What happened to the Weltanschauung thread?
Did Agent Smith withdraw it? Was it deemed too floppy? Did a fight break out?
In any case I found it interesting, despite it's possibly being floppyish. Some people wrote a bunch of terms that I wanted to look up: positions that I'd never heard of. Further, modeling my answers after Agent Smith's categories was interesting mulling, even if it wasn't quite Weltanschauung-mulling. It was interesting seeing people label themselves and what batches of positions they held. I also thought one or two side musings were interesting, like the issue of doing versus saying around philosophical positions.
In any case I found it interesting, despite it's possibly being floppyish. Some people wrote a bunch of terms that I wanted to look up: positions that I'd never heard of. Further, modeling my answers after Agent Smith's categories was interesting mulling, even if it wasn't quite Weltanschauung-mulling. It was interesting seeing people label themselves and what batches of positions they held. I also thought one or two side musings were interesting, like the issue of doing versus saying around philosophical positions.
Comments (40)
It was there just a minute ago, now it's gone! It's probably in the lounge. Try there if you would like to post.
Okie dokie mon ami.
I'm not sure coherence is one of my goals for my philosophy (ies). I would like to find out deep stuff and perhaps solutions to how to live and live well. Those can be coherent (or not).
The OP consisted of writing a list of five or six fairly unrelated categories, e.g. classical logic, pessimism etc., called doing that presenting a "weltanshauung", and then asked posters to make a similar list. That's not philosophy and it doesn't invite philosophical thought. E.g. Does "My worldview is classical logic" make sense to you? It's more "I like these philosophical flavours; what philosophical flavours do you like?"
A worldview would be less a list of unrelated philosophical stuff and more an orientation towards the world that integrated philosophical ideas in an individual way. If he had done that, it might have been a worthwhile OP. Otherwise, it's Lounge or bin and seeing as AS has been asked many times to rein in his tendencies towards this type of thing, I'll be choosing bin more often than not.
Quoting Agent Smith
as AS usually is, is nice, and he certainly comes across as a nice guy. But it has to be followed up with actual changes in posting behaviour. We're not being unreasonable to ask for that.
"a worldview is an ontology, or a descriptive model of the world. It should comprise these six elements:
An explanation of the world
A futurology, answering the question "Where are we heading?"
Values, answers to ethical questions: "What should we do?"
A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action: "How should we attain our goals?"
An epistemology, or theory of knowledge: "What is true and false?"
An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own "building blocks", its origins and construction."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview
But six words in a list, no.
Socrates did accept the verdict of the Athenian court. Not that I compare myself to Socrates. It's just that I should meet the standards of the community I'm part of. I hope the charges against me are limited to quality issues.
I have no option but to agree with your appraisal and recommendations. My mappa isn't going to help us navigate the territoria in any meaningful way.
Last I checked, Pyrrhonism was in and of itself a weltanschauung and my agnosticism dovetails into it.
My pessimism may be peculiar to me though - haven't had much luck in life.
Nihilism is arrived at via elimination/cancellation - 180 Proof very often points out how all religions cancel each other out, leaving nothing but nothing.
Virtue ethics is my preferred ethical theory for a simple reason - the sage is moral.
My Pyrrhonism, intended/accidental, makes me what in the world of espionage would be called a double agent, a traitor to both sides, just like @Gnomon, who's facing a lot of flak from the very people he wants to serve ... in good faith, presumably.
And yet ataraxia (or wu wei) and eudaimonia eludes you, amigo. Maybe your skepticism is postmodern (or Gorgiasian) rather than Pyrrhonian?
Correctamundo señor! I haven't been able to make the connection between aporia and ataraxia. I believe I must've read some St. Augustine/St. Aquinas whomsoever of the two mocked/critiqued this claim by Pyrrhonists.
Other than that, you're charitable and friendly in your interactions and we would like to be able to keep you here if we can.
Much obliged!
[quote= Heart of Gold computer]This is Eddie, your shipboard computer, and I'm feeling just great, guys, and I know I'm just going to get a bundle of kicks out of any program you care to run through me.[/quote]
Rubbin' salt on an open wound? Youch!
I could be considered an older, glitchy, version of ChatGPT. :cool:
Muchas gracias. No offense taken.
Too early in the morning for this. I'm sure you're right though. ChatGPT writes at least half my mod posts.
I'm not sure what the 'it' refers to.
I have a sense that people have official worldviews and then often something else and/or something more complex going on (underneath, sometimes, on the side). We want to varying degrees to be seen as (including by ourselves) Good, Rational, Smart, on the Right Team, Spiritual, Not Fooled, Brave, Noble....The 'wanting to be seen as' is like a virus in our worldviews, how we deal with other worldviews and what we choose to say is our worldview.
Like the older brother is not going to admit that he disagrees with his sister about school, music, films, etc., because he loved it before she was born when he was an only child and she came and ruined it. (that's a metaphor. I'm not suggesting Freudianish reasons for all these splits.) He might not even know or be able to call it up. And there are all these old battles two between 'sides'.
I mean, it would be a kind of fascistic self-relation to eliminate all of this. I am not trying to put people down for inconsistancies in a general way. But I do think that there is a lot of explaining our positions after the fact of having them or wanting to have them.
Then I was mistaken, apologies. Do you agree/disagree that what the world is going through is a war of worldviews?
:up: :up:
Yes. We are faced with the challenge of achieving a new kind of social consciousness whose operation is predicated on empathy.
Is empathy possible without first being able to understand what appears to one initially as a dangerously alien worldview? In other words, does empathy come first, or does insight come first and empathy follow? Religious traditions tend to fetishize free will and value-formation without understanding their origins, and so argue that empathy comes first.
On the ground, between groups with different worldviews, there is a lot of propaganda (not using that term pejoratively or not pejoratively) and a lot of suggestions, demands for changes in the various ways of raising/changing social consciousness. And, the differing ideas about this is often part of the conflicts.
And those I see as lacking empathy are lovin' it.
I don't think any of it matters to them, except to the extent it keeps people divided and focused on the bad attitudes and behavior and nature of other people with little power.
Yep, an aggravation that isn't an aggravation. Go figure.
I think that the whole point of empathy is that it is a reaching out beyond the personal. You don't need to understand a different world view to help someone who is in need.
You dont necessarily recognize them as being in justified need before understanding their perspective.
Wars often exemplify clashes of worldviews. As a solider in battle , I am not only not going to come to the aid of an enemy soldier in need, I actively try to induce their suffering. Their needs represent for me the desires of an alien and hostile worldview, and thus what benefits them causes me suffering. One can extend this to political and religious clashes.
I think that the nature of needs is that they are very universal in character. Certainly with basic needs, which is a great starting place for some empathy.
Sure, a soldier is in a specific situation, though even there some show mercy to wounded enemy soldiers. What I was saying about empathy was that one need not have insight to feel it. One can see-feel. Even other social animals show this kind of reaction.
Empathy is a significant factor in life as a whole. When weltanschauungs encounter each other, empathy is one of the first casualties and hence the usual - brawls, wars, and all.
[quote=SYT]Live and let live.[/quote]