What is your worldview?

[TinyRedLeaf]

I had wanted to start this thread for some time, but was hesitant to do so as I did not have very clear objectives in mind. Furthermore, the topic has very significant personal meaning for me, and I don't feel inclined to share very much of my private musings in a public forum, even one such as AnimeSuki, with which I am very comfortable.

But, given the constant bitterness provoked by discussions in the religion thread — the same kind of ugliness which also appeared recently in the death and afterlife thread — I decided that enough was enough: The self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics in this community clearly need an outlet to express how they perceive the world, and the meanings that they derive from those views.

It is my hope that, through this thread, people will begin to appreciate how it is much easier to attack other people's beliefs, than it is to build and defend a set of beliefs of our own.


===========================


So, let me explain what a worldview is or rather, perhaps, what I define to be a worldview in the context of this thread.

Broadly speaking, a "worldview" is a conceptual framework that can help individuals structure their experience of life and the world around them. In other words, it's a cognitive model of reality as we perceive it. A worldview, when properly constructed, ought to have explanatory as well as prescriptive power. It should help to organise data from diverse sources in a way that allows individuals to derive meaningful information from the facts they gather. And hopefully, such derived meanings can then help individuals make informed, ethical decisions.

Now, let me make this very clear: A worldview is not a religion, although it could be influenced by it. Neither is it meant to be some kind of incipient world-conquering ideology.

It is, however, based on the concept of Weltanschauung, a term I first encountered more than 10 years ago at university. At the time, it was indeed a very new idea, being the main topic of research at the Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies set up in 1995.

To quote from the centre's introduction:

We can find our way in our own house. We know how many rooms it has, and how they are used. Knowing one's house thoroughly makes one feel "at home".

The world around us can be construed as a huge "house" that we share with other humans, as well as with animals and plants. It is in this world that we exist, fulfilling our tasks, enjoying things, developing social relations, creating a family.

In short, we live in this world. We thus have a deep human need to know and to trust it, to be emotionally involved in it. Many of us, however, experience an increasing feeling of alienation. Even though, with the expansion of society, virtually the entire surface of the planet has become a part of our house, often we do not feel "at home" in that house.

With the rapid and spontaneous changes of the past decades, so many new wings and rooms have been constructed or rearranged that we have lost familiarity with our house. We often have the impression that what remains of the world is a collection of isolated fragments, without any structure and coherence. Our personal "everyday" world seems unable to harmonise itself with the global world of society, history and cosmos.

It is our conviction that the time has come to make a conscious effort towards the construction of global worldviews, in order to overcome this situation of fragmentation.

In particular, some effort was taken to clarify the distinction between what the centre calls "Scientism" and "Anthropocentrism".

Scientism suggests that the positive natural sciences provide the only model of explanation. Anthropocentrism wrongly takes humans as the centre and only purpose of the cosmos.

In the past, worldviews have been primarily "cosmocentric", starting with the birth of philosophy in Ionia in the 6th century BC, a bias still present in many non-Western cultures. Since the "anthropocentric turn" of the Renaissance, the Humanists and Descartes, an rather explicit form of anthropocentrism has dominated Western culture.

One can rightly ascertain a "discovery of subjectivity" here. But through the evolution of our knowledge in the physical sciences and in the human sciences, we have come to see that humanity can only be understood as part of a larger whole.

Scientism and Anthropocentrism, in their extreme forms, are unacceptable. We can, however, agree with Scientism when it claims that the many scientific methods deliver models of explanation that have to be taken into account in any holistic modern worldview. And from the Humanist tradition we can learn how to interpret texts and other cultural products.

Those of you who have read my posts of late will probably see where I'm getting a great deal of my recent inspiration; why I am robustly against the idea of using science and science alone to explain our world and reality; why I believe in the fundamental importance of taking full account of our emotions, and how they affect the way we perceive our world.

