What is your worldview?

[Nyangoro]

I guess we should start with another question first: "What is a worldview?"

There are a lot of answers to this question, some more direct than others, but I'm going to give you my definition. Is my definition more valid than any others? No, but it's my thread, so I get to decide, dammit! Also, I just like definitions that try to cover a lot of bases, and the dictionary is really bad for that. So, my definition:

An individual's explicit or implicit collection of answers to the fundamental questions asked by philosophy; influenced by time, values, society, beliefs, knowledge, economy, geography, etc.; through which all of the individual's perceptions are filtered.

Simplified, it's what you believe about the world around, which then colors your views of everything around you.

Of course, you all probably knew that, at least to some degree. "Worldview..." "view of the world..." it's not a hard concept to figure out. What you all may not know is what your personal worldview is. See, that's thing about the worldview: Even if it's not always explicit, it's always implicit. Regardless of whether or not you know what your worldview is, you have one. It's your filter. It's what you think of any new piece of information you absorb. It's how you rationalize every emotion you feel. From the time you were able to comprehend, a worldview was forming. The difference is whether you know what it is or not.

That's where this thread comes in. Thinking about and defining your own worldview is a good mental exercise. Yes, worldviews can and do change, but that doesn't mean we can't be aware of it. Knowing why you think something is just as important as what you're thinking about. It let's you observe yourself, your own mentality, from a new standpoint. It helps you describe the collection of beliefs that you can then more easily explain to someone else should the conversation ever show up.

So let's get to it.

Again, there are a lot of ways to go about this. I'm going to focus on the traditional branches of philosophy as a basis (because it's easier and, therefore, a little less of a hassle to deal with), of which there are five. Naturally, there are other, nontraditional branches of philosophy (most of which are essentially offshoots from the traditional ones), but let's not get too complicated. The five traditional branches in question are:

Metaphysics - The study of what is real.
Epistemology - The study of knowledge and what we can know.
Logic - The study of rules of reasoning and argumentation.
Ethics - The study of how people should behave.
Aesthetics - The study of art and our understanding of it.

I'm going to toss out logic for this one (the branch of philosophy, not my own personal ability to reason). It doesn't really put forth any questions that would be obviously applicable to a worldview, it just defines how we talk about and study it. To use an analogy, it's like if one branch of mathematics was exclusively about how to write formulas well. It doesn't seek to find any answers or model any pattern, it's just about how to write the formulas that those other things use. Logic is much the same way. It's the method for answering the questions.

Now, I am going to post a bunch of questions for you to answered. These questions are those asked within the various branches. Don't be surprised if certain categories will probably be more represented than others (metaphysics is the biggie when it comes to worldviews).

What does it mean to exist, to be real?

Are properties universal in nature, or does each object have its own isolated particulars?
Reference: The Problem of Universals.

What is the origin of the universe?

What caused the origin?

Does the universe need to exist?

What are ultimately the material components of the universe?

Does the universe have a purpose?

Do we have free will, or are our actions somehow predetermined?

What does it mean something to "be itself"?

What's the difference between something changing and something ending?

To what extent must something change to be considered something else?

What is the distinction, if any, between mind and matter? Alternatively, what is the "soul"?

Do possible worlds exist? If so, can necessary facts (true for all possibilities) exist?
Reference: Modal Realism.

Does the supernatural exist? If so, to what extent, and what effect did it have on the universe and its existence?

What does it mean to exist in space and time?

What is time and how does it work?

What is knowledge?

How does one obtain knowledge?

What is knowable? How much do we really know?

What is belief?

What is truth?

What is the relationship between knowledge, belief, and truth?

Is knowledge more valuable than belief? Why or why not?

What is right and wrong?

How do we know what right and wrong is?

What is the nature of morality?

In general, how should one act/behave?

What is art?

What is beauty?

What is taste (as in, "you have good taste in music")?

What should art be?

Does art have value? If so, what?

Are all forms of art equal?

