Determinants of philosophical worldviews
What determines an individual's worldview? After all, out of all of the people here, there are a variety of worldviews here, but a question on the dominant trait creating these interpersonal differences is one that still must be determined. Is it something genetic? Is it something taught at an early age? Is it a result of experiences? Is it an arbitrary impulse of the will? Is a person's position determined by rational assent? Is it a result of expected personal gain? How about the views of close-relations?
To what extent are each of these views true? To what extent are they false? Does pie taste good?
Averick
Veteran
Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!
Although the cave allegory has some grasp of the way people interpret perception and integrate it into a cogent understanding of reality Socrates had very little understanding of the way the mind formulates abstracts and he confused these abstracts with some sort of imaginary hierarchy of reality. This lead to the acceptance of imaginary constructions that might or might not model reality depending upon whether it was confirmed with validated observation. He never took this last crucial step which is the basis of modern science.
Averick
Veteran
Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!
The Allegory of the Cave?
I don't see how it relates. I mean, I suppose people are resistant to the change of ideas, but I do not see how seeing one group as being "The Enlightened" and another group as being "The Cave-Dwellers" really improves the situation a lot. Particularly since we do not simply know how to place one group in a cave, and the other as being outside the cave in terms of worldview, as there is no determining force, it is just a brute fact in the Allegory, as we have people randomly in a cave.
I recently attempted to listen to a long exchange between Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett(an opinionated overview can be found here and the actual exchange is 2 hours and can be downloaded from one of the comments below the post), both men are considered brilliant philosophers, but they seemed to communicate past each other. Is one just a blind man in the cave, and another the wise man? But how would that be known? There is also a transhumanist, researcher in AI, and fan of Bayesian inference, named Eliezer Yudkowsky, who openly admits that he got the foundations of his ethical ideas from "He-Man" cartoons http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/02/f ... youth.html , finally there are logical issues with rational disagreement but people still disagree, which leads to problems of what drives irrational human beliefs as the paper argues that the number of truly rational people in existence is very low. http://hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf
Have I been reading too much recently? Probably, but those 3 example seem to make it clear to me that there is a problem in human philosophical worldviews that runs deeper than "wise people vs unwise people". So, the issue just seems interesting.
I don't see how it relates. I mean, I suppose people are resistant to the change of ideas, but I do not see how seeing one group as being "The Enlightened" and another group as being "The Cave-Dwellers" really improves the situation a lot. Particularly since we do not simply know how to place one group in a cave, and the other as being outside the cave in terms of worldview, as there is no determining force, it is just a brute fact in the Allegory, as we have people randomly in a cave.
I recently attempted to listen to a long exchange between Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett(an opinionated overview can be found here and the actual exchange is 2 hours and can be downloaded from one of the comments below the post), both men are considered brilliant philosophers, but they seemed to communicate past each other. Is one just a blind man in the cave, and another the wise man? But how would that be known? There is also a transhumanist, researcher in AI, and fan of Bayesian inference, named Eliezer Yudkowsky, who openly admits that he got the foundations of his ethical ideas from "He-Man" cartoons http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/02/f ... youth.html , finally there are logical issues with rational disagreement but people still disagree, which leads to problems of what drives irrational human beliefs as the paper argues that the number of truly rational people in existence is very low. http://hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf
Have I been reading too much recently? Probably, but those 3 example seem to make it clear to me that there is a problem in human philosophical worldviews that runs deeper than "wise people vs unwise people". So, the issue just seems interesting.
To a very large extent philosophers construct world views in language which is extremely sloppy and many words in different languages have multiple meanings and a very large span of multiple implications not usually taken into account by philosophers who don't pin down precisely each word, an almost impossible task. This leads to interminable confusions and endless meaningless discussions.
I think it is most wise to not have a world view. In order to progress, an individual needs to keep his/her slate clean, and free of ideologies. This in itself is a practice which is a sort of ideology but I don't want to get into semantics. It's hard to describe the reality of life and how we learn and change. It feels safer to believe we know it now, but it's just not realistic.
I read a quote that said something like, "The problem with having an open mind is that people continuously try to put stuff into it." Isn't that how we learn though?
Who can learn just by himself/herself without having something to compare their views to? Even though I have an inner voice that guides me, I still need feedback to keep me grounded. The world is changing as it always has. To declare a worldview is to become stagnant in your current beliefs. We are just humans after all, and not omniscient.
So, don't hold me accountable for everything I say. Tomorrow I may change my mind again.
Well.... who doesn't construct world views in language that is very sloppy? I mean, the fact that disagreements persist is just an ongoing fact.
Common misconception.
-The Republic- is mostly Plato's thinking in the later books. Socrates appears as a character in the dialog, but don't let that mislead you. Plato constructed a polis to answer the question what is justice. In the dialog itself, the first few chapters where Socrates (the character) demolishes Thrasymachus' assertion that Might Makes Right is probably pure Socrates. But later on in Book VI where he puts forth the parable of the cave to prove that our sensible experiences is illusion and only the Forms (eidos) are truly real is almost 100 percent Plato. You have to read the entire work in context to separate Plato from his mentor Socrates.
To see pure Plato you should read -The Timaeus - which is a concentrated dose of Platonic metaphysics. Socrates himself (if you read Xenophon's version of the man) was a smart ass who liked to challenge people with questions then pick apart their answers without offering any answers himself. That is one of the reasons why Socrates was done in by annoyed citizens after the collapse of the Tyranny of the Thirty in 401 b.c.e. Good old Soc made many of the burgers of Athens look like jackasses once too often. Some of the play writers got their "revenge" on Soc by making fun of him. For example: "The Clouds" by Aristophenes. He made Socrates out to be a "mad scientist" who ran a cock-eyed think tank that floated in air (cloud coo coo land). Chances are that Socrates attended the play and roared out loud laughing along with the rest of the audience.
ruveyn
Well.... who doesn't construct world views in language that is very sloppy? I mean, the fact that disagreements persist is just an ongoing fact.
Mathematics is quite adept at precise world view constructions which may or may not represent reality but at least does not present confusing terms.
Well.... who doesn't construct world views in language that is very sloppy? I mean, the fact that disagreements persist is just an ongoing fact.
Mathematics is quite adept at precise world view constructions which may or may not represent reality but at least does not present confusing terms.
Without the math, we are mind blind.
ruveyn
There's a layer, though, in learning where we get the chance to reassess what we're doing and why, based on results.
NTs are just as bad at this as aspies, imho. Perhaps even worse...
We have the evidence of the senses. That is what keeps science honest as opposed to philosophy and theology.
ruveyn