This stubborn insistence on separation of "fact" from "emotion" is, in my opinion, one of the key schisms that divides the world today. Instead of working towards a holistic worldview, we are tearing ourselves apart over many issues that we may, in fact, actually agree on at a more fundamental level.


===========================


So, here's where we'll start. Tell the forum about your "worldview". When trying to describe it, check if it can answer some, if not all, of the following questions:

(1) Perception
What is the nature of our world, as you see it? How do you think it is structured and how does it function?

(2) History
Why do you think our world is the way it is, and not different? Why are we the way we are, and not different?

(3) Beliefs
Why do we feel the way we feel in this world, and how do we assess global reality, and the role of our species in it?

(4) Ethics
How are we to act and create in this world? How, and in what different ways, can we influence the world and transform it? What are the general principles by which we should organise our actions?

(5) Goals
What future is open to us and our species in this world? By what criteria are we to select these possible futures?

(6) Explain
How are we to construct our image of this world in such a way that we can come up with answers to (1), (2), and (3)?

(7) Actions
What are some of the partial answers that we can propose to these questions?

[LMF]

My worldwide view? I don't have one really. Or it's just me. I don't know. Feels like everything is the same. Need to search more about this "view?"

[Tsuyoshi]

I would say that my perception of the world and it's nature is one that's been developed over time. As a species, humans have evolved from very primitive, ape like creatures to what we are now. We've grown more intelligent and generally more creative in our way of life. We went from using basic tools of hunting, such as hammers made of out rocks and sticks, and allowed our creativity to spur us into creating deadly tools for battle, such as the innumerable types of firearms and others kinds of weapons such as swords, knives, you name it. Of course, we didn't go and develop only tools of war. We also created better methods of transport, going from the wheel, which was made out of stone, on to enabling man to fly, a dream that has existed among humans since ancient times. Our intelligence and creativity grew. But with it a sense of power and domination.

We became so powerful as a species thanks to these tools and our intelligence that we moved on from simple hunting in enemy territory. We became conquerors, often using our intelligence and our tools to fight amongst each other for territory and taking over other people. Why do we do this could be for a number of reasons but all of them stem from one central human thought: to survive. People who come from a certain part of the world do not have the same kind of resources that other countries do, for instance oil. Not every country can benefit from as much oil as others within their own land. And so they travel and conquer lands that yield an abundant amount of oil. This is the period of colonialization, where humanity's survivalist nature was the most evident throughout. This nature still exists in many people today. We, as individuals, fight to gain a position of better standing in life because we want to survive, our success possibly gained at the expense of others.

However, there are still people who care for their next of kin. A rare breed they may be but despite all the things that are happening these days I still have faith that there are good people who are ambitious for the sake of their loved ones rather than for themselves. Much of it has to do with their beliefs. Now I don't mean this as a reference to people's religion, but their own belief about the world in general. There are people who want to do good things, to be good because they understand that helping others and not just themselves will yield many more benefits than just helping yourself in the long run. You will have people that care for you when you are in trouble, and you will have their respect above all else. People who only care for themselves, who fight for themselves are often the ones who have no friends and limited to having acquaintances.

But that being said, religious beliefs have had a lot to do with the way the world has been shaped to become as it is now. The vast majority of people follow a certain creed because it is implied in the religious texts they follow. Often, they have defended their views against the views of other religions, sometimes violently. Again this comes from the instinct of survival. If there is a group of people that threaten the very foundations of another group's beliefs, it may cause there to be a rift among the group, and so they oppose the other group with force. And more often than not, people aren't easily willing to disbelieve something they think has been written by the forces up above. This doesn't mean religion always leads to conflict. It only does if men allow it to, but if one were to truly believe in the moral code written in a religious text, they have potential to do great things for others as well. As currupt as some church organizations are, there are other organizations that have helped a great number of people from starvation and/or a miserable life in general. Things like these are what renew and strengthen my faith in people. I may choose not to believe in everything the bible says, but I do believe in people's actions. They may have done it because they are religious, but if their religion encourages them to be good, then it's not altogether a bad thing to believe in and I respect that.

