- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderThe "direct" is the point, though that point is trivial.
The "direct" is the point, though that point is trivial. The main point is whether you want to call something direct observation or indirect observation, the evidence has to be weighed by human beings using their reason.
So you enjoy playing "Trivial Pursuit"?
The main point is whether you want to call something direct observation or indirect observation, the evidence has to be weighed by human beings using their reason.
So if two people use their reason while looking at the same evidence, is it not possible for them to reach two different conclusions?
Does not their worldview determine how they interpret the results?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadMacro evolution can be observed.
At last a definition for the word.
I can now state that by definition 1 of Observation as given in your post:
Macro evolution can be observed.
God and the existence of God can be observed (by some people) but not involving the measurement of some magnitude with suitable instruments.
Do share...
Originally posted by dottewellWho cares?
I said this was a side-issue right at the beginning.
It is simply not true to say that in everyday life, we weigh the evidence as to whether the things we see are "really there".
And, in my view, it is simply not true to say that we don't perceive things directly. This is hardly an off-the-wall point of view; I would bet the majority of philosophers these days adopt some form of direct realism.
Originally posted by dj2beckerDefine "worldview". If your "worldview" is radically different from what a reasonable person's "worldview" would be given the same evidence, then you have a problem. "A reasonable person" attempts to analyze the evidence in accordance with how he perceives reality but some might have an inability to process information in an efficient manner. Thus, one's views have subjective and objective elements, at least from your own perspective.
[b]The "direct" is the point, though that point is trivial.
So you enjoy playing "Trivial Pursuit"?
The main point is whether you want to call something direct observation or indirect observation, the evidence has to be weighed by human beings using their reason.
So if two people use their reason while looking at the same evidence, is ...[text shortened]... different conclusions?
Does not their worldview determine how they interpret the results?[/b]
Originally posted by dottewellRepresentationalism isn't committed to the existence of sense-data, because it is not committed to an act/object analysis of perception. Our perceptions of the world are mediated by mental representations; in that sense, there are no direct observations. Of course, you are free to call 'direct' perceptions that are so mediated. It's not that bad of a problem.
You are behaving like a child, and if you are suggesting everything is "indirect perception" (i.e. our direct experience is of some "sense-datum" or similar) you are walking into a philosophical elephant trap that far brighter people than you (Hume, Berkeley, Russell and others) have tried to escape with hideous results.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderA person's worldview is basically determined by their 'philosophy of life' which ultimately determines their interpretation of reality.
Define "worldview". If your "worldview" is radically different from what a reasonable person's "worldview" would be given the same evidence, then you have a problem. "A reasonable person" attempts to analyze the evidence in accordance with how he perceives reality but some might have an inability to process information in an efficient manner. Thus, one's views have subjective and objective elements, at least from your own perspective.
A Philosophy is described as:
“1. A comprehensive system of belief that is, generally, divided into five major subtopics:
Logic; Metaphysics (existence of things); Epistemology (limits of knowledge); Ethics (morality); Politics; and aesthetics hgf(beauty).
2. A general principle (usually moral)”
A philosophy, according to Greek etymology is “The love of wisdom”.
A life philosophy may also refer to a general worldview or to any specific ethic, belief, ritual, doctrine, ect.
Branches of Philosophy
The modern classification, which originates with Christian Wolff, is into the following branches
Logic: What is truth? How or why do we identify a statement as true or false? And, how do we reason?
Epistemology: Is knowledge possible? How do we know what we know?
Ethics: Is there a difference between morally right and wrong actions (or values, or institutions)? If so, what is that difference? Which actions are right and which wrong? Are values absolute, or relative? In general or particular terms, how should I live
Metaphysics: What is reality, and what exists? What is the nature of those things?
Aesthetics: What is it to be beautiful? How do beautiful things differ from the everyday?
Thus a philosophy of life should be a view of life and the world around us. It would be how we view the existence of things (how they were created or came into being), what are our limitations in our understanding of things, defining between right and wrong, how we very things as beautiful.
Each person has a different philosophy of life. This implies that each person's worldview is unique.
In short, a life view/world view has the following characateristics:
-It is above reason.
-It is not utalitarian
-It has a compelling character
-It is special by nature
-It is binding
-It exhibits a hierarchy of value preferences
-It is a historical phenoninon
-It is continuously adapted
-It is never finally completed
Originally posted by dottewellPlease elaborate. I'd love to read about this.
You are behaving like a child, and if you are suggesting everything is "indirect perception" (i.e. our direct experience is of some "sense-datum" or similar) you are walking into a philosophical elephant trap that far brighter people than you (Hume, Berkeley, Russell and others) have tried to escape with hideous results.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you are saying that there is nothing that cannot be explained by the use of human reason?
I don't believe there exists anything "above reason" so far as human beings are concerned.
I strongly disagree.
Where did matter and energy come from? Huh?
Originally posted by dj2beckerHe didn't say that, did he? He's denying that one's worldview exists somehow prior to or outside of reason. He certainly isn't committed to the claim (nor does he believe) that human reason has infinite explanatory power.
So you are saying that there is nothing that cannot be explained by the use of human reason?
I strongly disagree.
Where did matter and energy come from? Huh?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrYour worldview answers the following questions:
He didn't say that, did he? He's denying that one's worldview exists somehow prior to or outside of reason. He certainly isn't committed to the claim (nor does he believe) that human reason has infinite explanatory power.
Who am I?
Where do I come from?
What is my purpose in life?
Where do I go when I die?
It is characteristic of a life view that it is also a reflection of man’s directedness, but it is far more than his directedness on the existing reality; it includes rather man’s directedness on the future, on what he ought to be. Because he can dissociate him, from himself, man does not only know about himself as he is, but is also aware of the person he ought to be, and it is upon this that the life view is directed. That is why there is such an unbreakable bond between life and education. Man is on course towards himself. Education plays an important role in this ‘on course process’ and the life view is the compass that indicates that direction to that self.
The life view, man’s answer to the question who he is, refuses however to be restricted between the narrow boundaries of reason. For that reason it is often in conflict with logical thought; and sometimes urges man to cause great problems for himself and even death, simply because he non-logically “knows” that it is right and that he cannot act differently.
It is significant that the life view is often not focused on the useful and therefore not on the comprehensible. It is also not a conclusion at which a person can arrive after careful deliberation. The source of the life view lies much deeper than the intellect: it is seated in the dimension of faith, which is non-rational and rests upon faith and certainty, which do not depend on human circumstances.
In his search for meaning, man wants to know who he really is. He learns this partially through communication with other people and things, but his origin and his destination, the deepest meaning of his life, can only be learned in communication with his Maker, which is what we call faith. This is where education, life view and religion are inseparably one.