El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
This was my meager attempt to put a bit more clarity in this very general term. IMO the best way to identify would be to draw the distinction from the words I listed in the "Related notions" section. Unfortunately I lack skills of expression and deeper understanding to do this. Mikkalai 19:19, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC) I don't understand exactly how the map reflects Word View. Is each color meant to represent geographically a different world view? Also, how is the german word pronounced? Cogibyte 06:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) [edit] weltanschauung map
Hi cogibyte: The colours signify distinct worldviews. The graphical representation not only shows distinct worldviews but also displays the variations within worldviews and comparative relations with other worldviews. Eg: The variations of blue across Europe, or the variations of brownish shades across South Asia and south-east asia, etc. Weltanschauung is pronounced as velTAANshaaOOngh --- User:Robin klein --- Nice map! Nice idea! Where did you get the data you plotted in your "Weltanschauung map"? ---Rednblu 16:48, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) --- Hi Rednblu, The weltanschauung map is hypothetico-deductive conjecture. It coincides more or less with the linguistic family map of the world. The weltanschauung map is based on the linguistic relativity hypothesis of benjamin lee whorf and the theory of gene-linguistic co-evolution of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. But there is yet no empirical data for the map drawn.--Robin klein 19:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) --- I really like your idea of a Weltanschauung map! And for a first approximation, I suppose a mapping of the linguistic relativity alone would suffice. That is, for a first approximation, a mapping of the differences in linguistic expression would resemble the mapping of "empirical measures" of world view. For example, even before I would develop accurate empirical measures of "world view," I would say that there is a difference in the "median world view" of those who live on the Italian peninsula and close-by islands compared to the "median world view" of those who live in the areas of France. So even without assuming a causal mechanism, I would say that, at least comparing Italy to France, the transition in language would follow closely a transition in world view. I suppose when you fully develop your "Weltanschauung map" theory, you will express world view = W as a function of many variables W(L, E, G, F, R, . . .) where L is language, E is economic theory, D is variant of democracy or other form of government, F is variant of federalism or other form of centralized regulation, R is policy toward the entanglement of religion and state, .... So your current Weltanschauung map, it seems to me, is simply the map of the linguistic components of Weltanschauung, ignoring the components from the other dimensions--as a first approximation. Of course, in your fully developed Weltanschauung map theory, the variables L, E, G, F, R, ... are interdependent. Are you thinking of doing a paper on this? ---Rednblu 05:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) A weltanschauung map from published research and with legends is needed. Robin klein 07:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) --- Where is the legend? — mark ✎ 06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [edit] Map?I'm not sure the map clarifies anything to anybody, and if it's not based on a well-accepted definition of paritioning worldviews then it seems like it would fall into original research to me. It also seems to assume a world view homogeny based on geography which seems very incorrect to me. Are you really going to argue that North and South India have very different worldviews but California and the Southern U.S. do not? Does South Africa really have the same worldview as its northern neighbors? Cuba and Haiti have the same worldview? Ireland and Britain? Austrailia has a geographically homogenous worldview? etc. I'm inclined to remove it... --Fastfission 03:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Worldview ExamplesFrom the article (emphasis added):
Of all of the different types of value/belief systems that could be listed, I find it curious that Scientology is listed as an example. Surely, it can be considered a world view—but are there not more suitable choices for describing examples of world views? Such as: I keep wanting to add Atheism, but I have to keep reminding myself that it is itself not a world view. — Darco 18:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] looking for a good referenceAnyone have a "scholarly" reference to define worldview? The way I undeerstand it, it is a concept larger than just philosophical orientation but goes on to include wider concerns such as our emotional, psychological, and even 'supernatural' relationship to the world. Can anyone give me a good reference beyond just a dictionary? Thanks! bj