I know, that's a lot of questions. And it's certainly not an exhaustive list of all the questions asked by philosophy. I also realize that some of these questions are a bit... vague. That's what happens when you get down to deepest metaphysical layers. Now, I don't expect you to write an entire essay for each question, but I do want you to write something more than a one word answer. The reason for this is that writing a more complete thought will let you better understand what you think about the question. Also, make sure to give questions a second thought. I know that sometimes the answers seem blindingly obvious at first glance, but when you give it a little extra attention, you realize that there's more to it than you might have thought originally. It'll give you a chance to figure out and express what you really think about something.

Again, I realize that this is a bit long. I just thought it would be a fun exercise. I'll participate myself, but later. It's getting close to three in the morning, and I'm a touch exhausted from writing this thread in the first place.

 

[Hidden]

Alright, I'll bite.

What does it mean to exist, to be real?

I got interested in this question through Kingdom Hearts actually, through the characters of Nobodies. Here were these (non)beings with all the appearances of a living person, that interacted with the worlds as physical beings, but somehow lacked some intangible quality that would make them "real." What was that intangible quality, deeper than appearance and even physical reality, that made them at their core nothing rather than something? In the KH-universe, of course, the answer was "Hearts," but that doesn't mean much by itself (as far as I know, the game series hasn't developed that extensive of a metaphysics).

It got me interested in some philosophy though, particularly the metaphysics of Immanuel Kant and the difference between phenomena and noumena. Is this world of appearances and scientific observations "reality?" Or, to borrow an image from Plato's Cave analogy, are they merely shadows on the wall? To be honest I never got very far in these investigations. I enjoy metaphysical questions in fiction, but I don't have the critical mind for answering them.

Are properties universal in nature, or does each object have its own isolated particulars?

This is another example of a metaphysical question that I can't bring to any reasonable conclusion. My T'ai Chi teacher recently asked our class, while holding a teacup in his hand, "What is a cup?" Then, when nobody answered, he slowly brought the cup to his lips for a long drink. "That is a cup," he answered himself. It was all very Zen, but it didn't answer the metaphysical question--was it a cup because it shares a universal property with all cups (its use in drinking tea), because we have a category in our minds for "cups" which we apply to all objects we use to drink tea, or simply because we call it a cup? (He was also defining a cup by the way he was using it; is it equally a cup if you throw it on the ground and smash it?)

I can only think about these questions in the abstract for so long before everything starts to smell like copper. HOWEVER, I did spend well over a week fixated on a fascinating Youtube video that discusses much the same questions in regards to mathematics--what is math, is it inherent to the universe or projected onto the universe, and why does math work so well? You should check it out too.

What is the origin of the universe?

Here I go with the scientific theory of the Big Bang, because it provides a physical rather than metaphysical explanation, and that just seems so much simpler and clear cut. The truth is, I don't even understand the physical explanation all that well (which, when you get down to the actual point zero of the Big Bang, sounds pretty metaphysical), but I reassure myself that there are people out there who do, and if I really wanted to I could learn the actual mechanisms myself.

I avoid the metaphysical when possible and prefer the physical explanations of science, even though my own scientific understanding is pretty spotty in places. At the same time, I dislike the encroachment of science into other realms of "knowing." I especially hate the concept of "god of the gaps," whether applied to religious or other systems of thinking, which implies that these methods of knowing are simply holdovers in the increasingly small spaces where science hasn't entered yet, and eventually there will be no more gaps and science will be the only system we need for understanding the universe.

What caused the origin?

This is a metaphysical question I'm not even interested in trying, though I do like one science fiction account.

Does the universe need to exist?

This is another metaphysical question I'm not interested in trying. (Lawrence Krauss claims that it is in fact a physical rather than metaphysical question, but I don't believe him.)

What are ultimately the material components of the universe?

Here I do turn to science again, even though my scientific knowledge is very limited in this field as well. In high school I learned about atoms, which are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and beyond that I don't even know. So to say "I turn to science" is perhaps inaccurate. I assume, if there is an answer, that it is/will be found in science. In some ways, I have a very unscientific faith in science.

This is taking way too long to write. I'm posting the above with the intention of continuing sometime tomorrow.

