Manifest Worldview
Matthew said:
“How do you deal with an obviously and dangerously flawed worldview, (like fascism, or people who use cell-phones)?”
Simple, you try to understand them as best as you can on their own terms and grounds. This for the sake of understanding why someone may think them ‘flawed’ and why another may think them ‘ingenious.’ Finding out what exactly it is about them that makes them thought-to-be ‘flawed’ or ‘ingenious’. All the time remembering what ‘makes’ them what they are is tied directly to your own worldview.
Jon said:
“Thing is, however much interpretation goes into our tellings of history, there still IS a history of the world. Stuff has happened.”
If you are not trying to signify an ‘objective history’ what do you mean by this above quotation Jon? Stating ‘stuff has happened’ still sounds like an appeal to something objective. Can you clarify what you mean?
Jon said:
“These [history and worldview] are intertwined, but I have begun to see my faith as something which confronts my worldview from and within history. What I mean by history, while it involves the actual stuff of historical study and interpretation of it, has more to do with the ongoing stuff of world thought and reflection.”
I still don’t understand what you mean by history here because your definition of history as having ‘more to do with the ongoing stuff of world thought and reflection’ sounds like culture; i.e., worldview.
Am I getting your right here? It sounds confusing to me because although you are claiming not to be appealing to objective history, you still seem to have something like that being appealed to. Are you suggesting there is something outside of worldview-governed history which can function as a kind of history that is not governed by worldview? Or are you saying there are parts of history which cannot be governed by worldview?
If so then, how much of history do you think escapes worldview?
The part that escapes, what is its value? Is it more objective than worldview? (‘stuff that has happened?)
For me, history is just the means by which a worldview construes meaning; it is not objective nor subjective, just a means. Thus I don’t see how any of it can escape worldview without itself becoming or coming from another worldview; if it means something, then it means something to someone. Are you saying there are things that can mean something but mean something to no person? What would that look like, what would it be called and how would it not be still found in a worldview?
Jon said:
“I can't take it seriously when Christians do it to other religions, nor can I take it seriously when it is coming back on theism (what a straw man that is) from atheism, especially when it is assuming some sort of supposedly universal Reason as the grounds for its dismissals.”
Have you considered that ‘not wanting to take it seriously’ might be an aspect in need for critique in your own worldview? If you are not interested in a belief system, then I see no problems; however, if you want to say something negative or positive, I think you forego the ability to ‘take it seriously’ or not. That is to say, I think you have to already take something serious in order to say anything meaningful about anything else (positive or negative).
If you have something positive or negative to say about something; you have already taken it seriously.
I think a problem emerges if one thinks something is negative about something they also do not want to take seriously. Perhaps I am reading too far into this statement but I think it suspect.
Jon said:
“And if one wanted to say that it is the multiplicity or the plurality of worldviews which was the overarching theory that governed how they all ought to intermingle, well, that itself would be claiming to be the meta-narrative, the ONE worldview that contained all others.”
Not if such a statement aims to merely be descriptive rather than prescriptive (as in a judging that implements an ‘ought’; i.e., it ought to be this way because this way is BEST).
Not if the description aims to facilitate understanding and communication among worldviews and not a domination of all worldviews as subservient (either in truth-definition nor importance definition).
And, finally, not if such a statement comes from a self-expressed singular worldview willing and open to change given its encounter with a new thought, idea, argument or other worldview.
These three things spring-forth from a singular worldview as a kind of worldview-standard, it sees, as something valuable to communicate: and only to communicate. Any other person or worldview need not adhere nor care about this, particular worldview’s view of worldview-standard. Although, as being a person from it, if I meet someone who thought negatively about it, I would aim to try and understand (from their stance) why they thought what they thought.
The goal of this conversation is not pluralism or atheism but an inquiry into the structures of dialogue across worldviews, how worldviews constitute meaning and what possibly can be done to facilitate clarity.
The realization that even worldview standards are going to come from a particular worldview is troubling and difficult to overcome (overcome into what exactly?), but not impossible. If it is impossible, then perhaps it still might be attempted.
I hope that sheds some light. To be further clear: I am still just as strong in my atheism as I was before. These ‘talks’ on worldview are aimed at honing my thought, understanding and philosophical skills. My new problem is that I do not want to be just a person who fully understanding my own worldview but an individual who fully understands many worldviews: and ‘fully’ here means understanding another worldview from its own language, terms and concerns in addition to the understanding of it I already have from my own worldview’s view of it.
