102,815
edits
Changes
From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to searchno edit summary
[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Spiralgalaxyngc.jpg|right|frame]]
==Origin==
German, from ''Welt'' world + ''Anschauung'' view
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century 1868]
==Definitions==
*1: a comprehensive [[conception]] or apprehension of the world especially from a specific [[standpoint]]
==Description==
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, including natural [[philosophy]]; fundamental, existential, and normative [[postulates]]; or [[themes]], [[values]], [[emotions]], and [[ethics]]. The term is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calque calque] of the German word ''Weltanschauung'' composed of ''Welt'' ('world') and ''Anschauung'' ('view' or 'outlook'). It is a concept fundamental to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_philosophy German philosophy] and [[epistemology]] and refers to a wide world [[perception]]. Additionally, it refers to the framework of [[ideas]] and [[beliefs]] through which an individual, group or culture [[interprets]] the world and [[interacts]] with it.
A worldview is a network of [[presuppositions]] which is not verified by the procedures of [[natural science]] but in terms of which every aspect of man’s [[knowledge]] and experience is [[interpreted]] and interrelated.
==Origins==
A worldview describes a consistent (to a varying degree) and integral sense of existence and provides a framework for generating, sustaining, and applying [[knowledge]].
The true founder of the [[idea]] that [[language]] and worldview are inextricable is the Prussian philologist, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Humboldt Wilhelm von Humboldt] (1767–1835). Humboldt remains, however, little known in [[English]]-speaking countries, despite the works of Brown, Manchester and Underhill. Humboldt argued that language was part of the [[creative]] adventure of [[mankind]]. [[Culture]], [[language]] and linguistic communities developed [[simultaneously]], he argued, and could not do so without one another. In stark contrast to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism linguistic determinism], which invites us to consider language as a constraint, a framework or a [[prison]] house, Humboldt maintained that speech is inherently and implicitly [[creative]]. Human beings take their place in [[speech]] and continue to modify [[language]] and [[thought]] by their creative exchanges. Worldview remains a [[confused]] and confusing concept in English, used very differently by linguists and [[sociologists]]. It is for this reason that Underhill suggests five subcategories: world-perceiving, world-conceiving, cultural mindset, personal world, and [[perspective]].
Though the work of Humboldt offers a deep [[insight]] into the [[relationship]] between [[thinking]] and [[speaking]], and though [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Sapir Edward Sapir] gives a very subtle account of this relationship in English. English linguists tend to persist in attaching [[discussion]] of worldviews to the work of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Whorf Whorf]. And this trend has not changed with cognitive linguistics.
The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity linguistic relativity] [[hypothesis]] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Whorf Benjamin Lee Whorf] describes how the [[syntactic]]-[[semantic]] structure of a language becomes an underlying structure for the ''Weltanschauung'' of a people through the organization of the causal [[perception]] of the world and the linguistic categorization of entities. As linguistic categorization emerges as a [[representation]] of worldview and [[causality]], it further modifies [[social]] [[perception]] and thereby leads to a continual interaction between language and perception.
The [[hypothesis]] was well received in the late 1940s, but declined in prominence after a decade. In the 1990s, new [[research]] gave further support for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity linguistic relativity] theory, in the works of Stephen Levinson and his team at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Max Planck institute] for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics psycholinguistics] at Nijmegen, Netherlands. The theory has also gained attention through the work of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lera_Boroditsky Lera Boroditsky] at Stanford University.
One of the most important concepts in cognitive philosophy and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_sciences cognitive sciences] is the German concept of ''Weltanschauung''. This [[expression]] has often been used to refer to the "wide worldview" or "wide world [[perception]]" of a people, family, or person. The ''Weltanschauung'' of a people originates from the [[unique]] world [[experience]] of a people, which they experience over several millennia. The language of a people reflects the ''Weltanschauung'' of that people in the form of its syntactic structures and untranslatable connotations and its denotations.
