitigated freedom or "room" which the boundaries of her identity allow. The restrictions which make her distinct as a human organism to begin with, which enable "will" to begin with. She is not random molecules; she has a specific nature / form and the decision she outputs is in accordance with her nature.

    So it's enough to be a creature with plain "will", since having unlimited choices would make the stable existence of a human impossible, anyway.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2016
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes; however The Real Time Simulation is a routine or program postulated to run in that parietal "neural computer," mainly.

    For example that program is not governed by the natural laws, but has evolved and is evolving in each of us. It can learn / self modify. It could learn for example from experience that "I" like strawberry ice cream more than chocolate. "I" in quotes refers to my psychological self, an information process, and then the modified program will make a real choice for "me." "I" am not a physical body but an evolving information process.

    The physical computer I am typing on now could be quite different in its circuits than the one you use, but both could for example run the same game program. Like that game program, the simulation of the RTS is at a higher level than the hard ware. The parietal hardware is governed by the laws of physics, but the simulation is governed by the logic of its evolving program. "I" am part of that program. "I" can learn and evolve. Hard ware or parietal tissue can not. It can change but by mechanical processes, like transister failing or cells dying or new connections being formed or old one lost. How it changes is a matter of chance, not of choices by an agent, "me."


    Again, Yes my desk top computer is "still influenced to behave the way it does" but how that is depends not on the laws of physics, but the program it is running. "I" am part of a program and self evolving. I can and do make choices. I don't exist when in deep dreamless sleep but my parietal computer does. It may even be doing things for my body but nothing for "me."
     
  18. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,654
    Does any of the above explain how a choice can be made which wasnt determined by prevous causes.???
     
  19. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,654
    So the Real Time Simulation (program) is not governed by natural laws... its governed by the logic of its evolvin program an learns by experience... an (as per you'r example) cause you (you'r psychological self) to choose strawberry ice cream over chocolate.!!!

    If not natural laws... is supernatural involved.???
     
  20. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,805
    A human body having other states than its [specious] current one is a condition for volition. A process that results in a choice is by definition a set of interrelated activities and sequence that covers multiple moments. "Who / what" a person is (their identity) must include their history, since a single now or slice of time doesn't express / contain all the biological procedures and functioning which constitute their life and enabled it to be possible at the everyday level.
     
  21. surreptitious57 Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    .My own world view may be summed up in three words : atheism / nihilism / egalitarianism. And more specifically I am an apatheist who does not think that God exists but has to allow for the possibility that he may since I can not disprove it. Although it matters not to me whether he does or not. Since what is objectively true is so regardless of whether or not I accept it. I do not deny evidence of the physical universe as such so just saying. I am also an existential nihilist because there is no objective meaning to life One can however give meaning to ones own life. And mine is knowledge acquisition. I want to learn as much as I can and I intend to do so till my dying day. I am interested
    in all serious subject matter especially physics and philosophy and history. Also finally as an egalitarian I think that all human beings should in principle be treated equally Though for a myriad of reasons it does not always translate to reality. However it should stilled be strived for regardless of that and inequality reduced as much as possible

    My world view is mine and I do not assume everyone has an identical one and nor do I seek to impose it upon anyone. It is not my responsibility to educate others but I
    do allow others to educate me however. I will take from anyone including those whose own world view is diametrically opposite to mine since no one has a monopoly on wisdom. And allowing for alternate viewpoints is how I can grow both intellectually and morally. But I do not recommend this to anyone else for how they want to grow
    or even if they want to grow at all is a matter for them and them only and as such it is beyond my jurisdiction. Because it is for each individual to decide not anyone else
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2016
  22. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,805
    Thanks. You've helped me realize that there may be a quicker way to put this, after all:

    What you're referring to as "previous causes" would be former states of a person's body. IOW, the "cause" of why you would stop at a hardware store first rather than go to directly to a supermarket would be your own past biological functioning outputting that decision for _x_ reasons. The causes don't cease being you or belonging to your identity just because they've become body states now categorized as being in the past.

    Everything associated with volition requires multiple moments over time, from supplying the options to select from (the limited "freedom"), to processes carried out to make the choice, to executing that result. The idea of a "will" that is confined to a single instant or slice of time would be a non sequitur in terms of what the word embraces or refers to: Such does not follow from what "will" entails (as far as its realization in natural entities, anyway).

    "Free" in an absolute sense is lack of or immunity from all regulation, principle, scheme, obligation, etc. Which is impossible since volition requires a system or organization of procedures to produce it in the first place. Thus only a mitigated version of "free" can truly be appended to "will", which would be redundant or unnecessary because "will" already includes that. Just two options or possibilities still provide the minimum amount "freedom" that a decision-making system needs to do its job (so to speak). An unlimited number of choices isn't necessary to qualify.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2016
  23. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,805
    The indifference of apatheism tends to often be my own inclination. I simply lack the fervor or sustained socio-political passion of militant species of non-theism.
     

Share This Page