Weltanschauung: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/weltanschauung).
It seems to me that a worldview can have three components:
(1) Examined—that is, those perceptions, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, etc. that we have consciously considered, and about which we have come to some (perhaps provisional) conclusions or decisions (even such as keeping them open for further examination).
(2) Unexamined—those of our “ways of looking at the world” that we have not consciously considered; perhaps because (a) we are not aware of them, (b) we have assumed them so completely (e.g., via cultural conditioning) that it does not occur to us to examine them, or (c) they are so important or valuable to us that we are frightened to examine them.
(3) Unexaminable—by this category, I am simply acknowledging that the architecture of our consciousness is a given, and that our perceptions, experiences, capacity for coherent thought, etc. are limited by our neuro-biology. (This would be true, by the way, for any divine revelations as well—for those who make the claim—else they would not be recognizable in any coherent sense, let alone comprehensible.)
A broad enough notion of a worldview would include, not only those issues cited as important by Hal (or other such issues for someone else), but also such considerations as—
(i) The reasons for selecting those particular issues as criteria for a satisfactory (“to be considered valid as such” ) worldview;
(ii) What exactly qualifies as a satisfactory (“valid” ) answer to such questions;
(iii) Why a particular person considers a given answer satisfactory or unsatisfactory. For example, because it leads to moral consequences one simply does not like; or, because it does not fit that facts of the case well; or...
The critical thing here seems to me to not succumb to the error of trying to make an “is” out of an “ought.” For example, something like:
A. If there is no God, then morality cannot have adequate grounding.
B. Morality ought to be adequately grounded.
C. Therefore, there is a God.
Such an argument would generally presented with greater complexity, and the error is sometimes hidden by replacing the word “ought” with words such as “must” or need.” Nevertheless, I have seen it presented.
Now, suppose I agree with A (I don’t, but that has been argued to death on here, and by more capable folks than I). How does that in any way justify my accepting C?
In sum, if we start our examination of our own worldview with preconceived (unexamined or too-little-examined) notions of what we will consider to satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and what we will admit to our worldview on that basis, we may well come up with a worldview that is quite satisfactory to us—but that is nonetheless inaccurate.
______________________________
“Conviction,” seems to me to just indicate (a) that the opinions, attitudes, beliefs that one holds as part of their worldview are ones of which they are highly convinced; or (b) that are so important (for whatever reasons) that the person holding them will defend and cling to them; or (c) simply that a person is sufficiently convinced of the correctness/utility of such opinions-attitudes-beliefs that they become an adequate basis for making decisions.
In a sense, which of these is meant by the word “convictions” is simply an indicator of the level and nature of evidence (logical or empirical) that must be presented before a person will consider changing their “convictions.”
Hal’s last post on page 13 implies that what he means by “convictions” is in line with (c) above.
_______________________________
With all that said, I offer the following Zen story as simply a warning about unexamined aspects of a worldview:
A roshi (I forget who) was sitting in his study with some students. The students were engaged in a conversation about various issues of Buddhist metaphysics, while the roshi sat quietly.
Suddenly the roshi said: “Hey, what is that spot on the wall?”
Students: “What spot? Where?”
Roshi (pointing): “That one, over there.”
Students: “There. There.”
Roshi: “That one there. Right on the wall, there. Can’t you see it?”
Students (straining their eyes): “No, we don’t see anything.”
Roshi: “What! Are you blind?” (The roshi lifts his spectacles off his nose in order to see better.) “What! Now it’s gone!” (Moves his spectacles up and down, takes them off and wipes them with his sleeve, outs them back on.) “Oh. There, that’s better.”
The students look at him disconcertedly. The roshi just smiles...
Originally posted by HalitoseIt's not an argument, it's a way of life!
The old "journey without a destination" argument.
I completely fail to see how I must take some abstract ideology on board in order to make changes in my life. Perhaps you could furnish some real-world examples to show how this must be so.
Originally posted by HalitoseAnd a good argument it is. The argument is really that, if the nature of the final destination is not determined by how we wander (or “wonder”—yes, I saw that pun!) on the journey, that does not necessarily render the journey, nor how we wonder it, insignificant.
The old "journey without a destination" argument.
An example—
Every symphony ends at some point. It ends simply when the last note has been played. Does that mean that I have to consider what I am going to do after the symphony in order to appreciate the symphony while I’m listening to it? Or playing it?
As Alan Watts once put it, if the goal of the symphony were to reach the end, then the best musicians would be those who played the fastest.
What you need to argue is that something is going to happen to me after the symphony is over that is dependent on—not only how I play the score—but what score (or scores or variations) I choose to play. That is, that how I play will shape my karma, or determine the state of my being after death, etc....
Unless you can do that, I simply play as best I can, based on how I perceive my playing affects the symphony itself.
(And I have yet to see an argument that convinces me—including Pascal’s wager. And I think I’ve seen/read/studied most of them anyway. It wasn’t until I really began to examine the idea of an afterlife, that I became unconvinced of it.)