I can suggest a different prespective on understanding a 'world view' as a paradigm. See this discussion under Paradigm, with my comments as to how it can be 'defined'. It is more than a definition, it is a way of understanding a 'view of the world'. [1] --LandoSr 13:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC) [edit] World View on an Individual levelI notice that this article frames worldview in a social context--encompassing various people groups. This makes sense to me, but I have also heard of worldview as a set of answers to some key questions that are held (either consciously, or sub-consciously) by individuals. For example, every person, I have been taught, answers, in one way or another the questions, "Who am I?", "Where am I?" (what's the nature of the universe, etc.), "What's the problem?" (what are the primary difficulties faced by me, humanity, etc.) and "What's the solution?" (how do we solve our personal and public problems?). This sounds like a somewhat different concept from that being described in the worldview article, and I'm wondering where it would fit, if not here. ZED 21:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) IMO it's not different (though I'm unaware of the way in which the term was originally used) - I have seen it used with regards to individual people. for that reason I altered the sentence "This expression refers to the 'wide worldview' or 'wide world perception' of a people." to "This expression refers to the 'wide worldview' or 'wide world perception' of a people, family or person." There is a common error in people of a dominant Social instinctual variant to automatically make this kind of assumption. Just as there is a consequent error in the other Variants to make a likewise assumption. This is a POV error so profound and widespread that it is the water in which we swim (thus is almost unnoticeable unless one is actively aware of it, or becomes aware of it through the differing worldviews as expressed by differing people, religions, etc...). It is unfortunately one of the reasons for inter-tribal and national warfare, for killing "jews" or "muslims" for what others of their people have done; and also for those who, lacking a social instinct, don't really care (positively or negatively) about organizations or group membership (or anything outside of their immediate sphere of interest). You may be interested in the article lifestance, though this is a newly coined term. Addendum: This appears to be of biological origin, not a social construct. Just felt the need to add that. I agree with the below posted Douglasian Worldviews, though think the mere "5 types" is a limitation based on perceived similarities that do not fully coincide (thus the "Could be Buddhist and see a higher reality" - creation of a subset of this worldview type). 24.16.251.40 05:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] Two World Views<Commenting on World view—It refers to the framework through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it.
They each hold these different views because of the greater peace-of-mind it brings them (their Religion) and therefore it would be very difficult to talk them out of their viewpoint; they have too big an investment. The same thing happened when two persons debated 'god(s)' and 'God', millennia ago. Yesselman 16:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I know of one theory of worldviews: Mary Douglas’s grid-group theory. It has nothing to do with language, nothing to do with national boundaries. It answers ZED’s questions and agrees with Yesselman’s assertion that it is a framework through which the world is interpreted. (Though I don’t understand the rest of Y’s post.) It is more to do with politics than religion. Douglas says there are five basic worldviews: 1. individualistic where the world is fundamentally friendly and if I have the skill I can make it work for me and if things go wrong then it’s my fault. The restless, creative, opportunistic, competitive 1s include the entrepreneurial neo-cons. Warlords have a Type 1 worldview. 2. hierarchical types who think nature will be friendly only if she is approached properly by properly qualified people, so everyone should know his place and pull his weight and if things go wrong a criminal is to be blamed. The 2s like propriety, are the old conservative right, fascist if extreme. They run the government and practically everything else. 3. egalitarian types who think the nature – ie the world, the provider of resources – is basically fragile and needs help to keep going. The 3s are politically left (including feminist, vegetarian, green); they abhor competition and want everyone to cooperate to look after the environment and no one to be superior to anyone else and when things go wrong it’s the fault of the greedy 1s (eg Enron) or the privilege-mongering 2s (eg WW1). 4. fatalists think the world runs on luck and fate. I might as well be apathetic, take each day as it comes and play the slot machines. My best tactic is to keep my head down and suck up to the powerful if I can’t avoid them entirely. Things go wrong (and right) on a random basis and no one is to blame. 