World View
Content
World view
This article is about the concept. For the WorldView
satellite class, see DigitalGlobe. For the WorldView
near-space balloon technology, see World View Enterprises. For the WorldView near-space flight company,
see Paragon Space Development Corporation.
The linguistic relativity hypothesis of Benjamin Lee
Whorf describes how the syntactic-semantic structure of
a language becomes an underlying structure for the world
view or 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.[3]
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.[1]
The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ], composed of Welt ('world') and
Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook')[2] The German word is
also used in English.
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 linguistic relativity theory, in the works of Stephen Levinson and his
team at the Max Planck institute for psycholinguistics at
Nijmegen, Netherlands.[4] The theory has also gained atIt is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and tention through the work of Lera Boroditsky at Stanford
epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Ad- University.
ditionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs
forming a global description through which an individual,
group or culture watches and interprets the world and in- 1.2 Weltanschauung and cognitive philosophy
teracts with it.
One of the most important concepts in cognitive
philosophy and cognitive sciences is the German concept
1 Origins
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
1.1 Linguistics
of a people originates from the unique world experience
The founder of the idea that language and worldview of a people, which they experience over several millennia.
The language of a people reflects the Weltanschauung of
are inextricable is the Prussian philologist, Wilhelm von
Humboldt (1767–1835). Humboldt argued that language that people in the form of its syntactic structures and untranslatable connotations and its denotations.
was part of the creative adventure of mankind. Culture,
language and linguistic communities developed simulta- The term 'Weltanschauung' is often wrongly attributed to
neously, he argued, and could not do so without one an- Wilhelm von Humboldt the founder of German ethnoother. In stark contrast to linguistic determinism, which linguistics (see Trabant). As Jürgen Trabant points out,
invites us to consider language as a constraint, a frame- however, and as Underhll reminds us in his 'Humboldt,
work or a prison house, Humboldt maintained that speech Worldview and Language' (2009), Humboldt’s key conis inherently and implicitly creative. Human beings take cept was 'Weltansicht'. 'Weltanschauung', used first by
their place in speech and continue to modify language Kant and later popularized by Hegel, was always used in
and thought by their creative exchanges. Worldview re- German and later used in English to refer more to philosomains a confused and confusing concept in English, used phies, ideologies and cultural or religious perspectives,
very differently by linguists and sociologists. It is for this than to linguistic communities and their mode of apprereason that Underhill suggests five subcategories: world- hending reality.
perceiving, world-conceiving, cultural mindset, personal 'Weltansicht' was used by Humboldt to refer to the overworld, and perspective (see Underhill 2009, 2011 & arching conceptual and sensorial apprehension of reality
2012).
shared by a linguistic community (Nation). But HumEdward Sapir also gives an account of the relationship boldt maintained that the speaking human being was the
between thinking and speaking in English.
core of language. Speech maintains worldviews. World1
2
1
ORIGINS
views are not prisons which contain and constrain us, they According to Apostel, a worldview is an ontology, or a
are the spaces we develop within, create and resist cre- descriptive model of the world. It should comprise these
atively in speaking together.
six elements:
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.[5]
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,[6] environmentalclimatic conditions, the economic resources available,
socio-cultural systems, and the language family.[6] (The
work of the population geneticist Luigi Luca CavalliSforza aims to show the gene-linguistic co-evolution of
people).
1. An explanation of the world
2. A futurology, answering the question “Where are we
heading?"
3. Values, answers to ethical questions: “What should
we do?"
4. A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action:
“How should we attain our goals?"
5. An epistemology, or theory of knowledge: “What is
true and false?"
6. An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own “building blocks,” its origins and construction.
If the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is correct, the worldview
map of the world would be similar to the linguistic map of
the world. However, it would also almost coincide with
a map of the world drawn on the basis of music across 1.5 Terror management theory
people.[7]
Main article: Terror management theory
1.3
Folk-epics
See also: List of world folk-epics
As natural language becomes manifestations of world
perception, the literature of a people with common
Weltanschauung emerges as holistic representations of
the wide world perception of the people. Thus the extent and commonality between world folk-epics becomes
a manifestation of the commonality and extent of a worldview.
Epic poems are shared often by people across political
borders and across generations. Examples of such epics
include the Nibelungenlied of the Germanic people, the
Iliad for the Ancient Greeks and Hellenized societies,
the Silappadhikaram of the Tamil people, the Ramayana
and Mahabharata of the Hindus, the Gilgamesh of the
Mesopotamian-Sumerian civilization and the people of
the Fertile Crescent at large, The Book of One Thousand
and One Nights (Arabian nights) of the Arab world and
the Sundiata epic of the Mandé people.
Worldview, according to terror management theory
(TMT), serves as a buffer against death anxiety.[8] It is
theorised that living up to the ideals of one’s worldview
provides a sense of self-esteem which provides a sense
of transcending the limits of human life (e.g. literally, as
in religious belief in immortality, symbolically, as in art
works or children to live on after one’s death, or in contributions to one’s culture).[8] Evidence in support of terror
management theory includes a series of experiments by
Jeff Schimel and colleagues in which a group of Canadians found to score highly on a measure of patriotism were
asked to read an essay attacking the dominant Canadian
worldview.[8]
Using a test of death-thought accessibility (DTA), involving an ambiguous word completion test (e.g. “COFF__”
could either be completed as either “COFFEE” or “COFFIN”), participants who had read the essay attacking their
worldview were found to have a significantly higher level
of DTA than the control group, who read a similar essay attacking Australian cultural values. Mood was also
measured following the worldview threat, to test whether
the increase in death thoughts following worldview threat
were due to other causes, for example, anger at the attack
1.4 Development
on one’s cultural worldview.[8] No significant changes
found immediately following the
While Apostel and his followers clearly hold that indi- on mood scales were
[8]
worldview
threat.
viduals can construct worldviews, other writers regard
worldviews as operating at a community level, or in an To test the generalisability of these findings to groups and
unconscious way. For instance, if one’s worldview is fixed worldviews other than those of nationalistic Canadians,
by one’s language, as according to a strong version of the Schimel et al conducted a similar experiment on a group
Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, one would have to learn or in- of religious individuals whose worldview included that
vent a new language in order to construct a new world- of creationism.[8] Participants were asked to read an essay which argued in support of the theory of evolution,
view.