Leif
Your comment is intriguing. I am very interested in talking more about the sadness of atheism and you final point some more:
“That realization has led me to wonder, even if we DO "make" God from our desire for him to be real, should that be the focus, or should it be our resultant joys and life-purposes which arise from that collective belief?”
I agree with this assessment of religion and this is why I am an atheist. However, in the past I spent too much time stating this as being grounded in the objective-power of reason. Now I want to investigate further into what-possibly-happens in religion and away from what-actually-happens in religion (actuality as a prescriptive) and how this relates to worldview vs. worldview conversation.
I think in the past I was being just as ethnocentric as I was claiming religion to be. I no longer feel the need to convert or fortify my own system, I simply want to understand and perhaps challenge others toward something I think is good. In my case I think understanding others authentically is good. Understanding others inauthentically is not bad nor should it be avoided for inauthentic understanding allows for authentic understanding to blossom later on. By ‘authentic understanding’ I mean ‘see it from their view’ as much as possible.
I think atheism is true and religion is false, but only I have to care about that; thus I want to care about more, to keep learning and never think I have gotten behind anything. There is always the possibility I am wrong, even on atheism, just as there is always a possibility to encounter something new.
posted by Joel at 11:55 AM
7 Comments:
Ooh, yeah, I was pretty sloppy in some things I said there. Let me try again.
Re: "history":
No, I don't want to "appeal" to some objective, supposedly universally agreed upon version of history as the basis for my worldview. I am not sure I want to say I was even making an appeal at all. I think that worldview-ers can look to other worldviews and get a sense of themselves, even be critiqued, shaped, etc. I want to do that. And I think what makes a person a Christian, what defines the Christian worldview at its best, is when they come under or look to the historic person of Jesus Christ for that critique, that shaping.
Now, certainly, that's a reference to a certain history and a certain version of history. This doesn't evade the effect of one's own perspective, or of all the worldviews through which that history has been handed down. But neither do those factors eliminate it as something completely made up. There is a happening, in history, and the telling of that history is itself a happening. I do believe the man Jesus to be the Son of God, and to be active now in the world, through human means, and there are faith-moves that come with that, and in turn define that history for me. That definition is not static or rigid or impervious, but it does have a certain shape, and shaping effect.
Oh man, is that making more sense? I'm honestly not trying to be vague here. At bottom what I do want to clarify is that I'm not making some appeal to objective history, as if there is such a thing.
Re: "Taking it seriously":
Yeah, more just a figure of speech there. I agree with what you are saying. And yeah, I definitely see that "not taking it seriously" can often be precisely because of one's worldview. But what I would say, to clarify, is that if I take caricatured disavowals of other views seriously, it is to press for a better, more empathetic and articulate case to be made.
Joel said: "Not if such a statement aims to merely be descriptive rather than prescriptive."
Fair enough. Yes. There ARE a plurality of worldviews. No one has to say that they are all equally "right", or world-defining, to admit that there are many, and to try to engage as honestly as possible with the ones that one comes into contact with.
Joel said: "These three things spring-forth from a singular worldview as a kind of worldview-standard, it sees, as something valuable to communicate: and only to communicate."
I am fine with the three things, but it is still a prescription to value communication, and only communication, as the worldview-standard. Doesn't this preclude decisions? Doesn't it assume that there is no common world being viewed by everyone? What is the point of the communication? Self-betterment alone?
I mean, I appreciate what you are saying here and place an incredibly high value on communication and mutual understanding and listening as well. But placing communication as the highest thing is prescriptive. It does make a decision about the world that encompasses all the other views. It may not assert itself on those views, but at some point in life it is going to have to decide either to do so, or to retreat. Unless along with it comes a theory that all worldviews, given time and properly understood, will be able to find a common ground that allows them to coexist closely even in contradiction. But on the way to that eventuality, even that is a prescriptive worldview.
I appreciate the goal of the conversation, and the goal of understanding that you are expressing within your atheism. I wish my comment on history were clearer. I'll be fine to restate anything that's fuzzy.
I already responded to Leif in the other thread.
Joel said:
“Now I want to investigate further into what-possibly-happens in religion and away from what-actually-happens in religion”
The notion of what-possibly-happens is quite the thing, isn't it? When we talk about someone's hobbies and personal enjoyments, we are so completely open to the possibility-for-them as an external which can differ from us. For example, I love to go camping because I feel a great connection to nature and feel alive. Someone who hates the outdoors could easily consider the experiences I have as being “what-possibly-happens” for me, but just not for them. The same thing works with kinds of music.