_____________________
BTW, I wanted to say that you were right: my “simple bliss of being” and Lewis’ “joy” seem to be at least kindred experiences.
EDIT: I just saw BdN's reply--more to the point than mine.
By the way, I found it much more satisfactory to believe in personal immortality of some kind, than not to. I have no desire for this personal ego-somebody-self, this experiential point of (self-reflective) awareness, to simply terminate. Nevertheless, I am convinced that it will.
That change in belief has not affected my behavior much, except that I appreciate being here-now much more deeply—and that even in circumstances of pain or tragedy.
On the other hand, I have learned “clear-mind,” and freedom from anguish (dukkha—anguish, uneasiness, disquiet, disturbed mind, anxiety, etc.). Like all such freedoms, that one also requires continual vigilance.
Originally posted by vistesdThe interesting thing is that even a symphony has an order, a direction. And it is important, since the sequence of sounds/notes (to put it simple) is what defines the symphony.
An example—
Every symphony ends at some point. It ends simply when the last note has been played. Does that mean that I have to consider what I am going to do after the symphony in order to appreciate the symphony while I’m listening to it? Or playing it?
If it did not have that direction, that order, it would be an entirely different symphony altogether. The last note is the culmination of the symphony and all the symphony is directed into reaching it. And yet, the journey may have a direction, and it is important, but the journey toward the end of the final note is what matters.
My point? The journey must have a direction, but it is the journey itself that matters.
Originally posted by PalynkaAgreed. Actually sounds a bit Taoist...
The interesting thing is that even a symphony has an order, a direction. And it is important, since the sequence of sounds/notes (to put it simple) is what defines the symphony.
If it did not have that direction, that order, it would be an entirely different symphony altogether. The last note is the culmination of the symphony and all the symphony is dire ...[text shortened]... ters.
My point? The journey must have a direction, but it is the journey itself that matters.
I wonder, though—do composers tend to score the finale before the rest of the piece? Or does is flow from the harmony (I’m not a musician, so if my terms are incorrect, forgive me) of the whole composition as it develops?
Originally posted by vistesdI don't know. I just made that up as I went along. 🙂
Agreed. Actually sounds a bit Taoist...
I wonder, though—do composers tend to score the finale before the rest of the piece? Or does is flow from the harmony (I’m not a musician, so if my terms are incorrect, forgive me) of the whole composition as it develops?
Edit - And I still don't understand Taoism, but maybe that's the point.
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't know. I just made that up as I went along.
I don't know. I just made that up as I went along. 🙂
Edit - And I still don't understand Taoism, but maybe that's the point.
Then I agree with your methodology, as well as your conclusion! 🙂
BTW, my wife, who is a musician, just made a reference to jazz and improvisation...
Originally posted by HalitoseI believe it is against human nature to do something evil and truly believe that there was nothing wrong with what you did. You can't kill your conscience with theories.
I stand corrected.
It's a little unclear from your post as to what you think is incompatible with human nature: evil wishes, the absence thereof, actions influencing our destiny??
Of course this is not the only flaw of that theory. If you could kill your conscience, it might work as long as you are the only one who lives by that theory. If everybody else had the same freedom to murder, steal etc., I am sure people would start to negotiate and make rules even if they didn't have a conscience, because it would be in their own interest and help their own survival.
Originally posted by NordlysThe Natural Moral Law in action.
I believe it is against human nature to do something evil and truly believe that there was nothing wrong with what you did. You can't kill your conscience with theories.
Of course this is not the only flaw of that theory. If you could kill your conscience, it might work as long as you are the only one who lives by that theory. If everybody else had ...[text shortened]... dn't have a conscience, because it would be in their own interest and help their own survival.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
http://www.rsweb.org.uk/ethics/nml.html
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm
Originally posted by vistesdI think different composers have different techniques. But I like to think of a symphony as a building. While it is presented in time, it is in a way static, and you'll only understand it completely if you can have the whole structure in your mind. Within a movement (especially the first movement, the other movements may be less structured), you'll find symmetry, repetition, the use of building blocks, and ornaments. All parts are related to each other and give meaning as a whole. In some symphonies, you'll also find a big structure reaching over all the movements. I wouldn't say that it all leads to the finale, but rather that it is a whole which wouldn't be complete if you'd leave out any part of it.
Agreed. Actually sounds a bit Taoist...
I wonder, though—do composers tend to score the finale before the rest of the piece? Or does is flow from the harmony (I’m not a musician, so if my terms are incorrect, forgive me) of the whole composition as it develops?
Other styles or forms handle the time aspect differently. There's music which is like a river, it flows in a neverending stream. While the symphony structures the time, this kind of music lets you experience the flow of time without changing it. I would see that as more journey-like than a symphony. But it can be a journey which doesn't lead to a final point, it could last forever if the musicians would be able to play on eternally. Since they can't, the music will end at some point, but it may ebb out rather than leading to a final destination, letting the listener continue the journey on their own.
Edit: Glad to have you back, vistesd! 🙂