Αγορά Πολιτών

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.

• The human life is invaluable and sacred.

• No one has the right to bargain the lives of other human beings, in time of peace.

• If and when, even just one human life is being threatened by natural causes, then, the corresponding social foundations while, fully respecting the Human Rights and the Fundamental Freedoms, of the individual who remains in jeopardy, should become mobilized for rescuing that human life.

• If and when, even just one human life, during peace time, is being threatened by anthropogenic and intentional causes, then, each and every other cause should become paused, at once, and all the available, human and material, resources should become dedicated on rescuing this specific human life.

• The priority number one is, to retain and to preserve, the sound judgment of the citizens; as, without citizens' sound judgment, the State, sooner, or, later, becomes destroyed.

• The priority number two is, to protect the State, namely, to preserve the high quality and the high efficiency of its structure and dynamics; as, without a State in excellent condition, the families within this State, sooner, or, later, becomes, one way, or, another, destroyed.

• The priority number three is, to retain and to preserve, the sound condition of each and every family; as, without belonging to good family, the individual citizen becomes, sooner, or, later, degraded to a non-viable social entity, namely, he becomes devastated.

• The Human Rights and the Fundamental Freedoms, can remain non-violated, exclusively, within true democratic societies.

• Peace, Freedom, Cooperation and frugal Prosperity are blessings which may become enjoyed, exclusively, by the members of societies within which, the Human Rights, as well as, the Fundamental Freedoms, do not become violated.

• Human nature gravitates spontaneously towards, Peace, Freedom, Cooperation and Frugal Prosperity, provided an absence of obstructions against this natural tendency.

• The definitions of, the Human Rights and the Fundamental Freedoms, constitute, quasi, technical descriptions of what it means, “absence of obstructions against the, above mentioned, natural tendency”; namely, the less cultivated, an individual is, the more, this individual, needs practical guides, like the definitions of the Human Rights and the Fundamental Freedoms, for behaving in a civilized manner towards his fellow human beings.

Therefore:

• Any kind of organizational form, which is causatively interconnected with unjust loss of human lives, during peace time, should be considered, with no delay, as a parasitic organizational form and consequently, any interaction between the corresponding society and this organizational form, should become minimized, as soon as possible.

• The evaluation of each and every, complex, social organizational form should be, primarily, be based upon the evaluation of the statistical mean quality of the families which constitute the corresponding society, within which, this social organizational form is being founded.

• If and when, one or more, social organizational forms are found having causative relationship with a potential degradation of one specific society's families, then, this or these organizational form/s should, instantly, become, either, modified (if possible), or, excluded from the respective society.

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