Why is it, then, that we have difficulty making that leap when it comes to worldviews and faiths? If I make the leap from loving the outdoors to loving my new god Molech, Jon will of course NOT believe that my experiences possibly happen. It would run COUNTER to his OWN worldview and faith. As Jon said:
“I can see that many many people in the world 'make' their belief”
It is (or at least feels) so natural for us to examine counter or contrary worldviews to our own as being “made” rather than... let us say “realized.” From there, it is a very simple leap to just disregard the “what-possibly-happens,” because it seems far less important than what we see as “real.” Of course, this is what we are talking about. The possible may be just as real, dependant upon who is holding the worldview or faith.
I don't know how best to get past this, but I think that having experienced two approaches to a worldview allows a better insight into evaluating things. Everyone (that I know) at some point changes their worldview, at least slightly, and so we should simply need to be able to step back and examine our past worldviews objectively. I suggest this as a first step because it is easier to understand our own views without judgment.
This whole thing seems to harken to what people suggest for good argument resolution (like in marriage counselling). The trick is always to “see it from the other person's view.” What is it that the other person wants/believes, and why? When applied to worldviews and faiths, we should not be thinking, “Is this right/true/valid?” under this approach (ie the one you are proposing Joel), but rather we should be thinking, “What do they gain/experience under this view/faith?”
-At least, this is my proposal.
Jon said:
“I am fine with the three things, but it is still a prescription to value communication, and only communication, as the worldview-standard.”
I think you are still slightly missing the point here, I said: “These three things spring-forth from a singular worldview as a kind of worldview-standard, it sees, as something valuable to communicate: and only to communicate” meaning, the worldview-standard suggested is a view of how they see the world, not a prescription of how the world ought to be.
The word ‘only’ is not intended to mean ‘only this can be the case’ (as in a prescriptive sense or as in a moral ought sense) but RATHER:
The word ‘only’ is meant to say ‘only the communication is important and nothing further’ (as in a descriptive sense: as a response to the question ‘what do you think is most important?’ not ‘what do you think ought to be most important?’
It is a subtle yet VERY significant difference.
Jon said:
“Doesn't this preclude decisions?”
It can but it also doesn’t have to.
“Doesn't it assume that there is no common world being viewed by everyone?”
It can but it also doesn’t have to.
“What is the point of the communication? Self-betterment alone?”
I didn’t get into the point of communication, I only stated what the worldview’s worldview-standard is.
Jon said:
“But placing communication as the highest thing is prescriptive. It does make a decision about the world that encompasses all the other views.”
I didn’t say communication is the highest thing. I didn’t talk about anything ‘highest’ I only stated what the worldview suggested as a worldview. It is suggested to gain a response, (to have you respond like this) but furthermore to clarify what is confusing.
Jon said:
“It may not assert itself on those views, but at some point in life it is going to have to decide either to do so, or to retreat.”
Who says so? And why does this have to be the case? Is it not possible that the above assertion not an aspect of your own worldview being imposed upon the one we are discussing?
Jon said:
“Unless along with it comes a theory that all worldviews, given time and properly understood, will be able to find a common ground that allows them to coexist closely even in contradiction.”
Does this really have to be the case? It still sounds to me like you are appealing to something here, but how could it not be your own worldview? If it is your own worldview, then are you projecting your own worldview unaware, or if it is something you are appealing to outside of your own worldview, then what exactly are you appealing to? (I am not trying to be annoying here by constantly bringing up the same thing; I am honestly just trying to get at what you are saying here. Just the same sorry if I am being frustrating.)
To be fair, I can see how your interpretation of what I wrote fits how I wrote it. I claim that it was not writing with enough clarity.
For the sake of space I have only dealt with Jon’s comments thus far.
Joel, I like your response to my question regarding "obviously flawed" worldviews.
"...Try to understand them as best as you can on their own terms and grounds."
The funny thing is that trying to understand crazy worldviews, like fascism, leads to an ability to more accurately -and devastatingly- condemn them. To understand and condemn is much stronger than to not understand and condemn.
Obviously.
You wrote,
"I simply want to understand and perhaps challenge others toward something I think is good."
Really? To me that is a truly beautiful thing.
Let them shine. Let people shine. When they talk let them talk on their own terms, hear them on those terms, and it's so much easier to find goodness in their words. Which inspires optimism. In me at least.