 

[Wehrmacht]

A lot of these questions would probably take too long to answer properly, but I guess I can pay some mind to at least a couple.

What is art?

Not many people can agree on what art is, but they do feel comfortable giving you examples all the same. Most of them are old works from the Renaissance to the end of the 19th century, which makes sense because from that point on the consensus on what is or isn't art has broadened considerably. A factory urinal in which the artist had no input besides putting his name on it has been given legitimacy as an artistic creation. This consensus in academia and the fine art world hasn't really trickled down to the public at large though since many still reject more "obtuse" works (like a lot of conceptual art) as being art. Overall, the concept of art today has become so nebulous and subjective that the term carries little meaning at times.

It's common to see the term "art" being treated as some sort of compliment, but I find this to be neither useful nor wise, as it makes the definition even more nebulous and subjective. I think using art as a descriptive and then applying value judgments accordingly is preferable. All drawings are art, but it doesn't mean that all of them are good art. With that said, I think "any made-man object that can be enjoyed for its own sake, without necessarily serving a utilitarian purpose" is as good a definition as any, though no doubt someone would eventually find it flawed in some way.

What should art be?

I don't think it is necessarily anyone's place to tell artists what their art should or should not be, since art is ultimately a means of personal expression.

Does art have value? If so, what?

I believe that art as a whole is of immense value to humanity. Our ability to create art is one of the things that separates us from all life on Earth. Art allows us to express our innermost desires, communicate messages in an emotionally resonant way, and is one of the only forms of immortality that we know of. Art is not a "basic necessity", but without our ability to create art our lives would be much poorer for it.

Are all forms of art equal?

That depends on what "equal" means in this case. All art requires different sets of knowledge and skills to be executed properly, and I think trying to estimate the "value" of various forms of art would be too subjective an assessment to be very useful.

 

[inasuma]

I like these two questions the most, so I'll do my best to answer them in the context of the thread. Haven't posted here in a while. lol

What is beauty?

I don't like the question, "what is beauty?" not because it is a loaded question, but that it is unfair. We know that beauty has to do with one's interpretation of organization, with visual or intellectual stimulation, but we all have arguments over what that means to us. Thus I prefer the question, "what does beauty mean?" because it addresses a more complex issue from a different vantage point. Now we can talk about how beauty makes us feel, which in some ways, can more concretely answer the question of what beauty itself is and maybe help us define beauty in a broader sense.

As for the answer to the question, beauty can make us feel many different things. To me, it makes me feel connected to my existence. My view of beauty isn't that something needs to be ideal per se, rather that it be efficient, useful, and revealing.

What is taste (as in, "you have good taste in music")?

Taste to me is what we use as a compass of what we want or want to do. For example, an artist can have great taste, but their work isn't good, although it's clearly inspired by their taste. It's our preferred representation of the ideal form of what we love to listen to, watch on TV, talk about with our friends, do in our free time, etc. Probs missing some parts of it but that's the best I can explain it for now.

 

[Nyangoro]

Yeah, I realize that there are a lot of questions and that quite a few of them would take a while to do any sort of justice to.

That is the nature of a worldview, I guess. It's difficult to condense something by which you base everything into a sentence.

Thank you very much for the honest effort and humoring me on a rather complex topic for a video game-themed forum.

 

[Hidden]

I like what others have been saying about aesthetics, so I'm going to skip ahead to those questions and come back to metaphysics later.

What is art?

Werhmacht's definition, that art is "any man-made object that can be enjoyed for its own sake, without necessarily serving a utilitarian purpose" is good in an (ironically) utilitarian sense, because it cuts out all of the "nebulous and subjective" aspects that make art so hard to define. At the same time, you're left with a very cut-and-dry definition that doesn't seem to reflect what art means to people, which Werhmacht addresses later in saying that art is a means "to express our innermost desires, communicate in an emotionally resonant way" and is even a form of "immortality." From that, you could argue that art does serve a utilitarian purpose, that is to express and communicate. That's why the urinal with someone's name on it, as long as it can evoke more of a reaction than "Why did someone write their name on this urinal?", can be considered art. That's why an artist such as Ai Weiwei, instead of crafting an elegant vase, can photograph himself dropping that vase and smashing it on the ground. This defines art as a means of expression rather than just creation.