2.2
Other aspects
following which the same measure of DTA was taken as
for the Canadian group.[8] Religious participants with a
creationist worldview were found to have a significantly
higher level of death-thought accessibility than those of
the control group.[8]
3
2.2 Other aspects
In 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[10]
Goldenberg et al found that highlighting the similariand in accordance to their theory of the world. These
ties between humans and other animals increases deathacts, perceived outside that unique Weltanschauung, are
thought accessibility, as does attention to the physical
now commonly perceived as acts of aggression, such as
[9]
rather than meaningful qualities of sex.
openly beginning invasions, twisting facts, and violating
human rights.
2
Impact
The term denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen
as an 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.
2.1
Causality
A unidirectional 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., Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and
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 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.
3 Religion
Nishida Kitaro wrote extensively on “the Religious
Worldview” in exploring the philosophical significance
of Eastern religions.[11]
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.”[12]
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.”[13]
The commitment mentioned by James W. Sire can be
extended further. The worldview increases the commitment to serve the world. With the change of a person’s
view towards the world, he/she can be motivated to serve
the world. This serving attitude has been illustrated by
Tareq M Zayed as the 'Emancipatory Worldview' in his
writing “History of emancipatory worldview of Muslim
learners”.[14]
4 Philosophy
Main article: Belief system
The philosophical importance of worldviews became increasingly clear during the 20th Century for a number
of reasons, such as increasing contact between cultures,
Some forms of philosophical naturalism and materialism and the failure of some aspects of the Enlightenment
reject the validity of entities inaccessible to natural sci- project, such as the rationalist project of attaining all truth
ence. They view the scientific method as the most reliable by reason alone. Mathematical logic showed that funmodel for building an understanding of the world.
damental choices of axioms were essential in deductive
4
5 STREAMS IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN THOUGHT
reasoning[15] and that, even having chosen axioms not everything that was true in a given logical system could be
proven.[16] Some philosophers believe the problems extend to “the inconsistencies and failures which plagued
the Enlightenment attempt to identify universal moral
and rational principles";[17] although Enlightenment principles such as universal suffrage and the universal declaration of human rights are accepted, if not taken for
granted, by many.[18]
laration 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.”[29]
The comparison of religious, philosophical or scientific
worldviews is a delicate endeavor, because such worldviews start from different presuppositions and cognitive
values. Clément Vidal[30] has proposed metaphilosophical criteria for the comparison of worldviews, classifying
them in three broad categories:
Philosophers also distinguish the manifest image from the
scientific image. These phrases are due to the American
20th century philosopher Wilfrid Sellars. This is one angle on the ancient philosophical distinction between appearance and reality which is particularly pertinent to everyday contemporary living. Indeed, many believe that
1. objective: objective consistency, scientificity, scope
the scientific image, with its reductionist methodology,
will undermine our sense of individual freedom and re2. subjective: subjective consistency, personal utility,
sponsibility. So, many worry that as science advances,
emotionality
particularly cognitive neuroscience, we will be dehuman3. intersubjective: intersubjective consistency, collecized. This certainly has powerful Nietzschean undertive utility, narrativity
tones. When our immediately given, manifest (aka obvious) self-conception is shaken, what is lost for the individual and society? And does it have to be that way?[19]
Some questions well worth working on, then, are those 5 Streams in contemporary Amerconcerning the refinement of the manifest view of such
ican thought
centrally important concepts such as free will,[20] the
self and individuality, and the possibility of real or lived
According to Michael Lind, “a worldview is a more or less
meaning.
coherent understanding of the nature of reality, which
permits its holders to interpret new information in light of
4.1 Assessment and comparison of differ- their preconceptions. Clashes among worldviews cannot
ent worldviews
be ended by a simple appeal to facts. Even if rival sides
agree on the facts, people may disagree on conclusions beOne can think of a worldview as comprising a number of cause of their different premises.” This is why politicians
basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the often seem to talk past one another, or ascribe different
axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. meanings to the same events. Tribal or national wars are
These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in often the result of incompatible worldviews. Lind has
the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because organized American political worldviews into five catethey are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than gories:
argued for.[21] However their coherence can be explored
philosophically and logically.
• Green Malthusianism synthesizes mystical versions
If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue
between them.[22]
of environmentalism with alarm about population
growth in the tradition of the Rev. Thomas Malthus
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.[23][24][25] Additionally, religious believers might not
wish to see their beliefs relativized into something that is
only “true for them”.[26][27] Subjective logic is a beliefreasoning formalism where beliefs explicitly are subjectively held by individuals but where a consensus between
different worldviews can be achieved.[28]
• 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.
A third alternative sees the worldview approach as only
a methodological relativism, as a suspension judgment
about the truth of various belief systems but not a dec-
• Neoliberal Globalism believes that at home governments should provide only basic public goods like
infrastructure and security, and do so by marketfriendly methods
• Populist Nationalism tends to favor restriction of
legal as well as illegal immigration to protect the
5
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.
• Ontology
• Organizing principle
• Paradigm
• Perspective
• Social Democracy 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.
Lind argues that even though not all people will fit neatly
into only one category or the other, their core worldview
shape how they frame their arguments.[31]
• Philosophy
• Psycholinguistics
• Reality
• Reality tunnel
• Received view
• Religion
6
See also
• Schema (psychology)
• Attitude polarization
• Scientific modeling
• Basic beliefs
• Scientism
• Belief
• Set (psychology)
• Belief networks
• Social justice
• Christian worldview
• Social reality
• Cognitive bias
• Socially constructed reality
• Conformity
• Subjective logic
• Contemplation
• Truth
• Context (language use)
• Umwelt
• Cultural bias
• Value system
• Cultural identity
• Emancipatory Worldview
• Eschatology
• Extrospection
• Framing (social sciences)
• Ideology
• Life stance
• Mental model
• Mental representation
• Metaknowledge
• Metanarrative
• Metaphysics
• Mindset
• Norm (social)
7 References
[1] Palmer, Gary B. (1996). Toward A Theory of Cultural
Linguistics. University of Texas Press. p. 114. ISBN
978-0-292-76569-6.
