The worldview which I prefer |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Συνεννόηση για Δράση - Απόψεις | |||
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis) | |||
Σάββατο, 25 Μάρτιος 2017 22:39 | |||
The worldview which I prefer
Worldview 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. The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung [ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ], composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook'). The German word is also used in English. It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, 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 interacts with it. Worldview remains a confused and confusing concept in English, used very differently by linguists and sociologists. It is for this reason that Underhill suggests five subcategories: world-perceiving, world-conceiving, cultural mindset, personal world, and perspective (see Underhill 2009, 2011 & 2012). Worldviews are often taken to operate at a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion, as opposed to existing at a deeper, pre-conscious level, such as the idea of "ground" in Gestalt psychology and media analysis. However, core worldview beliefs are often deeply rooted, and so are only rarely reflected on by individuals, and are brought to the surface only in moments of crises of faith. [wiki]
From time to time, I hear some comments about the content of the articles which I publicize here, at www.agorapoliton.gr. Those comments have given me the impression that, the thoughts which I express within my articles, probably, are being misinterpreted, up to a certain degree. The probable reason for this misinterpretation may be that, the corresponding readers, consciously, or, not, alienate those thoughts from the worldview from which, those thoughts “drain” rational meaning and they try to evaluate, something which has no meaning, the verbal expressions of my thoughts withing the alien context of the readers' corresponding worldviews. Whenever the public dialog progresses under these terms, the outcome, of this kind of public dialog, turns out to be less useful than expected. Therefore, I wish to clarify the basics of my world view, in order to restrain the extent of the potential misinterpretations of the opinions that I express within my articles.
Therefore:
The, invaluable and sacred, characters of the human life dictate, to each and every one, of us, to secure that, each and every human being, with no exception, may live his own precious life while remaining, intermittently, one more viable social entity. The public dialog could, either, become a, quasi, arena within which, quasi, gladiators may demonstrate their competency in exercising the “art of always being right” (the missusage of rhetoric, verbal fraud, sophists, etc), or, a manger, within which, true compassion, for our fellow human being, is going to become born for making our, currently, violent and conscienceless world, a better one.
Christos Boumpoulis economist
|