As to what kind of future we as a human race may look forward to, there are billions of answers. The future is always in motion and nobody can tell what's going to happen. As things are now, I have a strong feeling there will be a worldwide revolution in the years to come. I can't say exactly how long it will be. I might even be dead due to old age before it happens, but there are many hardships the world is going through right now because of the way things are, what with politics being controlled by people starving for personal power, the recent economic crisis which, if by some miracle we recover from, will be succeeded by many other turmoils, possibly of greater magnitudes. But many people are becoming tired of this mess as the gap between the rich and the poor is becoming ever larger, mainly due to globalization. But if people were able to understand that all humans walk the earth as they do and look past people's beliefs and see them for who they are, we may reach an age where people can better understand each other, look out for each other and the number of conflicts will be greatly diminished.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Those of you who have read my posts of late will probably see where I'm getting a great deal of my recent inspiration; why I am robustly against the idea of using science and science alone to explain our world and reality; why I believe in the fundamental importance of taking full account of our emotions, and how they affect the way we perceive our world.

This stubborn insistence on separation of "fact" from "emotion" is, in my opinion, one of the key schisms that divides the world today. Instead of working towards a holistic worldview, we are tearing ourselves apart over many issues that we may, in fact, actually agree on at a more fundamental level.

I am together with you on defending complexity and holistic approaches. While I've been conflicting scientists here Animesuki most of the time; elsewhere I keep presenting facts to peoples long become purely emotional.

So, here's where we'll start. Tell the forum about your "worldview". When trying to describe it, check if it can answer some, if not all, of the following questions:

(1) Perception
What is the nature of our world, as you see it? How do you think it is structured and how does it function?

I see the Cosmos as constituted of void and matter, interacting accordingly to Newtonian Physics.
I feel the Cosmos as full of wonders, beautiful phenomena, and other which are regretful.
I understand the Cosmos as being even more complex and full of mysteries than what I can apprehend.

Notice that I made some distinction regarding perception, but I think those are key ones, for many mix those and illegitimately label their or other perception as something it isn't.

(2) History
Why do you think our world is the way it is, and not different? Why are we the way we are, and not different?

I am quite neutral regarding a "fine tuned universe". I admit the Big Bang Theory as a workable hypothesis, as well as proposed mechanism for baryonic matter evolution, star and planets generations.
Regarding Life, I still feel it's t = 0 instant holds mystery (and both my hand and face ache for all the facepalming I've been trough with recurring panspermia propositions). I admit Evolution as workable tool for explaining the dynamic of Life.
Regarding Mankind, I see many of it's hard wiring rooted in biology and general ecological mechanism.
For History, I see it's beginning as the special ability of Humanity to go past these biological and ecological mechanisms limitations.
To explain the World we live in, crucial events would be the appearance of the Individual in History, and the subsequent rise of individualism. Of particular interest is the evolution of social structures into allowing for behavior otherwise lethal to a society's or even the species propagation.

(3) Beliefs
Why do we feel the way we feel in this world, and how do we assess global reality, and the role of our species in it?

While Cosmologist world view can be assumed as a primordial state, even then, Man is always the measure of all things.
Following that, Anthropocentrism and subsequent Humanism are a definite turning point. Our perspective is thus irremediably Anthropocentrist. Those trying to deny this World view generally end up simply extending it past the Human specie.

(4) Ethics
How are we to act and create in this world? How, and in what different ways, can we influence the world and transform it? What are the general principles by which we should organise our actions?

I go by The Golden Rule, albeit I am well aware of it's limitations when dealing with more predatory entities.

(5) Goals
What future is open to us and our species in this world? By what criteria are we to select these possible futures?

I see specie and culture propagation as desirable, be it directly (preferably) or indirectly. While specie propagation has some fair prospects (at least indirectly), I have some concerns regarding that of culture, especially in the light of material for direct transmission and the issues regarding unilateral application of The Golden Rule within or between cultures; experience having proved that Civilizations are mortal.