[2] “Online Etymology Dictionary”. Etymonline.com. Retrieved 2012-08-13.
[3] Kay, P.; Kempton, W. (1984). “What is the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis?". American Anthropologist 86 (1): 65–79.
doi:10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050. JSTOR 679389.
[4] http://www.mpi.nl/world/ Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
[5] Hiebert, Paul G. Transforming Worldviews: an anthropological understanding of how people change. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008
[6] Carroll, John B. (ed.) [1956] (1997). Language, Thought,
and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf.
Cambridge, Mass.: Technology Press of Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. ISBN 0-262-73006-5.
6
[7] Whorf, Benjamin (John Carroll, Editor) (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press.
[8] Schimel, J., Hayes, J., Williams, T., & Jahrig, J. (2007). Is
Death Really the Worm at the Core? Converging Evidence
that Worldview Threat Increases Death-Thought Accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.
92, No. 5, pp. 789-803.
[9] Goldenberg, J. L., Cox, C. R., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (2002). Understanding human
ambivalence about sex: The effects of stripping sex of
meaning. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 310–320.
8
EXTERNAL LINKS
[23] Cognitive Relativism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[24] The problem of self-refutation is quite general. It arises
whether truth is relativized to a framework of concepts, of
beliefs, of standards, of practices.Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy
[25] The Friesian School on Relativism
[26] Pope Benedict warns against relativism
[27] Ratzinger, J. Relativism, the Central Problem for Faith Today
[10] Victor Klemperer, The Language of the Third Reich: A
Philologist’s Notebook, trans. Martin Brady, London:
Continuum, 2002
[28] Jøsang, Audun (2001). International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 9 (3):
279–311. doi:10.1142/S0218488501000831. Missing or
empty |title= (help)
[11] Indeed Kitaro’s final book is Last Writings: Nothingness
and the Religious Worldview
[29] Ninian Smart Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of
Human Beliefs (3rd Edition) ISBN 0-13-020980-5 p14
[12] David K. Naugle Worldview: The History of a Concept
ISBN 0-8028-4761-7 page 4
[30] Vidal, Clément (2012). “Metaphilosophical Criteria for
Worldview Comparison” (PDF). Metaphilosophy 43 (3):
306–347. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2012.01749.x.
[13] James W. Sire The Universe Next Door: A Basic World
view Catalog p15–16 (text readable at Amazon.com)
[14] https://www.academia.edu/9631989/History_of_
emancipatory_worldview_of_Muslim_learners
[15] Not just in the obvious sense that you need axioms to
prove anything, but the fact that for example the Axiom
of choice and Axiom S5, although widely regarded as correct, were in some sense optional.
[31] Lind, Michael. 'The five worldviews that define American
politics’ Salon Magazine, 11 Jan 2011 . Michael Lind is
Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the
New America Foundation
8 External links
[16] see Godel’s incompleteness theorem and discussion in e.g.
John Lucas's The Freedom of the Will
• GLOGO - Global Governance System for Planet
Earth at think tank Gold Mercury International
[17] Thus Alister McGrath in The Science of God p 109 citing
in particular Alasdair MacIntyre's Whose Justice? Which
Rationality? – he also cites Nicholas Wolterstorff and Paul
Feyerabend
• Diederik Aerts, Leo Apostel, Bart de Moor, Staf
Hellemans, Edel Maex, Hubert van Belle & Jan van
der Veken (1994) "“World views. From Fragmentation to Integration" VUB Press. Translation of
(Apostel and Van der Veken 1991) with some additions. – The basic book of World Views, from the
Center Leo Apostel.
[18] “Governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms enumerated by Jefferson; governments are
created to protect those freedoms that every individual
possesses by virtue of his or her existence. In their formulation by the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th
and 18th centuries, inalienable rights are God-given natural rights. These rights are not destroyed when civil society is created, and neither society nor government can
remove or “alienate” them.”US Gov website on democracy
[19] see Owen Flanagan’s 'The Problem of the Soul', 2002
[20] see especially Daniel Dennett’s 'Freedom Evolves’, 2003
[21] see e.g. Daniel Hill and Randal Rauser Christian Philosophy A–Z Edinburgh University Press (2006) ISBN 9780-7486-2152-1 p200
[22] In the Christian tradition this goes back at least to Justin
Martyr's Dialogues with Trypho, A Jew, and has roots in
the debates recorded in the New Testament For a discussion of the long history of religious dialogue in India, see
Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian
• Apostel, Leo and Van der Veken, Jan.
Wereldbeelden, DNB/Pelckmans.
(1991)
• Wikibook:The scientific world view
• Wiki Worldview Themes: A Structure for Characterizing and Analyzing Worldviews includes links to
nearly 400 Wikipedia articles
• You are what you speak PDF (5.15 MB) – an essay on current research in linguistic relativity (Lera
Boroditsky)
• Cobern, W. World View, Metaphysics, and Epistemology PDF (50.3 KB)
• inTERRAgation.com—A documentary project.
Collecting and evaluating answers to “the meaning
of life” from around the world.
7
• The God Contention—Comparing various worldviews, faiths, and religions through the eyes of their
advocates.
• Cole, Graham A., Do Christians have a Worldview?
A paper examining the concept of worldview as it
relates to and has been used by Christianity. Contains a helpful annotated bibliography.
• World View article on the Principia Cybernetica
Project
• Pogorskiy, E. (2015). Using personalisation to
improve the effectiveness of global educational
projects. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(1), 57–
67.
• Worldviews – An Introduction from Project Worldview
• “Studies on World Views Related to Science” (list of
suggested books and resources) from the American
Scientific Affiliation (a Christian perspective)
• Eugene Webb, Worldview and Mind: Religious
Thought and Psychological Development. Columbia,
MO: University of Missouri Press, 2009.
• Benjamin Gal-Or, “Cosmology, Physics and Philosophy”, Springer Verlag, 1981, 1983, 1987, ISBN 0387-90581-2, ISBN 0-387-96526-2.
• Беляев И.А. Человек и его мироотношение.
Сообщение
1.
Мироотношение
и
мировоззрение
/
И.А.
