01-07-2018, 08:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2018, 09:10 PM by Bob Butler 1954.)
I am into world views and values. These are so close as to be interrelated. A world view is a shortcut, a way of looking at the world lest one have to look at it directly. It filters and makes sense of what is happening. Some are so strong as to make one unable to perceive things which conflict with the world view. A set of values is related. These too are a often a short cut, guiding one to achieving success given the world view is more or less correct.
World views and cultures are often centered on life styles. They can be political, scientific, religious, military, artistic or other. They can be more specific. It makes sense to talk of conservative, moderate or progressive world views or values. World view and values are often unique, personal. It makes sense to speak of Bob Butler’s world view, or Nebraska’s.
Most world views are nigh on impossible to change without a complete failure of the world view. For example, my world view would collapse if I were convinced that people could easily shift opinions, or if world views often changed. Many are supposedly flexible. Scientific world views supposedly can be changed by a single experiment or repeatable observation. Even then, the scientific mind would only consider part of his way of looking at things invalidated. Faith in the scientific method is apt to be unshaken. If a contradiction is found, this only begins a search for resolution that often is directed in a way that leaves the scientific method intact. (Dark matter, anyone?)
I see my world view and values to be scientific first, political second, and religious third. I see Nebraska’s as partisan political. As such, as neither of us share world views or values, it is essentially impossible to truly communicate. Our recent attempts demonstrate this. Many who visit this forum have partisan progressive world views. Same thing. I am not convinced of their ability to perceive of things that contradict their core beliefs.
I can accept that Nebraska sincerely believes that his position is moral and true, I will accept most other progressive positions, such as Eric the Green’s, as comparably moral and true. I will accept the two come from radically different places, both figuratively and literally, that their life experience provides reasonable justification for very different ways of looking at things…
If you disregard facts and truths which conflict with your world view, which is a very big if in both these cases.
Definitions: A culture is a group of people who share similar world views and values. An S&H crisis is the major way a culture recognizes a world view or set of values isn’t working and must change.
It is fairly obvious that Nebraska isn’t going to change, isn’t going to see the problems that are forcing a need for change, and represents a whole lot of people.
Now in the above post Nebraska uses many short phrases which to me seem half truths, I could find in most useful values and agree with him. I could find in many counter examples, situations in which his principles seem to me to break down. I can also find where the statements are counter factual. For example, companies in a free market must not do things that leave other companies unfree, while governments can put limits on companies. This is a problem with his mode of thinking. The US in World War II dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. It did not drop them on multiple Axis powers. This shows ignorance of history, but is easily corrected, is not a flaw in his perspective. Both show Nebraska undoubtedly wrong, and could be used to reject what he is trying to say. His entire post echoes these examples.
Thus, I don’t know what to do with Nebraska’s above post. My most open question is with justification for force. He seems to dwell on the cusp between conservative and anarchist world views. Does the current situation justify force? Is someone who uses force responsible to replace the status quo with something better? Communist revolutions only put the most ruthless person in charge. The resultant cultures simply could not compete with the West. Beyond parroting virtues, what can be done to assure improvement?
I am labeled a Whig. As such, I do not want democracy, equality, human rights and similar mechanisms dismantled. I do not want to see progressive steps achieved in prior crises lost. I do not think the current situation perfect. Thus I have the progressive urge to change.
This doesn’t make certain old perspectives and virtues unappealing. I’ll just note that values now considered old were once new.
World views and cultures are often centered on life styles. They can be political, scientific, religious, military, artistic or other. They can be more specific. It makes sense to talk of conservative, moderate or progressive world views or values. World view and values are often unique, personal. It makes sense to speak of Bob Butler’s world view, or Nebraska’s.
Most world views are nigh on impossible to change without a complete failure of the world view. For example, my world view would collapse if I were convinced that people could easily shift opinions, or if world views often changed. Many are supposedly flexible. Scientific world views supposedly can be changed by a single experiment or repeatable observation. Even then, the scientific mind would only consider part of his way of looking at things invalidated. Faith in the scientific method is apt to be unshaken. If a contradiction is found, this only begins a search for resolution that often is directed in a way that leaves the scientific method intact. (Dark matter, anyone?)
I see my world view and values to be scientific first, political second, and religious third. I see Nebraska’s as partisan political. As such, as neither of us share world views or values, it is essentially impossible to truly communicate. Our recent attempts demonstrate this. Many who visit this forum have partisan progressive world views. Same thing. I am not convinced of their ability to perceive of things that contradict their core beliefs.
I can accept that Nebraska sincerely believes that his position is moral and true, I will accept most other progressive positions, such as Eric the Green’s, as comparably moral and true. I will accept the two come from radically different places, both figuratively and literally, that their life experience provides reasonable justification for very different ways of looking at things…
If you disregard facts and truths which conflict with your world view, which is a very big if in both these cases.
Definitions: A culture is a group of people who share similar world views and values. An S&H crisis is the major way a culture recognizes a world view or set of values isn’t working and must change.
It is fairly obvious that Nebraska isn’t going to change, isn’t going to see the problems that are forcing a need for change, and represents a whole lot of people.
Now in the above post Nebraska uses many short phrases which to me seem half truths, I could find in most useful values and agree with him. I could find in many counter examples, situations in which his principles seem to me to break down. I can also find where the statements are counter factual. For example, companies in a free market must not do things that leave other companies unfree, while governments can put limits on companies. This is a problem with his mode of thinking. The US in World War II dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. It did not drop them on multiple Axis powers. This shows ignorance of history, but is easily corrected, is not a flaw in his perspective. Both show Nebraska undoubtedly wrong, and could be used to reject what he is trying to say. His entire post echoes these examples.
Thus, I don’t know what to do with Nebraska’s above post. My most open question is with justification for force. He seems to dwell on the cusp between conservative and anarchist world views. Does the current situation justify force? Is someone who uses force responsible to replace the status quo with something better? Communist revolutions only put the most ruthless person in charge. The resultant cultures simply could not compete with the West. Beyond parroting virtues, what can be done to assure improvement?
I am labeled a Whig. As such, I do not want democracy, equality, human rights and similar mechanisms dismantled. I do not want to see progressive steps achieved in prior crises lost. I do not think the current situation perfect. Thus I have the progressive urge to change.
This doesn’t make certain old perspectives and virtues unappealing. I’ll just note that values now considered old were once new.