(6) Explain
How are we to construct our image of this world in such a way that we can come up with answers to (1), (2), and (3)?

As long as I am concerned, my image of the World would be constructed by Natural Philosophy (epistemology I see as something too often neglected). In more conventional terms, I am a Natural Scientist, with good basics in Hard Sciences, and a wider interest in History, Philosophy, Anthropology and Ethnology.
I consider the study of religious phenomena to be important in understanding Humans, and in this respect I am a Catholic, ever curious of my own Faith and of others.

(7) Actions
What are some of the partial answers that we can propose to these questions?

Hmm, the only question I see as relevant is the issue of past-Humanism. For an answer I'd say that proselytism shouldn't fall within The Golden Rule taboos, on the contrary.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I had wanted to start this thread for some time, but was hesitant to do so as I did not have very clear objectives in mind. Furthermore, the topic has very significant personal meaning for me, and I don't feel inclined to share very much of my private musings in a public forum, even one such as AnimeSuki, with which I am very comfortable.

But, given the constant bitterness provoked by discussions in the religion thread — the same kind of ugliness which also appeared recently in the death and afterlife thread — I decided that enough was enough: The self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics in this community clearly need an outlet to express how they perceive the world, and the meanings that they derive from those views.

What? You forgot what they programmed you back in the factory taught you in school?

According to line 1618, the syntax iterates "Never discuss anything about religion or ideology unless you can be sure of all the facts within the proposing and opposing points."

And with the logic gate of "One can never be sure of facts surrounding religion or ideology since they are simply opinion agreed upon by the majority", the output should be "Never discuss anything about religion or ideology in length".

So, here's where we'll start. Tell the forum about your "worldview". When trying to describe it, check if it can answer some, if not all, of the following questions:

I would probably hit the character limit if I discuss everything in detail, so this is gong to be very much condensed :

(1) Perception
What is the nature of our world, as you see it? How do you think it is structured and how does it function?

The nature of the world is basically a "random shift" - ideas come and go, and the human mind, if viewed as collective on a macro level, constantly yearn for something new, which is what spurs discovery and invention.

Regarding it structure, I would say it adheres to the Chaos Theory, taking into account the Butterfly effect, and the arrangement of Pascal's Triangle.

And the functionality of the world is pretty like the Schrodinger's catgirl with reference to correspondent, classical and relativistic limits, there are so many variables we take into account that we either completely ignore the detail out of confusion, or lose sight of the big picture.

(2) History
Why do you think our world is the way it is, and not different? Why are we the way we are, and not different?

History is a recorded set of events that has happened before. Whatever wars or wranglings or witchburnings (Alliteration unintended) are a consolidated cause of human behaviour under the simple premise of two things : greed and fear. Japan and Italy joined the Axis in WWII out of greed, and US and Russia signed the SALT treaty out of fear that the wingnuts in their respective administrations may blow the world we know to bits.

The reason why we are the way we are is the activity as dictated by Le Chatelier's Principle, in which each and every individual life is a system. The occurences are attempted changes to our lives, and the actions we take counteract to the change to our lives. Simple as that.

Here is a list of explanations to all of your actions, and why some are radical, while most are minimal.

Refer to Pascal's Triangle for more details on the occurence of events - everything comes from a beginning, and depending on which place one looks at, it leads to a few possible ends. Also, it can be also applied to the socio-cultural scale of why a single human being can make alot of difference in society, while some can't, by treating the numerical value as an impact value.

(3) Beliefs
Why do we feel the way we feel in this world, and how do we assess global reality, and the role of our species in it?

I would like to debunk the word "reality" by asking a very simple question - how would one view that something is real? Something that you can sense with your five senses, or something you can view in your "mind's eye" and others cannot?