Беляев
//
Политематический
сетевой
электронный
научный журнал Кубанского государственного
аграрного университета (Научный журнал
КубГАУ) [Электронный ресурс]. – Краснодар:
КубГАУ, 2011. – №09(73). С. 310 – 319. –
Режим доступа: http://ej.kubagro.ru/2011/09/pdf/
29.pdf (http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17087744).
8
9 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
9
Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses
9.1
Text
• World view Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view?oldid=699719280 Contributors: Magnus Manske, SimonP, Infrogmation,
Michael Hardy, BoNoMoJo (old), Andres, Conti, Fuzheado, Greenrd, VeryVerily, Shizhao, Robbot, ChrisG, Kizor, Altenmann, Sam
Spade, Texture, Gidonb, Blainster, Hadal, Tobias Bergemann, Alan Liefting, DocWatson42, Djinn112, Jjamison, Iota, Andycjp, Karol
Langner, JimWae, Ukexpat, Robin klein, CALR, Discospinster, Rhobite, Leibniz, Ffirehorse, Rama, Florian Blaschke, Gronky, Danakil,
Brian0918, CanisRufus, MBisanz, Walden, Kwamikagami, Mwanner, Bobo192, Nectarflowed, Neg, Mdd, HasharBot~enwiki, Kitoba,
Espoo, Ronline, Harburg, Wtmitchell, Ish ishwar, Cburnett, Maqs, Grenavitar, Bsadowski1, Throbblefoot, Stemonitis, Woohookitty, Wdyoung, WadeSimMiser, MGTom, Gimboid13, Allen3, BD2412, Dpr, Rjwilmsi, Vagab, Quiddity, Hatch68, Commander Nemet, YurikBot, Wavelength, RussBot, Mark Malcampo, Hornplease, Pigman, Chris Capoccia, DanMS, Shell Kinney, Chaos, Gustavb, Denihilonihil, Amakuha, Aaron Schulz, Tomisti, Square87~enwiki, Brz7, Shawnc, Bernd in Japan, GrinBot~enwiki, Nekura, Snalwibma, SmackBot, Jasy jatere, DarbyAsh, Big Adamsky, Canthusus, ElAmericano, Skizzik, ERcheck, Chris the speller, Kurykh, MalafayaBot, Gasala,
Rick Smit, Nbarth, The Moose, MovGP0, Ft. Jack Hackett, Mladifilozof, Scwlong, Martijn Hoekstra, Only, Metamagician3000, Vinaiwbot~enwiki, Scientizzle, Wtwilson3, IronGargoyle, Waggers, CharlesMartel, Armon, JMK, Spark, Aeternus, Nerfer, Kurtan~enwiki,
CmdrObot, Tragen, Mak Thorpe, Gregbard, Cydebot, Reywas92, Peterdjones, SyntaxError55, PKT, Letranova, Thijs!bot, Barticus88,
Marek69, West Brom 4ever, Nick Number, WinBot, Flibjib8, Scepia, Davidfmurphy, BenC7, JAnDbot, NBeale, Nthep, Leolaursen,
Mcerik, Clementvidal, VoABot II, Lyonscc, JaGa, Edward321, MatrixReality, Greenguy1090, Dontdoit, MartinBot, Cutter1400, R'n'B,
KTo288, Earthdenizen, J.delanoy, AstroHurricane001, Riverfield, Uncle Dick, Maurice Carbonaro, Katalaveno, Mikael Häggström, Wikidogia, Smallfixer, Twump, Neodymium-142, Lynxmb, Bellrichard25, Abdullais4u, PDFbot, Kenshin, UnitedStatesian, Sacredmint, Andrewaskew, Falcon8765, Cnilep, AlleborgoBot, Moonriddengirl, Yerpo, Ayudante, Globaleducator, Airhogs777, DeknMike, Reneeholle,
Wrdh, Firefly322, JL-Bot, Twinsday, Sfan00 IMG, ClueBot, Kai-Hendrik, Stonedhamlet, Incrediblehunk, The Thing That Should Not
Be, EoGuy, Drmies, Silent Key, Karanime, Trivialist, Alexbot, PhiRho, Thingg, Versus22, Johnuniq, Editor2020, DumZiBoT, XLinkBot,
Dthomsen8, NellieBly, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Aaronjhill, Fiskot, 84user, Vasiľ, Jarble, Hintgergedani, Yobot, Denispir, AnomieBOT,
Galoubet, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Obersachsebot, Omnipaedista, RibotBOT, Gnuish, SD5, Thehelpfulbot, FrescoBot, Sisyphustkd, Paine Ellsworth, JTeal NZ, Alxeedo, Machine Elf 1735, Winterst, I dream of horses, RedBot, Barras, Jauhienij, Mackie Web, A
p3rson, Reach Out to the Truth, Ew312, EmausBot, 4tytwo, Finn Bjørklid, Yedogawa, Ornithikos, Wayne Slam, Urbanco, Staszek Lem,
Fanyavizuri, AndyTheGrump, DASHBotAV, ClueBot NG, Dream of Nyx, Mbch331, Helpful Pixie Bot, Curb Chain, WNYY98, BG19bot,
PhnomPencil, CCeducator, North911, TBrandley, Deluno, Minsbot, Scott Delaney, CourtChru., Khazar2, Chandadeyoung, Nathanielfirst,
Cwobeel, TwoTwoHello, Frosty, Andymunoz83194, Brother mario, NonEuclideanMind, AmericanLemming, Taylor.Bubble, Thisissparrta, Tango303, LudwidNDes, Zahara33e, Adirlanz, Liz, Themanifest, Sofia Koutsouveli, Biblioworm, Atelfa, Tmzayed159, PuffinSoc,
Lightshrine18, Pjr 2005, Azealia911, KasparBot, Sweepy, Farthead101pooppooop, Florincourt, 8jdparris and Anonymous: 232
9.2
Images
• File:Plutchik-wheel.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Plutchik-wheel.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Machine Elf 1735
• File:Speaker_Icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Speaker_Icon.svg License: Public domain Contributors: No machine-readable source provided. Own work assumed (based on copyright claims). Original artist: No machine-readable
author provided. Mobius assumed (based on copyright claims).