5. autonomous type, someone who has withdrawn from meaningful participation in society – a hermit in the extreme. The world is a foolish place with everyone rushing about going nowhere. Often an older man with little social contact and resources that exceed (modest) requirements. Could be Buddhist and see a higher reality. Note that these five worldviews are explicit. They say what they actually are. Note, too, how they have specific implications for personal behaviour and for social structure. Reference: Douglas, M. 1982, “Cultural Bias” in "In the active voice", London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. - Pepper 150.203.2.85 10:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [edit] Capitalised Weltanshauung ConsistentlyNote that in German, all nouns are still capalised. Hence, Weltanshauung has a capital W. I'm not sure if this follows when the word is imported into English, but I decided that it probably does, if Schadenfreude (shameful joy) is a precedent. Also, most of the occurrences of the word were capitalised, so the changes were few. ________ Yes, capitalise Germans substantives - the word is sort of misspelt if you don't. Schadenfreude means malicious pleasure, ie pleasure at someone else's distress. - Pepper 150.203.2.85 05:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [edit] Pronunciation guideHow about a pronunciation guide to the German word? thunderboltz 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Welt (world) "velt" an (to) "un" as in "unlikely" schau (show) say "shout" without the "t" ung (-ing) the "u" as in "full" - Pepper 150.203.2.85 07:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
On External Links, I couldn't find anything about "Understanding Worldviews" at www.markroques.com It's a site selling Christian workshops! [edit] Non-World ViewsA framework of understanding not focused on the world (ie. formal systems divorced from "the world" - that generate and/or permutate based on themselves or whatever influences from the mind of the generator). Does a term exist for these? I recognize that the ideas generated from such a thing would not be fully separate from the domain of Worldview, and conversely, but it also wouldn't fully fall into the domain of Worldview. 24.16.251.40 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC) [edit] Use of "Weltanschauung" and "world outlook" in the English languageThe article claims that these terms both enjoy wide use in the English language. I'm a native English speaker and have experienced a wide variety of American vernaculars, and although I'm no expert on the English spoken in other parts of the world, I watch enough British soccer and Australian football that I have much more significant exposure to those dialects than most people I know...yet I'd never heard either of these terms until I read this article. Where are they used? The German department at university? Disbomber 09:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] Where I First Heard Weltanschauung UsedI had a history Professor at Ball State University, Dr. Eugene McCain, that liked using the word Weltanschauung because he felt there was no English equivalent. His definition of the word was that it is the view of the world that is very specific to an individual or selective group, based on that person's collective experiences, which are obviously very different from anyone elses and hence very unique. Certtainly an important concept in understanding why nations and groups have acted as they have in certain circumstances. For example, we pretty much feel that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because of their aggressive nature, whereas Japanese history classes state that it was necessary to bomb Pearl harbor because the US was blocking shipments of oil to Japan. Better dictionaries of English feature it as a word. [edit] Religious outlooks and worldviewsThis section is a defense of religious beliefs rather than a discussion about worldview. Always drawing conclusions against WP:OR. If there's an article on religious conflict, religious misunderstanding, etc, it belongs there. But it does not seem to belong here as it is not clarifying the subject of the article. Any objection to removal of this section? (to the editor who added the section, your objection is already noted). --*Spark* 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The only clue the article gives is:
AFAICT, replacing theories with worldviews amounts to ceasing to ask awkward questions about whether beliefs are true, consistent, etc. How remarkably convenient. Well, maybe that is unfair, but the article should explain what is going on, and not merely state that it is going on. 1Z 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC) The section is still very unsatisfactory. It is vague and biased. The points that woldviews are not hypotheses, and that religions should be looked at as worldviews are re-iterated several times (with references), but it is not clear what is being asserted. The reader is not informed what the difference between a worldview and a hypothesis actually is, nor is the reader enlightened as to why the worldview approach is so much superior in relation to religion. Articles need to be supported by references, but first and foremost they need to explain.
This is an appellingly sweeping and under-justified statement. The supporting arguments seem to confuse rationality with rationalism. The Age of enlightenment was an age of empiricism as well.