It takes back to the first point of "perception" - there are many ways to see a single event, it is how one actually react to it that makes a whole lot of difference.

Boiling down to the stock, the human race's role in the world is to coexist with everything else while maintaining the uniqueness in each and every of our culture and race as a form of diversity. Each and every variation adds flavour to life and is a potential trigger for new ideas, which will lead to new inventions.

(4) Ethics
How are we to act and create in this world? How, and in what different ways, can we influence the world and transform it? What are the general principles by which we should organise our actions?

As the world continually changes and shift, we cannot adhere to a strict set of rules. The best we can do is simply to base our beliefs around it and moderate ourselves according to circumstances, but not to deviate radically from it.

The two basic and effective means of moderation I find are to be from Gandhism - compassion and the Golden Rule (I was never a believer in nonviolence). As long as we keep others in mind and take care not to ellicit undesirable responses from others, our rules we made for ourselves are pretty flexible.

We cannot change the world as one person, but we can change our view of the world.

(5) Goals
What future is open to us and our species in this world? By what criteria are we to select these possible futures?

If I am to simply iterate a future possible for us, it would be no different from crystalballing - a fun activity that makes no worthwhile value to our lives.

Making a future is a choice which everyone has a freedom in. Follow the Golden rule, show some compassion, and learning to listen should decrease any conflicting goals each and everyone has.

(6) Explain
How are we to construct our image of this world in such a way that we can come up with answers to (1), (2), and (3)?

Simple construct it the way we want to see it become, then tweaking it as we learn more, see more, do more. Simple.

(7) Actions
What are some of the partial answers that we can propose to these questions?

1. Secure a personal mental, emotional and financial stability.
Go out there and learn to do things that you find interesting, then filter out the stuff you actually ENJOY doing. Monetise the hobby, rinse, wash and repeat.

2. Never judge if a glass half-full or half-empty just by looking at it, measure it.
The water molecules at the meniscus add to the total volume of the water. Usually it is neither half-full nor half-empty, it is what other people convince you to perceive it as. Hardly anything is blackwhite in this world.

3. Doubt is a benefit. The real thoughtcrime are absolution and blatant denial.
You can agree with something but not wholly. Correlation does not imply causation, the more formal way of acknowledging something is still a working relationship. How you establish it is up to you.

[Kafriel]

(1) Perception
What is the nature of our world, as you see it? How do you think it is structured and how does it function?

It's a huge toy waiting for you. The more you delve into its gears, the more excited you get...but if you break it apart in order to fully understand it, getting it back together will be a pickle. So, I only focus on what I see with both eyes and mind, all the while paying attention to how I work in it as well. People and the world exist in the same system, their paths are connected with everyone's actions.

(2) History
Why do you think our world is the way it is, and not different? Why are we the way we are, and not different?

We are as is, because the world is such. In a different environment, we might have adapted accordingly but never make it to where we are today. At the same time, I believe that people are always floating over an ocean of decisions, each able to affect the world but only one making the difference.

(3) Beliefs
Why do we feel the way we feel in this world, and how do we assess global reality, and the role of our species in it?

This is the most important question to me. War isn't just the physical action of butchery and conquest, it happens everyday in every conversation, people trying to convince others about the world. Global reality cannot exist, since most people got their own ideas, and they keep changing all the time. This is a question every person has to answer for themselves, it's like finding out the meaning of life.

(4) Ethics
How are we to act and create in this world? How, and in what different ways, can we influence the world and transform it? What are the general principles by which we should organise our actions?

Doing things arbitrarily is good enough. Drop an atomic bomb trying to make progress, you kill millions...but you wake up everyone. Not saying it's a good thing, but it does put a break on the way down, you know? From that point on, people will try to get better, go back to being human, care for each other till temptation takes over. I can influence the entire planet with a single project, or encouraging someone else to make a breakthrough with just a few words that might end up getting you free energy and abundant food...or waste an astronomical amount of funds that could have helped people in need, who knows.

