Determinants of philosophical worldviews

Post Reply New Topic

What determines an individual's worldview? After all, out of all of the people here, there are a variety of worldviews here, but a question on the dominant trait creating these interpersonal differences is one that still must be determined. Is it something genetic? Is it something taught at an early age? Is it a result of experiences? Is it an arbitrary impulse of the will? Is a person's position determined by rational assent? Is it a result of expected personal gain? How about the views of close-relations?

To what extent are each of these views true? To what extent are they false? Does pie taste good?

Read The Allegory of the Cave by Socrates... good stuff in there about worldview...

It's by Plato.

Plato retold many of Socrates stories because Socrates didn't believe in the written word.
Common misconception.

I'm gettin out my time machine...

The Allegory of the Cave?

I don't see how it relates. I mean, I suppose people are resistant to the change of ideas, but I do not see how seeing one group as being "The Enlightened" and another group as being "The Cave-Dwellers" really improves the situation a lot. Particularly since we do not simply know how to place one group in a cave, and the other as being outside the cave in terms of worldview, as there is no determining force, it is just a brute fact in the Allegory, as we have people randomly in a cave.

I recently attempted to listen to a long exchange between Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett(an opinionated overview can be found here and the actual exchange is 2 hours and can be downloaded from one of the comments below the post), both men are considered brilliant philosophers, but they seemed to communicate past each other. Is one just a blind man in the cave, and another the wise man? But how would that be known? There is also a transhumanist, researcher in AI, and fan of Bayesian inference, named Eliezer Yudkowsky, who openly admits that he got the foundations of his ethical ideas from "He-Man" cartoons http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/02/f ... youth.html , finally there are logical issues with rational disagreement but people still disagree, which leads to problems of what drives irrational human beliefs as the paper argues that the number of truly rational people in existence is very low. http://hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf

Have I been reading too much recently? Probably, but those 3 example seem to make it clear to me that there is a problem in human philosophical worldviews that runs deeper than "wise people vs unwise people". So, the issue just seems interesting.

I think it is most wise to not have a world view. In order to progress, an individual needs to keep his/her slate clean, and free of ideologies. This in itself is a practice which is a sort of ideology but I don't want to get into semantics. It's hard to describe the reality of life and how we learn and change. It feels safer to believe we know it now, but it's just not realistic.

I read a quote that said something like, "The problem with having an open mind is that people continuously try to put stuff into it." Isn't that how we learn though?

Who can learn just by himself/herself without having something to compare their views to? Even though I have an inner voice that guides me, I still need feedback to keep me grounded. The world is changing as it always has. To declare a worldview is to become stagnant in your current beliefs. We are just humans after all, and not omniscient.

So, don't hold me accountable for everything I say. Tomorrow I may change my mind again.

Hang on - even with the math, we're mind blind. Lets not get carried away.

There's a layer, though, in learning where we get the chance to reassess what we're doing and why, based on results.

NTs are just as bad at this as aspies, imho. Perhaps even worse...