The term 'Weltanschauung' is often wrongly attributed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Humboldt Wilhelm von Humboldt] the founder of German ethnolinguistics (see Trabant). As Jürgen Trabant points out, however, and as Underhll reminds us in his 'Humboldt, Worldview and Language' (2009), Humboldt's key concept was 'Weltansicht'. 'Weltanschauung', used first by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant Kant] and later popularized by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel Hegel], was always used in German and later used in English to refer more to philosophies, [[ideologies]] and cultural or religious [[perspectives]], than to linguistic [[communities]] and their mode of apprehending reality. 'Weltansicht' was used by Humboldt to refer to the overarching conceptual and sensorial apprehension of [[reality]] shared by a linguistic community (Nation). But Humboldt maintained that the speaking [[human being]] was the core of [[language]]. [[Speech]] maintains worldviews. Worldviews are not [[prisons]] which contain and constrain us, they are the spaces we develop within, create and resist [[creatively]] in speaking together.
Worldview can be expressed as the fundamental cognitive, affective, and evaluative [[presuppositions]] a group of people make about the nature of things, and which they use to order their lives.
If it were possible to draw a map of the world on the basis of ''Weltanschauung'', it would probably be seen to cross [[political]] borders — ''Weltanschauung'' is the product of political borders and common [[experiences]] of a people from a geographical region, environmental-climatic conditions, the economic resources available, socio-cultural systems, and the [[language]] family.(The work of the population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza aims to show the gene-linguistic co-evolution of people).
Regardless of whether [[thought]] strongly shapes [[language]] and [[culture]] or vice versa, the worldview map of the world would likely be closely related to the linguistic map of the world. Similarly, it would probably almost coincide with a map of the world drawn on the basis of music across people.
==Applications==
The term denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen as an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_unity organic unity], about the world as the medium and exercise of [[human]] existence. ''Weltanschauung'' serves as a framework for generating various [[dimensions]] of human [[perception]] and [[experience]] like [[knowledge]], [[politics]], [[economics]], [[religion]], [[culture]], [[science]] and [[ethics]]. For example, worldview of [[causality]] as uni-directional, [[cyclic]], or [[spiral]] generates a framework of the world that reflects these systems of [[causality]]. A uni-directional view of causality is present in some [[monotheistic]] views of the world with a beginning and an end and a single great [[force]] with a single end (e.g., [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]]), while a cyclic worldview of causality is present in religious traditions which are cyclic and seasonal and wherein events and experiences recur in systematic patterns (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism Zoroastrianism], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism Mithraism] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism Hinduism]). These worldviews of [[causality]] not only underlie religious [[traditions]] but also other aspects of thought like the [[purpose]] of history, political and economic theories, and systems like [[democracy]], [[authoritarianism]], [[anarchism]], [[capitalism]], [[socialism]] and [[communism]].
The worldview of a [[linear]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinearity non-linear] causality generates various related/conflicting [[disciplines]] and approaches in [[scientific]] thinking. The ''Weltanschauung'' of the temporal contiguity of [[act]] and [[event]] leads to underlying diversifications like [[determinism]] vs. [[free will]]. A worldview of free will leads to disciplines that are governed by simple [[laws]] that remain constant and are static and empirical in [[scientific method]], while a worldview of [[determinism]] generates disciplines that are governed with generative systems and rationalistic in [[scientific method]].
Some forms of philosophical [[naturalism]] and [[materialism]] reject the validity of entities inaccessible to natural science. They view the [[scientific method]] as the most reliable model for building an [[understanding]] of the world.
In [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_-_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii The Language of the Third Reich], ''Weltanschauungen'' came to designate the [[instinctive]] understanding of [[complex]] geo-political problems by the Nazis, which allowed them to act in the name of a supposedly higher [[ideal]] and in accordance to their [[theory]] of the world. These acts, perceived outside that unique ''Weltanschauung'', are now commonly perceived as acts of [[aggression]], such as openly beginning [[invasions]], twisting [[facts]], and violating human [[rights]].
==Religion and philosophy==
Various writers suggest that religious or philosophical [[belief]]-systems should be seen as worldviews rather than a set of [[individual]] [[hypotheses]] or [[theories]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishida_Kitaro Nishida Kitaro] wrote extensively on "the Religious Worldview" in exploring the philosophical significance of Eastern religions. According to Neo-Calvinist David Naugle's World view: The History of a Concept, "Conceiving of Christianity as a worldview has been one of the most significant developments in the recent [[history]] of the [[church]]."