(5) Goals
What future is open to us and our species in this world? By what criteria are we to select these possible futures?

Our future can be amazing, I could go right up in wall street and grab some 100 billion bucks and buy infinite tons of food to send to all the hungry children in the world. Then again, I guess they won't let me do something like that. Can I get more people to aspire to my ideas, can I send them to war of all forms? Is it right to do all that? What if people start deviating from my original goal, because they all got their own personal views about everything? Don't know till I try, my best bet right now is this post

(6) Explain
How are we to construct our image of this world in such a way that we can come up with answers to (1), (2), and (3)?

Don't talk in absolutes, give people a range of choices, let them choose, but also let them know that they can create their own using their experience in the world. As a personal note, never forget how to doubt others.

(7) Actions
What are some of the partial answers that we can propose to these questions?

I bet you know those already, they're the base ideas out of which people create their own existential theories and way of life (i.e. the range of choices mentioned in 6).

[Kusa-San]

Hum, I don't know if it's the right thread to say that but I want to say it anyway. So how I see this world ? I think we're all part of a complex system which is called ecosystem. Everything in this syetm has an importance. the bactery to the whale, the sand to the moutain. Everything is part of this complex and yet fragile system. Us, human are nothin more than one of this thing. We are not above, we are part of this sytem and nothing more.

Sadly, we have forgotten this and that's why your actual society is just an abreation. We call some poeple primitive when in fact these so called primitive understand how the world work, better, than most of the people around the world.

Since this society is an abreation and that an aberation can't last forever, I think (no, I really hope, yes, I really really really hope) this society will collapse soon. Sadly and considering the amount of people who undertand nothing about this world and only think about themselve, I think that we can't really hope for a peaceful transition to a better society. The more the society will collapse, the more there will be war and at the end we will surely have a huge cataclysm whick will mostly kill 80% of the humanity. Yes sorry,= but considering that even an economical crisis can't make people understand how bad our society is, I think the only way is that you put them a gun against their head.

Now, about myself, as you can see, I really hate the actual society and how everything works. I have a really hard time to live in this society because I know that's not how it's supposed to be. But I have decided that I will do my best to change that. That's why I refuse to take part in this f*****g society. There are other path, I know that and evebn if these path are not easy, I will follow one of them. However, for the moment, I prefer to learn everything that I can about these path before following one of them.

Ah, I'm felling a lot better now

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Those of you who have read my posts of late will probably see where I'm getting a great deal of my recent inspiration; why I am robustly against the idea of using science and science alone to explain our world and reality; why I believe in the fundamental importance of taking full account of our emotions, and how they affect the way we perceive our world.

This stubborn insistence on separation of "fact" from "emotion" is, in my opinion, one of the key schisms that divides the world today. Instead of working towards a holistic worldview, we are tearing ourselves apart over many issues that we may, in fact, actually agree on at a more fundamental level.

I still do not understand where you derive your 'facts' from and if your references are truly accurately defined as fact. It could be logically true(or false), but my current weak understanding can only call it 'bare assertion'.

And I also don't understand this mentioned 'separation'. Why is emotion left out of the sets known as propositional fact? Emotion may produce inconsistent and irrational norm-considered sets of behaviors but I don't see how that can influence and separate it from fact.

The common pattern is that 'emotion', a root of subjectivity, produces a groundwork of meaning and its partner(sometimes enemy) 'reason' serves to temper and guide this "illogical" multi-directed motivational energy. This is assuming objective purpose doesn't exist. Nevertheless, the natural tendency for humans to create meaning often serves as an adequate substitute-'energy resource'.

There are also innate biological motivation-devices such as hunger and so on. Though, it is an error to limit humans to mere survival machines. There is still money and the pleasures of materialistic gains after that.

Still, emotion is an objective aspect of considered reality, which means it logically functions its purpose.

If my ramble had no connection to your intended meaning, then it doesn't matter. I wanted to express stuff anyways.