[edit] Worldview, Ideology, theoryThe article really needs to explain how "worldviews" stand in relation to ideologies, theories, et.c. Is it a redundant synonym for an individual's or society's theory of the world? Or is there a substantial difference.1Z 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC) And it needs to consider the questions
1Z 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 4 Are worldviews deliberate, conscious constructs, or are they absorbed subliminally? 1Z 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Principal Worldviews.
In the Anglosphere the two principal families of worldviews in terms of numbers of adherents are[6]:
* The Monotheistic family of worldviews which hold that the Universe is created by God. * The Materialist/Naturalistic family of worldviews which hold that nothing exists beyond physical This claim is an artefact of the question being asked. You could just as well quote the percentage who call themselves liberal or conservative.1Z 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC) The fact that there are X million liberals in the English-speaking world is no more or less an argument for politically-based worldviews than the fact that there are Y million theists is evidence for religiously based worldviews. 1Z 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC) [edit] It can be arguedI'm reluctantly removing the following: "It can be argued that religious belief and axiomatic schemes are disanalogous on a number of points:
I hope this is helpful because I hate removing other Editors' work, but I could see no sensible way to raise these concerns without doing so. NBeale 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
1Z 19:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Hi 1Z. I don't agree that worldviews are warmed-over relativism. Realism about what something is is an necessary first step to dealing with it intelligently from a philosophical PoV. Axioms are not used in science "becasue empirical justification cannot be brought to bear" - they are used because it is impossible to think or reason logically without axioms. The idea that all axioms should be self-evident is self-refuting and it turns out that axioms which appear "self-evident" are often not - the Axiom of choice is an excellent example. Part of the problem is that whether or not a thing is "self-evident" depends on your worldview. I am not arguing that worldviews are especially analagous to scientific and logical procedures nor that nothing can be said about the truth of particular worldviews. But to say that "Worldview A disagrees with Worldview B" says nothing (per se) about the validity of A or B. NBeale 11:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC) If the worldview approach is not relativism, then the claim that "axioms are only ever argued from" is false. Axioms can be judged false, if you approach things realistically, as scientists do. If it is a crucial to the "worldview" argument that axioms cannot never be judged, then the WV approach is either relativistic or' a failure. It's a dichotomy. Axioms are used in science where empirical evidence cannot be brought to bear. is false. The idea that axioms should be self-evident is not self-refuting,it can be argued from self-evident principals. The fact that some alleged axioms are not self-evident can be taken to mean they where simply never properly speaking axioms i the first place. Remember, you need realism to work since you have rejected relativism. The fifth postulate of Euclid is a better example. It is now considered an empirical issue. To say that "Worldview A disagrees with Worldview B" says that at least one of them is worng simpliciter if relativism is rejected. But this is just to treat worldviews as sets of beliefs. What does the language of "worldviews" bring to the table absent relativism? Why not just talk about beliefs, knowledge, truth, as in traditional epistemology? Is the whole page a waste of time? 1Z 12:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Hi 1Z. Sorry I don't have time to go into every one of your points (would be helpful to be more concise perhaps?) the issue of how you deal with conflicts of worldviews is complex - would that there were simplistic formulae that worked! It's blindingly obvious that "self-evident" depends on your worldview (eg for many people the existence of God is self-evident). To say "X is self-evident" is not the same as "X can be argued for from self-evident principles". You might want to try to write down a rigorous argument for "all axioms should be self-evident" to understand where the problem lies. Obviously it cannot be an axiom because it is not self-evident. Best NBeale 13:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Do you have time to consider issues of epistemology and relativism in a wider context, or are you going to continue promoting a one-sidedly religious-relativistc POV? As it stands, it is taking up my time rewriting your stuff to be NPOV. For philosophical purposes, the point is to get something that works intellectually. Whether people will put it into practice is another matter. What people claim to be self evident will depend on their assumptions. It begs the question to assume that all such claims have to be taken equally and at face value. (Is there anyone who doesn't find it self-evident that every number has a successor?) As I have explained before the rigorous argument you want exists, and is called the regress argument and is founded on the self-evident impossibility of a finite being entertaining an infinite chain of premises. The argument for foundationalism is foundationally acceptable. 