But you can define art as a means of creation. When I asked my French teacher what art is, he replied that art is techne, which is a Greek word that can be translated as "art" but equally as "craft," as in the craft of making or doing something. It is the intuitive understanding of working with your hands. So when a sculptor brings form out of formless wood or stone, or a wheelwright carves just the right bend for a wheel, or even when a cook cuts apart an ox without hacking at the bone, these are all expressions of their art, their techne. Think of how we use the term similarly in English: we translate Sun Tzu's book on waging battle as "The Art of War."

I find both of these definitions of art helpful for different reasons, and I wonder if there isn't some way to combine the two.

What should art be?

I don't see a difference between this and the question "What is art?"

Does art have value? If so, what?

I think the answer to this question is also contained in the answer to the question "What is art?" It has, as Wehrmacht says, immense value to humanity. In addition to what both he and I have said already, I also would like to add this quote from a favorite book of mine.

Art was not merely the creation of beauty, for him; neither was it merely a reflection of reality. It was not even the depiction of truth.
Art was the creation of truth.
It is a truism that when one is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The glory of art is that it can show this proverbial hammer how everything looks to a screwdriver--and to a plowshare, and to an earthenware pot. If reality is the sum of our perceptions, to acquire more varying points of view is to acquire, literally, more reality.

As I've said elsewhere, art takes us from being proverbial hammers or screwdrivers or plowshares, and makes us into human beings.

Are all forms of art equal?

This question interests me, because while I would say "yes," different people across different times have said other things. The Romantics in Germany, in particular, elevated music as the highest form of artistic expression, because it was totally free from the constraints of representation and imitation; it communicated directly with the soul in the language of abstract sound.

What is beauty?

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,--that is all
ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

~John Keats, Ode to a Grecian Urn

To be honest, I've never understood what those lines mean. I therefore appreciate this Youtube video with Stephen Jay Gould, where he gives his (more explicit) ideas on the relationship between beauty and truth. It goes on into the next video in the series and ends up sounding similar to what Oberon says above, that beauty is what we recognize to be "efficient, useful, and [most of all] revealing."

What is taste (as in, "you have good taste in music")?

I would just say it's our preferences, nothing special about it. Oberon gives a fairly good explanation I think.

 

[Hidden]

I want to continue this!

Does the universe have a purpose?

I have no problem with a teleological view of the universe, or the idea that the universe has a 'purpose'. What I distrust are views that anthropomorphize the universe (or its 'creator') and assume it has a human purpose. One of my favorite quotations on this comes from the physicist Richard Feynman: "I can't believe the special stories that have been made up about our relationship to the universe at large. Look at what's out there; it isn't in proportion!"

That said, I can appreciate the humanity of those stories we have made up to explain our place in the cosmos, and it's possible that we can never truly appreciate the 'inhumanity' of the rest of the universe. Any search for purpose or meaning in the universe is reducible, I think, to the search for consciousness, for a reality that reflects the human mind.

Do we have free will, or are our actions somehow predetermined?

We actually had a short-lived but really interesting discussion on this about three ago on Intel. My worldview here is informed by compatibilism, which is the idea that free will and determinism are not incompatible. Raymond Smullyan, in my favorite article to reference, Is God a Taoist, expresses it best.

Mortal:
Well, are my acts determined by the laws of nature or aren't they?

God:
The word determined here is subtly but powerfully misleading and has contributed so much to the confusions of the free will versus determinism controversies. Your acts are certainly in accordance with the laws of nature, but to say they are determined by the laws of nature creates a totally misleading psychological image which is that your will could somehow be in conflict with the laws of nature and that the latter is somehow more powerful than you, and could "determine" your acts whether you liked it or not. But it is simply impossible for your will to ever conflict with natural law. You and natural law are really one and the same.