(1) Perception
What is the nature of our world, as you see it? How do you think it is structured and how does it function?

Though I'm prone to say "I don't know" for simplification purposes, the world I am sure has logic to sustain it. Therefore, the prime venture towards understanding is the identification of the logic of everything.

Everything functions within the realm of logic. Emotion, too, is logical.

Otherwise there is 'nothing' to identify. There are no situation or 'states' or movements or anything. There is nothing. Complete Nothingness is therefore impossible. 0 is not nothing. 0 is still something, as an idea, even if there is no one to perceive it, even without so called 'perception'.

(2) History
Why do you think our world is the way it is, and not different? Why are we the way we are, and not different?

Without religion:

The only thing I know is that all the complex causalities involved to form the reasoning behind those questions, I'm sure, is a 'flood of math' my meager brain cannot and wish not to comprehend. It essentially asks the entire origin of everything. Regardless, I hear a more popular explanation is that the world, or universe rather, was always the way it is. It never began, it was always existing.

Perhaps there was never a reason to begin with, or maybe there was inherent unquestionable 'meaning' that never originated from anything. Perhaps it always stood by itself as an objective form.

Selection of origination conforms to the same theory. Aside from that, Hitler affected us, Obama affected us. In other words, we affect ourselves.

(3) Beliefs
Why do we feel the way we feel in this world, and how do we assess global reality, and the role of our species in it?

This is somewhat like the other question.

As I have no comprehension of an 'objective reason', I'll just stick with "we and the external world choose our role". By our freedom, we have chosen what to feel. And by nature's command, it has also chosen what we should rightly feel. The combination of both becomes an origin of contradiction of what things should be and what things independently are.

The world chooses our opportunities via consequence, nature, probability and the decisions of other humans. If there is grass, we can eat grass. If there are better food such as apples, then we can eat apples. If there's better jobs for us, then we shift jobs. If we are born blind, then we have been 'chosen' to be blind. and to repeat, our role is a matter of our freedom, limited but still slightly open.

(4) Ethics
How are we to act and create in this world?

Relative to the person<---I'm a bit tired of answering questions so I'll just go with that.

How, and in what different ways, can we influence the world and transform it?

Anything not limited by logic is allowable. Killing people seems to be a popular selection of 'influence'.

What are the general principles by which we should organise our actions?

It depends if there is an objective principle. It depends on the individual's standards, which can depend on society's standards.

(5) Goals
What future is open to us and our species in this world? By what criteria are we to select these possible futures?

Oh god, so many questions....

See #4

(6) Explain
How are we to construct our image of this world in such a way that we can come up with answers to (1), (2), and (3)?

Logic. The most logical worldview we can come up with.

(7) Actions
What are some of the partial answers that we can propose to these questions?

I don't understand this question...and I'm tired.

[Nightbat®]

(1) Perception
What is the nature of our world, as you see it? How do you think it is structured and how does it function?

Watch discovery, it's no different for fleas, carp, tigers or sloths

ofcourse there are always some loudmouths with a 'worldview' trying to rally the masses for their ideas, plans and ambitions
and that's where "the nature of our world" throws a wrench in the machine
Because these people assume we have the mentality of ants

[Decagon]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

So, here's where we'll start. Tell the forum about your "worldview". When trying to describe it, check if it can answer some, if not all, of the following questions:

(1) Perception
What is the nature of our world, as you see it? How do you think it is structured and how does it function?

(2) History
Why do you think our world is the way it is, and not different? Why are we the way we are, and not different?

(3) Beliefs
Why do we feel the way we feel in this world, and how do we assess global reality, and the role of our species in it?

(4) Ethics
How are we to act and create in this world? How, and in what different ways, can we influence the world and transform it? What are the general principles by which we should organise our actions?

(5) Goals
What future is open to us and our species in this world? By what criteria are we to select these possible futures?

(6) Explain
How are we to construct our image of this world in such a way that we can come up with answers to (1), (2), and (3)?