• File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
9.3
Content license
• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
This article is about the concept. For the WorldView
satellite class, see DigitalGlobe. For the WorldView
near-space balloon technology, see World View Enterprises. For the WorldView near-space flight company,
see Paragon Space Development Corporation.
The linguistic relativity hypothesis of Benjamin Lee
Whorf describes how the syntactic-semantic structure of
a language becomes an underlying structure for the world
view or 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.[3]
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.[1]
The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ], composed of Welt ('world') and
Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook')[2] The German word is
also used in English.
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 linguistic relativity theory, in the works of Stephen Levinson and his
team at the Max Planck institute for psycholinguistics at
Nijmegen, Netherlands.[4] The theory has also gained atIt is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and tention through the work of Lera Boroditsky at Stanford
epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Ad- University.
ditionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs
forming a global description through which an individual,
group or culture watches and interprets the world and in- 1.2 Weltanschauung and cognitive philosophy
teracts with it.
One of the most important concepts in cognitive
philosophy and cognitive sciences is the German concept
1 Origins
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
1.1 Linguistics
of a people originates from the unique world experience
The founder of the idea that language and worldview of a people, which they experience over several millennia.
The language of a people reflects the Weltanschauung of
are inextricable is the Prussian philologist, Wilhelm von
Humboldt (1767–1835). Humboldt argued that language that people in the form of its syntactic structures and untranslatable connotations and its denotations.
was part of the creative adventure of mankind. Culture,
language and linguistic communities developed simulta- The term 'Weltanschauung' is often wrongly attributed to
neously, he argued, and could not do so without one an- Wilhelm von Humboldt the founder of German ethnoother. In stark contrast to linguistic determinism, which linguistics (see Trabant). As Jürgen Trabant points out,
invites us to consider language as a constraint, a frame- however, and as Underhll reminds us in his 'Humboldt,
work or a prison house, Humboldt maintained that speech Worldview and Language' (2009), Humboldt’s key conis inherently and implicitly creative. Human beings take cept was 'Weltansicht'. 'Weltanschauung', used first by
their place in speech and continue to modify language Kant and later popularized by Hegel, was always used in
and thought by their creative exchanges. Worldview re- German and later used in English to refer more to philosomains a confused and confusing concept in English, used phies, ideologies and cultural or religious perspectives,
very differently by linguists and sociologists. It is for this than to linguistic communities and their mode of apprereason that Underhill suggests five subcategories: world- hending reality.
perceiving, world-conceiving, cultural mindset, personal 'Weltansicht' was used by Humboldt to refer to the overworld, and perspective (see Underhill 2009, 2011 & arching conceptual and sensorial apprehension of reality
2012).
shared by a linguistic community (Nation). But HumEdward Sapir also gives an account of the relationship boldt maintained that the speaking human being was the
between thinking and speaking in English.
core of language. Speech maintains worldviews. World1
2
1
ORIGINS
views are not prisons which contain and constrain us, they According to Apostel, a worldview is an ontology, or a
are the spaces we develop within, create and resist cre- descriptive model of the world. It should comprise these
atively in speaking together.
six elements:
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.[5]
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,[6] environmentalclimatic conditions, the economic resources available,
socio-cultural systems, and the language family.[6] (The
work of the population geneticist Luigi Luca CavalliSforza aims to show the gene-linguistic co-evolution of
people).
1. An explanation of the world
2. A futurology, answering the question “Where are we
heading?"
3. Values, answers to ethical questions: “What should
we do?"
4. A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action:
“How should we attain our goals?"
5. An epistemology, or theory of knowledge: “What is
true and false?"
6. An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own “building blocks,” its origins and construction.
If the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is correct, the worldview
map of the world would be similar to the linguistic map of
the world. However, it would also almost coincide with
a map of the world drawn on the basis of music across 1.5 Terror management theory
people.[7]
Main article: Terror management theory
1.3
Folk-epics
See also: List of world folk-epics
As natural language becomes manifestations of world
perception, the literature of a people with common
Weltanschauung emerges as holistic representations of
the wide world perception of the people. Thus the extent and commonality between world folk-epics becomes
a manifestation of the commonality and extent of a worldview.
Epic poems are shared often by people across political
borders and across generations. Examples of such epics
include the Nibelungenlied of the Germanic people, the
Iliad for the Ancient Greeks and Hellenized societies,
the Silappadhikaram of the Tamil people, the Ramayana
and Mahabharata of the Hindus, the Gilgamesh of the
Mesopotamian-Sumerian civilization and the people of
the Fertile Crescent at large, The Book of One Thousand
and One Nights (Arabian nights) of the Arab world and
the Sundiata epic of the Mandé people.
Worldview, according to terror management theory
(TMT), serves as a buffer against death anxiety.[8] It is
theorised that living up to the ideals of one’s worldview
provides a sense of self-esteem which provides a sense
of transcending the limits of human life (e.g. literally, as
in religious belief in immortality, symbolically, as in art
works or children to live on after one’s death, or in contributions to one’s culture).[8] Evidence in support of terror
management theory includes a series of experiments by
Jeff Schimel and colleagues in which a group of Canadians found to score highly on a measure of patriotism were
asked to read an essay attacking the dominant Canadian
worldview.[8]
Using a test of death-thought accessibility (DTA), involving an ambiguous word completion test (e.g. “COFF__”
could either be completed as either “COFFEE” or “COFFIN”), participants who had read the essay attacking their
worldview were found to have a significantly higher level
of DTA than the control group, who read a similar essay attacking Australian cultural values. Mood was also
measured following the worldview threat, to test whether
the increase in death thoughts following worldview threat
were due to other causes, for example, anger at the attack
1.4 Development
on one’s cultural worldview.[8] No significant changes
found immediately following the
While Apostel and his followers clearly hold that indi- on mood scales were
[8]
worldview
threat.
viduals can construct worldviews, other writers regard
worldviews as operating at a community level, or in an To test the generalisability of these findings to groups and
unconscious way. For instance, if one’s worldview is fixed worldviews other than those of nationalistic Canadians,
by one’s language, as according to a strong version of the Schimel et al conducted a similar experiment on a group
Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, one would have to learn or in- of religious individuals whose worldview included that
vent a new language in order to construct a new world- of creationism.[8] Participants were asked to read an essay which argued in support of the theory of evolution,
view.