1Z 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Hi 1Z. The regress argument as it stands is 100% OR, it might be good to ref it. All it really shows is that epistemology is complex, and that radical skepticism is a silly strategy. You might want to read Mary Midgley and Alvin Plantinga if you haven't already. If you were interested in trying to construct a rigorous argument as requested you would see how problematic it was. It is "self-evident" that "self-evident" is highly culture relative: it is far from clear that it means anything other than "I intuitively think this is true". Whether or not it seem self-evident, it's simply untrue that "every number has a successor" unless you define it in an utterly trivial way - ei is an obvious counterexample. NBeale 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC) The [[regress argument] is not OR. The page is uncited. There's a difference. It took me seconds to find a reference here. The RA addresses foundationalism specifically. It is not evident (self or otherwise) that the truth of claims of self-evident is culture-relative. You are, again, confusing descriptive and normative relativism. if it is false that every number has a successor, please tell me what he highest number is, then. 1Z 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Hi 1Z. Well that's improved the regress article a bit. Highest number is often called "infinity". But ei is not "the highest number" and what on earth is its successor?? I grant that things that seem "self-evident" might be false. But whether or not something is "self-evident" is clearly (at least) culture-relative, and in fact it's worldview-relative, in the sense that Dawkins and I come from the same culture but have v different worldviews. NBeale 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [edit] Non-sequiturand an undertanding based on worldviews does not commit the holder to relativism ...because... Indeed Christians are well-known for wanting to spread their worldview, following eg the injuctions to "proclaim the Gospel" in the Bible But the fact that Christians are identified by others as "having a worldview" (NB singluar) does not mean they are "have an understanding based on worldviews" (NB plural) in the sense of a non-judgemental sense comparitive theologian. 1Z 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [edit] literal meaning of the termI don't know about common usage in philosophical studies or the media, but I'd like to amend that Anschauung is the German word for 'view' or 'outlook' isn't entirely correct. As a gerund, Anschauung describes the action or the process of looking at something. So, Weltanschauung would literally mean "the process of looking at / viewing the world", which is quite different from the meaning as mentioned in the article which closer resembles that of "preconception". — [ aldebaer] 08:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Five Categories of a World View
Nash (Faith and Reason 30-32) A sixth ought to include Economics: capitalism, socialism, communism, interventionism, etc.Adriansrfr (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC) All religions can be usefully understood and categorized through this paradigm. Philosophy in general tends to focus on the particulars of a world view although it can be used synonymously.Adriansrfr (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC) [edit] Merger proposalI do believe that the concept and the word Weltanschauung, cover the same fields! I also believe that this term can better be translated into contemplation than calqued into "world_view"!! In the translation of the German word "welt" to the English word "world" a part of larger meaning of the word gets lost, just like in the translation of the German word "aanschauung" to the English word "outlook"!!: In German, the word's "weltkundig" (world wise) and "weltfremdig" (alienated) can be translated to being capable(weltkundig) or not(weltfremdig) at live and while living within your personal society ( one's living environment ). “Welt”, in both word’s, cannot be translated as only the word "world", but should be translated as "the entire environment one lives in". “Anschauung“ should not only be translated as outlook or perspective, it also covers Thought and Interpreting. The specific combination of “welt” and “anschauung” into “Weltanschauung” can smoothly be translated into “contemplation”. I suggest to merge Contemplation with Weltanschauung or it's calque World view because of this overlap! --Rick Smit (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think they're the same, even if they're similar. They're certainly different enough to make a merger a bad idea. --72.224.171.8 (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC) World view and contemplation are very different concepts in English. It would be a very wrong decision to try merging them. Both articles stand best apart as it is the case now. I am an a scientist and philosopher studying world views as a part of my field of study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramel01 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
--80.121.190.154 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