(7) Actions
What are some of the partial answers that we can propose to these questions?

My viewpoint comes from a rather nonreligious but culturally syncretic Chinese background. Growing up, I admired the sciences as theoretical work aside they described the world in tangible ways supported by a physical record.

Summarized; the world is simply a collection of heavy elements leftover from the death of a star epochs ago. Life as we know it is a cosmic whim, and the anthropological record is just a paragraph in the book. I don't care about the future or about history. I care that we help people who need help now and improve the general human condition where it needs to be improved.

This is probably a function of how I was raised, but I believe people can be self regulating in matters of morality. Certainly there are people with tendencies to take advantage of other people or abjectly exploit them, but there are also people with inexplicable generosity and charity. I choose to believe in people who willingly go out of their way to help others in need. Why? I have been in rather hopeless situations where it feels like one overbearing individual can ruin a whole family for personal gain, only to be saved through a network of friends and the help of a few skilled individuals all pooling their efforts with nothing to gain in the end. As much as there are people who would ruin a family so they could make the payments on their third home and sixth car for one more year, there are people who would give up weeks and months of their lives to fight against them.

I don't particularly give a damn about the future. We'll get there when we get there. As humans we have made rather heavy-handed changes to certain systems in the world and as humans I am sure we can make other heavy-handed changes to alleviate those effects and continue to survive. Religious or not we are a hardy species that changes the world to suit our needs and comforts.

It feels rather tedious to follow a numbered structure, so I apologize if there are extraneous elements.


Extraneous element:
I value time. In a life you have a certain amount of time. People who spend time of their lives helping others are people I hold in high regard and, personally, I believe in genuinely good people in perhaps the same way other people may believe in religion.

[Dragonar Fan]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

(1) Perception
What is the nature of our world, as you see it? How do you think it is structured and how does it function?



(2) History
Why do you think our world is the way it is, and not different? Why are we the way we are, and not different?


(3) Beliefs
Why do we feel the way we feel in this world, and how do we assess global reality, and the role of our species in it?



(4) Ethics
How are we to act and create in this world? How, and in what different ways, can we influence the world and transform it? What are the general principles by which we should organise our actions?


(5) Goals
What future is open to us and our species in this world? By what criteria are we to select these possible futures?


(6) Explain
How are we to construct our image of this world in such a way that we can come up with answers to (1), (2), and (3)?



(7) Actions
What are some of the partial answers that we can propose to these questions?

1.It's a Physical Illusion which will never be solved by science or religion alone

2.We could of been more technologically improved if Heron's Steam Engine would have been taken seriously but I Do beleive in possible Extra - Terrestrial technology & Occult knowlege

3.We must preserve ourselves for the sake of our precence

4.Caring & Understanding but that is also a blur when put into the physical realm

5.Life or Death we can live on to a bleak or brighter future , the matter is the cost of us

6.I think we can't ,as long as theres Conflict in all nations & all individuals

7.One cannot live with out the other if one dies the other goes with it..

[Cub-Sama]

1. The world functions as people, each living on their own personal truths, whether their truth is right or not is up to debate but even if you think they are wrong it is only according to your own "truth". Society comes together as people with similar or shared truths come together, the more capable of these individuals make these shared truths law and overlook these laws and the society this becomes the government. Eventually the truths they came up with will differ from what people now perceive as the truth and thus the society will crumble but a new one will be raised.

IMO there is one truth and 10000000000 ways to interperet it and even science may not be right for all we know gravity could be caused by millions of invisible hands pulling on you, there is no way to prove I am wrong despite how retarded what I said is.

My view of how to live life: "Everytime you make a choice no matter how minor you destroy millions of lives just make sure you don't destroy the wrong life." - Cub-sama 2010

Basically the millions of lives are the millions of different outcomes to your life and to those around you so we should be careful of the decisions we make but it is also my opinion that spending too much time on a decision won't help either.