2.2
Other aspects
following which the same measure of DTA was taken as
for the Canadian group.[8] Religious participants with a
creationist worldview were found to have a significantly
higher level of death-thought accessibility than those of
the control group.[8]
3
2.2 Other aspects
In 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[10]
Goldenberg et al found that highlighting the similariand in accordance to their theory of the world. These
ties between humans and other animals increases deathacts, perceived outside that unique Weltanschauung, are
thought accessibility, as does attention to the physical
now commonly perceived as acts of aggression, such as
[9]
rather than meaningful qualities of sex.
openly beginning invasions, twisting facts, and violating
human rights.
2
Impact
The term denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen
as an 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.
2.1
Causality
A unidirectional 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., Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and
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 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.
3 Religion
Nishida Kitaro wrote extensively on “the Religious
Worldview” in exploring the philosophical significance
of Eastern religions.[11]
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.”[12]
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.”[13]
The commitment mentioned by James W. Sire can be
extended further. The worldview increases the commitment to serve the world. With the change of a person’s
view towards the world, he/she can be motivated to serve
the world. This serving attitude has been illustrated by
Tareq M Zayed as the 'Emancipatory Worldview' in his
writing “History of emancipatory worldview of Muslim
learners”.[14]
4 Philosophy
Main article: Belief system
The philosophical importance of worldviews became increasingly clear during the 20th Century for a number
of reasons, such as increasing contact between cultures,
Some forms of philosophical naturalism and materialism and the failure of some aspects of the Enlightenment
reject the validity of entities inaccessible to natural sci- project, such as the rationalist project of attaining all truth
ence. They view the scientific method as the most reliable by reason alone. Mathematical logic showed that funmodel for building an understanding of the world.
damental choices of axioms were essential in deductive
4
5 STREAMS IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN THOUGHT
reasoning[15] and that, even having chosen axioms not everything that was true in a given logical system could be
proven.[16] Some philosophers believe the problems extend to “the inconsistencies and failures which plagued
the Enlightenment attempt to identify universal moral
and rational principles";[17] although Enlightenment principles such as universal suffrage and the universal declaration of human rights are accepted, if not taken for
granted, by many.[18]
laration 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.”[29]
The comparison of religious, philosophical or scientific
worldviews is a delicate endeavor, because such worldviews start from different presuppositions and cognitive
values. Clément Vidal[30] has proposed metaphilosophical criteria for the comparison of worldviews, classifying
them in three broad categories:
Philosophers also distinguish the manifest image from the
scientific image. These phrases are due to the American
20th century philosopher Wilfrid Sellars. This is one angle on the ancient philosophical distinction between appearance and reality which is particularly pertinent to everyday contemporary living. Indeed, many believe that
1. objective: objective consistency, scientificity, scope
the scientific image, with its reductionist methodology,
will undermine our sense of individual freedom and re2. subjective: subjective consistency, personal utility,
sponsibility. So, many worry that as science advances,
emotionality
particularly cognitive neuroscience, we will be dehuman3. intersubjective: intersubjective consistency, collecized. This certainly has powerful Nietzschean undertive utility, narrativity
tones. When our immediately given, manifest (aka obvious) self-conception is shaken, what is lost for the individual and society? And does it have to be that way?[19]
Some questions well worth working on, then, are those 5 Streams in contemporary Amerconcerning the refinement of the manifest view of such
ican thought
centrally important concepts such as free will,[20] the
self and individuality, and the possibility of real or lived
According to Michael Lind, “a worldview is a more or less
meaning.
coherent understanding of the nature of reality, which
permits its holders to interpret new information in light of
4.1 Assessment and comparison of differ- their preconceptions. Clashes among worldviews cannot
ent worldviews
be ended by a simple appeal to facts. Even if rival sides
agree on the facts, people may disagree on conclusions beOne can think of a worldview as comprising a number of cause of their different premises.” This is why politicians
basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the often seem to talk past one another, or ascribe different
axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. meanings to the same events. Tribal or national wars are
These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in often the result of incompatible worldviews. Lind has
the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because organized American political worldviews into five catethey are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than gories:
argued for.[21] However their coherence can be explored
philosophically and logically.
• Green Malthusianism synthesizes mystical versions
If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue
between them.[22]
of environmentalism with alarm about population
growth in the tradition of the Rev. Thomas Malthus
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.[23][24][25] Additionally, religious believers might not
wish to see their beliefs relativized into something that is
only “true for them”.[26][27] Subjective logic is a beliefreasoning formalism where beliefs explicitly are subjectively held by individuals but where a consensus between
different worldviews can be achieved.[28]
• 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.
A third alternative sees the worldview approach as only
a methodological relativism, as a suspension judgment
about the truth of various belief systems but not a dec-
• Neoliberal Globalism believes that at home governments should provide only basic public goods like
infrastructure and security, and do so by marketfriendly methods
• Populist Nationalism tends to favor restriction of
legal as well as illegal immigration to protect the
5
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.
• Ontology
• Organizing principle
• Paradigm
• Perspective
• Social Democracy 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.
Lind argues that even though not all people will fit neatly
into only one category or the other, their core worldview
shape how they frame their arguments.[31]
• Philosophy
• Psycholinguistics
• Reality
• Reality tunnel
• Received view
• Religion
6
See also
• Schema (psychology)
• Attitude polarization
• Scientific modeling
• Basic beliefs
• Scientism
• Belief
• Set (psychology)
• Belief networks
• Social justice
• Christian worldview
• Social reality
• Cognitive bias
• Socially constructed reality
• Conformity
• Subjective logic
• Contemplation
• Truth
• Context (language use)
• Umwelt
• Cultural bias
• Value system
• Cultural identity
• Emancipatory Worldview
• Eschatology
• Extrospection
• Framing (social sciences)
• Ideology
• Life stance
• Mental model
• Mental representation
• Metaknowledge
• Metanarrative
• Metaphysics
• Mindset
• Norm (social)
7 References
[1] Palmer, Gary B. (1996). Toward A Theory of Cultural
Linguistics. University of Texas Press. p. 114. ISBN
978-0-292-76569-6.