What does it mean for something to "be itself"?

I don't know... maybe look above for my response to "Are properties universal in nature, or does each object have its own isolated particulars?" and my T'ai Chi teacher's question, "What is a cup?"

What's the difference between something changing and something ending?

This is interesting! It brings to mind one of my favorite science fiction novels, Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke, which deals with [spoilers ahead] the point that humanity reaches its 'evolutionary peak'... and then becomes something else entirely. The change, like most changes, is irrevocable, and it marks the end of humanity (as well as the birth of something new). Of course, the question follows, do we need such a drastic change to observe this process happening?

To what extent must something change to be considered something else?

I'm going to point anyone interested here to another great discussion that took place on these forums. The thread is on Transhumanism, but a lot of the discussion focuses on the point where we actually transcend (i.e. leave behind) humanity and become something else. I thought the term "transhumanism" itself was a misnomer, because it aims to improve rather than surpass humanity. Bundled with this, moreover, is that anthropomorphic fallacy I referenced above--the idea that whatever comes after humanity will still, somehow, follow human purposes. Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End has a wonderful passage that brutally disabuses us of this notion:

In a few years, it will all be over, and the human race will have divided in twain. There is no way back, and no future for the world you know. All the hopes and dreams of your race are ended now. You have given birth to your successors, and it is your tragedy that you will never understand them.

But, if we were to free ourselves from this human-centric view of the universe, it is not necessarily all grim:

For what you will have brought into the world may be utterly alien, it may share none of your desires or hopes, it may look upon your greatest achievements as childish toys--yet it is something wonderful, and you will have created it.

It is, as the last man later describes it, "an end that repudiated optimism and pessimism alike."

You'll notice that I answered none of the three questions above, but I hope I at least gave some interesting links and food for thought.

What is the distinction, if any, between mind and matter? Alternatively, what is the "soul"?

I have assumed mind and matter to be the same and have not been moved to reassess this for a very long time, mostly because it is difficult and it makes my head hurt. However, I enjoyed reading this article in the excellent Omniscious Almanac on Gödel's incompleteness theorem and the mind, even though I understand very little of it. Gödel (it seems) did believe there to be a difference between mind and matter, mainly in that matter was 'particulate', composed of parts, while the mind seemed to have access to some kind of infinite unity. "Consciousness is connected with one unity. A machine is composed of parts. [...] Mind is separate from matter; it is a separate object. In the case of matter, for something to be whole, it has to have an additional object." He even brings up the idea of "spirit" or "soul" later on, but I've completely lost him by this point.

Do possible worlds exist? If so, can necessary facts (true for all possibilities) exist?
Reference: Modal Realism.

The Wikipedia article was an interesting read, but I am (almost) completely neutral in terms of belief on this. I say "almost" because I have recently argued elsewhere against such Platonic ideas as the existence of abstract mathematical concepts, but to be honest I've argued both sides and this is another metaphysical question I can't get my head around. Platonic forms are also mentioned in the Gödel article I linked above.

Does the supernatural exist? If so, to what extent, and what effect does it have on the universe and its existence?

Here I retreat into semantics. I consider everything "in the universe" to be "natural," so the term "supernatural" makes no sense to me (unless you're talking about things existing outside of the universe, in which case you have lost me completely). Now, if the question is whether there are things in the universe that we do not/cannot understand according to our model of "natural laws," I'm open to the possibility, but that is the extent of it. I do not believe in any of the most "common" supernatural phenomena: ghosts, telepathy, etc.

What does it mean to exist in space and time?

Wow. Here is a question that seems so apparent, so much on the surface, that I have no way of getting deeper into the question. I just take physical existence as a given.

I guess the only meaningful conclusion I can draw about physical existence (as opposed to abstract existence) is that it is contingent, it comes about through other physical existence, which probably raises more questions as it answers, but that seems to be the trend here.

What is time and how does it work?

On my shelf (somewhere?) I have a copy of Stephen Hawking's A Briefer History of Time, a tiny little volume for those of us without the knowledge or patience to wade through his larger work. One of these days I'll read it.