When the world is made up of misguided or foolish people who don't think like I do, it's easy to feel pessimistic. When it's made up of people I could learn something from -even something small- the future opens up brightly before me.
That's how I've begun combatting the sadness of atheism. 'Cos it can be sad. Yes yes yes. Sad sad sad.
I love the new direction of thinking/doing things here on the Mythographer Joel.
word verification:
worstest
Leif said: "If I make the leap from loving the outdoors to loving my new god Molech, Jon will of course NOT believe that my experiences possibly happen. It would run COUNTER to his OWN worldview and faith. As Jon said:
“I can see that many many people in the world 'make' their belief”"
For the record I would certainly believe that your experiences happen. Whether I incorporate your new god as something I should believe in or not is another story, obviously.
Leif also said: "When applied to worldviews and faiths, we should not be thinking, “Is this right/true/valid?” under this approach (ie the one you are proposing Joel), but rather we should be thinking, “What do they gain/experience under this view/faith?”"
I see value in asking that. But is this really an either/or? Is one primary over the other? This view being proposed assumes there is no value in discerning right/truth/validity and it privileges discernible benefits (gains). How those benefits are measured, by whose worldview, and so on, are matters of debate. Or not, I guess, if we are just trying to understand what they feel they are gaining.
Matthew said: "When they talk let them talk on their own terms, hear them on those terms, and it's so much easier to find goodness in their words."
I do think this is a beautiful thing too. And as it seems a fair description of what you are describing as a goal, Joel, and so I must agree with Matthew's assessment of it, as much as I'm pushing some of the assumptions involved. Thus, onto Joel's comments to me directly...
First off, I see what you are saying about the use of the word "only". Yes, the worldview you are describing, but not prescribing, says that it will stop at communicating, and not prescribe for others.
But is it fair to say that this "stopping" at communicating is not, for you, considered a shortfall, but is actually considered preferable or better than prescribing for others?
I know you "didn’t say communication is the highest thing." but were simply stating the worldview to "gain a response" and to "clarify what is confusing."
I also am asking further into it to gain clarity. Doesn't it make a prescription nonetheless? To enter into communication with another worldview, it asks that worldview to communicate, and stop at communication along with you. To not prescribe anything of you. Doesn't it?
I mean, you quoted me saying that "at some point in life it is going to have to decide either to [assert itself], or to retreat." and you replied: "Who says so?"
I would observe that this is usually if not inevitably the case when worldviews collide. Does this "have to be the case"? I don't know. It is entirely possible that my worldview imposes upon your idea of communication an idea of a stalemate that inevitably forces a decision to retreat or assert self. I am having trouble imagining a real world where this does not happen. I can imagine a world where it doesn't always happen, but not a world where it never happens. And the one where it doesn't often happen to me sounds like one where real communication isn't really happening.
I agree with Matthew that often the more we understand someone's worldview the more we disagree. This can be all well and good until our various ways of seeing the world conflict in real space and time situations.
Thus, I don't see how "only communicating", even if it is just your own worldview, and not your prescription, will avoid going beyond "only communicating". If it can, I'd like to understand how. If it can't, I'd like to understand how it proceeds.
This is why I pondered that perhaps your worldview carries with it a "theory that all worldviews, given time and properly understood, will be able to find a common ground that allows them to coexist closely even in contradiction." To this you asked if it had to be the case and suggested I may be appealing to something which may come from my own worldview.
Yeah, I'm pondering the ramifications of your worldview, based on what I view in the world. Yes. But communication must do this. If I am to understand your worldview from mine, I must speak from mine until I have the concepts from yours to utilize, and perhaps then to reinterpret my own.
I'm not projecting unaware. I'm projecting aware. I'm not appealing to my own worldview, but questioning yours from mine. Neither of us is just projecting views, I hope, but WORLDviews. Thus, I wonder how your view handles things that I perceive as inevitable in world history, which are conflicts of understanding that have direct situational ramifications. Thus I wonder how you get away without prescribing, even if what you are prescribing is ceaseless communication.
I am not trying to be annoying here either.
I do wonder another thing still: The desire to communicate assumes a middle ground, doesn't it? Or does it assume I can actually understand your worldview from outside my own? Or does it assume a unified worldview that will emerge if we pursue our worldviews to their common grounds? Or would you like to say it assumes nothing, just aims to communicate. To that I would raise all of the above questions.
Post a Comment
<< Home