[2] “Online Etymology Dictionary”. Etymonline.com. Retrieved 2012-08-13.
[3] Kay, P.; Kempton, W. (1984). “What is the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis?". American Anthropologist 86 (1): 65–79.
doi:10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050. JSTOR 679389.
[4] http://www.mpi.nl/world/ Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
[5] Hiebert, Paul G. Transforming Worldviews: an anthropological understanding of how people change. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008
[6] Carroll, John B. (ed.) [1956] (1997). Language, Thought,
and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf.
Cambridge, Mass.: Technology Press of Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. ISBN 0-262-73006-5.
6
[7] Whorf, Benjamin (John Carroll, Editor) (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press.
[8] Schimel, J., Hayes, J., Williams, T., & Jahrig, J. (2007). Is
Death Really the Worm at the Core? Converging Evidence
that Worldview Threat Increases Death-Thought Accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.
92, No. 5, pp. 789-803.
[9] Goldenberg, J. L., Cox, C. R., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (2002). Understanding human
ambivalence about sex: The effects of stripping sex of
meaning. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 310–320.
8
EXTERNAL LINKS
[23] Cognitive Relativism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[24] The problem of self-refutation is quite general. It arises
whether truth is relativized to a framework of concepts, of
beliefs, of standards, of practices.Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy
[25] The Friesian School on Relativism
[26] Pope Benedict warns against relativism
[27] Ratzinger, J. Relativism, the Central Problem for Faith Today
[10] Victor Klemperer, The Language of the Third Reich: A
Philologist’s Notebook, trans. Martin Brady, London:
Continuum, 2002
[28] Jøsang, Audun (2001). International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 9 (3):
279–311. doi:10.1142/S0218488501000831. Missing or
empty |title= (help)
[11] Indeed Kitaro’s final book is Last Writings: Nothingness
and the Religious Worldview
[29] Ninian Smart Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of
Human Beliefs (3rd Edition) ISBN 0-13-020980-5 p14
[12] David K. Naugle Worldview: The History of a Concept
ISBN 0-8028-4761-7 page 4
[30] Vidal, Clément (2012). “Metaphilosophical Criteria for
Worldview Comparison” (PDF). Metaphilosophy 43 (3):
306–347. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2012.01749.x.
[13] James W. Sire The Universe Next Door: A Basic World
view Catalog p15–16 (text readable at Amazon.com)
[14] https://www.academia.edu/9631989/History_of_
emancipatory_worldview_of_Muslim_learners
[15] Not just in the obvious sense that you need axioms to
prove anything, but the fact that for example the Axiom
of choice and Axiom S5, although widely regarded as correct, were in some sense optional.
[31] Lind, Michael. 'The five worldviews that define American
politics’ Salon Magazine, 11 Jan 2011 . Michael Lind is
Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the
New America Foundation
8 External links
[16] see Godel’s incompleteness theorem and discussion in e.g.
John Lucas's The Freedom of the Will
• GLOGO - Global Governance System for Planet
Earth at think tank Gold Mercury International
[17] Thus Alister McGrath in The Science of God p 109 citing
in particular Alasdair MacIntyre's Whose Justice? Which
Rationality? – he also cites Nicholas Wolterstorff and Paul
Feyerabend
• Diederik Aerts, Leo Apostel, Bart de Moor, Staf
Hellemans, Edel Maex, Hubert van Belle & Jan van
der Veken (1994) "“World views. From Fragmentation to Integration" VUB Press. Translation of
(Apostel and Van der Veken 1991) with some additions. – The basic book of World Views, from the
Center Leo Apostel.
[18] “Governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms enumerated by Jefferson; governments are
created to protect those freedoms that every individual
possesses by virtue of his or her existence. In their formulation by the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th
and 18th centuries, inalienable rights are God-given natural rights. These rights are not destroyed when civil society is created, and neither society nor government can
remove or “alienate” them.”US Gov website on democracy
[19] see Owen Flanagan’s 'The Problem of the Soul', 2002
[20] see especially Daniel Dennett’s 'Freedom Evolves’, 2003
[21] see e.g. Daniel Hill and Randal Rauser Christian Philosophy A–Z Edinburgh University Press (2006) ISBN 9780-7486-2152-1 p200
[22] In the Christian tradition this goes back at least to Justin
Martyr's Dialogues with Trypho, A Jew, and has roots in
the debates recorded in the New Testament For a discussion of the long history of religious dialogue in India, see
Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian
• Apostel, Leo and Van der Veken, Jan.
Wereldbeelden, DNB/Pelckmans.
(1991)
• Wikibook:The scientific world view
• Wiki Worldview Themes: A Structure for Characterizing and Analyzing Worldviews includes links to
nearly 400 Wikipedia articles
• You are what you speak PDF (5.15 MB) – an essay on current research in linguistic relativity (Lera
Boroditsky)
• Cobern, W. World View, Metaphysics, and Epistemology PDF (50.3 KB)
• inTERRAgation.com—A documentary project.
Collecting and evaluating answers to “the meaning
of life” from around the world.
7
• The God Contention—Comparing various worldviews, faiths, and religions through the eyes of their
advocates.
• Cole, Graham A., Do Christians have a Worldview?
A paper examining the concept of worldview as it
relates to and has been used by Christianity. Contains a helpful annotated bibliography.
• World View article on the Principia Cybernetica
Project
• Pogorskiy, E. (2015). Using personalisation to
improve the effectiveness of global educational
projects. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(1), 57–
67.
• Worldviews – An Introduction from Project Worldview
• “Studies on World Views Related to Science” (list of
suggested books and resources) from the American
Scientific Affiliation (a Christian perspective)
• Eugene Webb, Worldview and Mind: Religious
Thought and Psychological Development. Columbia,
MO: University of Missouri Press, 2009.
• Benjamin Gal-Or, “Cosmology, Physics and Philosophy”, Springer Verlag, 1981, 1983, 1987, ISBN 0387-90581-2, ISBN 0-387-96526-2.
• Беляев И.А. Человек и его мироотношение.
Сообщение
1.
Мироотношение
и
мировоззрение
/
И.А.