The Christian thinker James W. Sire defines a worldview as "a [[commitment]], a fundamental [[orientation]] of the [[heart]], that can be expressed as a [[story]] or in a set of [[presuppositions]] (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold ([[consciously]] or subconsciously, [[consistently]] or inconsistently) about the basic construction of [[reality]], and that provides the [[foundation]] on which we live and move and have our [[being]]." He suggests that "we should all think in terms of worldviews, that is, with a [[consciousness]] not only of our own way of thought but also that of other people, so that we can first [[understand]] and then genuinely [[communicate]] with others in our [[pluralistic]] society."
The philosophical importance of worldviews became increasingly clear during the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century 20th Century] for a number of reasons, such as increasing [[contact]] between [[cultures]], and the failure of some aspects of [[the Enlightenment]] project, such as the [[rationalist]] project of [[attaining]] all [[truth]] by reason alone. Mathematical [[logic]] showed that fundamental choices of [[axioms]] were essential in [[deductive]] reasoning and that, even having chosen axioms not [[everything]] that was true in a given logical system could be proven. Some philosophers believe the [[problems]] extend to "the inconsistencies and failures which plagued [[the Enlightenment]] attempt to identify [[universal]] [[moral]] and rational [[principles]]"; although Enlightenment principles such as universal [[suffrage]] and the universal declaration of human [[rights]] are accepted, if not taken for granted, by many.
A worldview can be considered as comprising a number of basic [[beliefs]] which are philosophically equivalent to the [[axioms]] of the worldview considered as a [[logical]] [[theory]]. These basic [[beliefs]] cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically [[argued]] from rather than argued for. However their [[coherence]] can be explored philosophically and logically, and if two different worldviews have sufficient common [[beliefs]] it may be possible to have a constructive [[dialogue]] between them. On the other hand, if different worldviews are held to be basically incommensurate and irreconcilable, then the situation is one of cultural [[relativism]] and would therefore incur the standard criticisms from philosophical realists. Additionally, religious believers might not wish to see their [[beliefs]] relativized into something that is only "true for them". [[Subjective]] [[logic]] is a belief reasoning formalism where beliefs explicitly are subjectively held by [[individuals]] but where a [[consensus]] between different worldviews can be achieved.
A third alternative is that the worldview approach is only a [[methodological]] [[relativism]], that it is a [[suspension]] [[judgment]] about the [[truth]] of various belief systems but not a declaration that there is no global truth. For instance, the religious philosopher Ninian Smart begins his Worldviews: Cross-cultural Explorations of Human Beliefs with "Exploring Religions and Analysing Worldviews" and argues for "the neutral, dispassionate [[study]] of different religious and [[secular]] systems—a [[process]] I call worldview analysis."
According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lind Michael Lind], "a worldview is a more or less [[coherent]] [[understanding]] of the [[nature]] of [[reality]], which permits its holders to [[interpret]] new [[information]] in light of their [[preconceptions]]. Clashes among worldviews cannot be ended by a simple appeal to [[facts]]. Even if rival sides agree on the facts, people may disagree on [[conclusions]] because of their different premises." This is why [[politicians]] often seem to talk past one another, or ascribe different [[meanings]] to the same [[events]]. Tribal or national wars are often the result of incompatible worldviews. Lind has organized American political worldviews into five categories:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal Neoliberal] Globalism believes that at home [[governments]] should provide only basic [[public]] goods like [[infrastructure]], [[health]] care and [[security]], and do so by market-friendly methods
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic Social Democratic] Liberalism claims an [[economic]] [[safety net]], protecting [[citizens]] from unemployment, sickness, [[poverty]] in old age and other disasters, is [[necessary]] if democratic government is to retain popular [[support]].
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism Populist] Nationalism tends to favor restriction of [[legal]] as well as illegal [[immigration]] to protect the core stock of the [[tribe]]-[[state]] from dilution by different [[races]], ethnic groups or religions. Populist nationalism also tends to favor protectionist policies that shield workers and businesses, particularly small [[businesses]], from foreign [[competition]].
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism Libertarian] Isolationism would [[abandon]] foreign [[alliances]], dismantle most of its [[military]], and return to a 19th-century pattern of decentralized government and an economy based on small businesses and small farms.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics Green] Malthusianism synthesizes [[mystical]] versions of environmentalism with alarm about [[population]] [[growth]] in the [[tradition]] of the Rev. Thomas Malthus
Not all people will fit neatly into only one category or the other, but Lind argues that their core worldview shapes how they frame their [[arguments]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview]