Беляев
//
Политематический
сетевой
электронный
научный журнал Кубанского государственного
аграрного университета (Научный журнал
КубГАУ) [Электронный ресурс]. – Краснодар:
КубГАУ, 2011. – №09(73). С. 310 – 319. –
Режим доступа: http://ej.kubagro.ru/2011/09/pdf/
29.pdf (http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17087744).
8
9 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
9
Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses
9.1
Text
• World view Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view?oldid=699719280 Contributors: Magnus Manske, SimonP, Infrogmation,
Michael Hardy, BoNoMoJo (old), Andres, Conti, Fuzheado, Greenrd, VeryVerily, Shizhao, Robbot, ChrisG, Kizor, Altenmann, Sam
Spade, Texture, Gidonb, Blainster, Hadal, Tobias Bergemann, Alan Liefting, DocWatson42, Djinn112, Jjamison, Iota, Andycjp, Karol
Langner, JimWae, Ukexpat, Robin klein, CALR, Discospinster, Rhobite, Leibniz, Ffirehorse, Rama, Florian Blaschke, Gronky, Danakil,
Brian0918, CanisRufus, MBisanz, Walden, Kwamikagami, Mwanner, Bobo192, Nectarflowed, Neg, Mdd, HasharBot~enwiki, Kitoba,
Espoo, Ronline, Harburg, Wtmitchell, Ish ishwar, Cburnett, Maqs, Grenavitar, Bsadowski1, Throbblefoot, Stemonitis, Woohookitty, Wdyoung, WadeSimMiser, MGTom, Gimboid13, Allen3, BD2412, Dpr, Rjwilmsi, Vagab, Quiddity, Hatch68, Commander Nemet, YurikBot, Wavelength, RussBot, Mark Malcampo, Hornplease, Pigman, Chris Capoccia, DanMS, Shell Kinney, Chaos, Gustavb, Denihilonihil, Amakuha, Aaron Schulz, Tomisti, Square87~enwiki, Brz7, Shawnc, Bernd in Japan, GrinBot~enwiki, Nekura, Snalwibma, SmackBot, Jasy jatere, DarbyAsh, Big Adamsky, Canthusus, ElAmericano, Skizzik, ERcheck, Chris the speller, Kurykh, MalafayaBot, Gasala,
Rick Smit, Nbarth, The Moose, MovGP0, Ft. Jack Hackett, Mladifilozof, Scwlong, Martijn Hoekstra, Only, Metamagician3000, Vinaiwbot~enwiki, Scientizzle, Wtwilson3, IronGargoyle, Waggers, CharlesMartel, Armon, JMK, Spark, Aeternus, Nerfer, Kurtan~enwiki,
CmdrObot, Tragen, Mak Thorpe, Gregbard, Cydebot, Reywas92, Peterdjones, SyntaxError55, PKT, Letranova, Thijs!bot, Barticus88,
Marek69, West Brom 4ever, Nick Number, WinBot, Flibjib8, Scepia, Davidfmurphy, BenC7, JAnDbot, NBeale, Nthep, Leolaursen,
Mcerik, Clementvidal, VoABot II, Lyonscc, JaGa, Edward321, MatrixReality, Greenguy1090, Dontdoit, MartinBot, Cutter1400, R'n'B,
KTo288, Earthdenizen, J.delanoy, AstroHurricane001, Riverfield, Uncle Dick, Maurice Carbonaro, Katalaveno, Mikael Häggström, Wikidogia, Smallfixer, Twump, Neodymium-142, Lynxmb, Bellrichard25, Abdullais4u, PDFbot, Kenshin, UnitedStatesian, Sacredmint, Andrewaskew, Falcon8765, Cnilep, AlleborgoBot, Moonriddengirl, Yerpo, Ayudante, Globaleducator, Airhogs777, DeknMike, Reneeholle,
Wrdh, Firefly322, JL-Bot, Twinsday, Sfan00 IMG, ClueBot, Kai-Hendrik, Stonedhamlet, Incrediblehunk, The Thing That Should Not
Be, EoGuy, Drmies, Silent Key, Karanime, Trivialist, Alexbot, PhiRho, Thingg, Versus22, Johnuniq, Editor2020, DumZiBoT, XLinkBot,
Dthomsen8, NellieBly, Good Olfactory, Addbot, Aaronjhill, Fiskot, 84user, Vasiľ, Jarble, Hintgergedani, Yobot, Denispir, AnomieBOT,
Galoubet, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Obersachsebot, Omnipaedista, RibotBOT, Gnuish, SD5, Thehelpfulbot, FrescoBot, Sisyphustkd, Paine Ellsworth, JTeal NZ, Alxeedo, Machine Elf 1735, Winterst, I dream of horses, RedBot, Barras, Jauhienij, Mackie Web, A
p3rson, Reach Out to the Truth, Ew312, EmausBot, 4tytwo, Finn Bjørklid, Yedogawa, Ornithikos, Wayne Slam, Urbanco, Staszek Lem,
Fanyavizuri, AndyTheGrump, DASHBotAV, ClueBot NG, Dream of Nyx, Mbch331, Helpful Pixie Bot, Curb Chain, WNYY98, BG19bot,
PhnomPencil, CCeducator, North911, TBrandley, Deluno, Minsbot, Scott Delaney, CourtChru., Khazar2, Chandadeyoung, Nathanielfirst,
Cwobeel, TwoTwoHello, Frosty, Andymunoz83194, Brother mario, NonEuclideanMind, AmericanLemming, Taylor.Bubble, Thisissparrta, Tango303, LudwidNDes, Zahara33e, Adirlanz, Liz, Themanifest, Sofia Koutsouveli, Biblioworm, Atelfa, Tmzayed159, PuffinSoc,
Lightshrine18, Pjr 2005, Azealia911, KasparBot, Sweepy, Farthead101pooppooop, Florincourt, 8jdparris and Anonymous: 232
9.2
Images
• File:Plutchik-wheel.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Plutchik-wheel.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Machine Elf 1735
• File:Speaker_Icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Speaker_Icon.svg License: Public domain Contributors: No machine-readable source provided. Own work assumed (based on copyright claims). Original artist: No machine-readable
author provided. Mobius assumed (based on copyright claims).
• File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
9.3
Content license
• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
