Experience dictates interpretation of events.
Den harde nordmann
B Ut that is so short it does not mean anything.
A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.
I'm not in your class, and I won't dig up the essay I wrote on the subject, because I'm pretty sure it's on one of the dead computers I still have.
Den harde nordmann
Not expecting you to either. More or less hoping just a random Troper to just come in a give a good idea, or say the words needed for a good discussion to start.
A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.
Zzzzzzzzzz
A worldview is what the world looks like from the point you're standing at right now. This means that it changes as you change, and each person's world view is unique to them in the fine details, although it may be very similar to a lot of other people's in the broad strokes.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
vigilantly taxonomish
Even if ones view of reality is covered by superstition, it does not change anything.
This, for example, is indicative of your worldview.
If you're going to focus on historical periods, I'd recommend looking at ones where people have actually written stuff. There's been volumes written about the worldviews of inhabitants of Ancient Greece and Rome, but good luck finding much information about a stone age person's worldview.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Worldview is how you look the world and events that happen. You might see cynical side of everythign(Oh, they went and removed that dictator to place their own) or you might see positive side(Hurray! People are free!) or somewhere between. Also, what do you believe. Scientific studies or religious text and such, for example.
Basicly, when you look world what is the first tought: "Beautiful world" or "It's only going to get worse from here"
I think world views can be placed in two axis: Cynical-Idealistic and Religious-Scientific.
vigilantly taxonomish
I think that's a vast oversimplification. Partly because I think there are more aspects that could be considered, but also because I don't think cynicism and idealism, or science and religion, are necessarily in opposition to one another.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
The Shadows Devour You.
Worldview is how, quite simply, you interpret the world around you. It is how your experience colours your interpretation of events. Worldview can be dictated by childhood experiences. It can come from ideology; religion, nationalism. It is what constitutes your experiences and how your mind has taken those on board to create for you a guide as to how you deal with everyday life.
Thats the best summary I can do.
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
Den harde nordmann
I did not even figure out how to write anything tangible. And due that I lost motivation.
Due the complete lack of motivation I did not meet for the formal preexam.
Turns out I still have to take it, some time next week :(
Any help on getting started?
Cover area is roughly first human settlements towards the end of the industrial revolution(aka the start of the period of enlightment, which means that we do not get to touch Nietzche).
The exact assignment to "In your presentation you shall elaborate and discuss your own view of reality/viewworld with angle in philosphers/thinkers that has been covered in class"
That means roughly.... 10.000BC towards some point at 18xx? I guess the last we been trough was perhaps Marx, because there was apparently an entire cluster of new thinkers and revoluztions after that point.
I do not need the assignment solved, I just need a starting point. I have been bashing my head into the walls the last 2 days attempting to figure out how to get started.
Some clever rewording, or some more clever way of making what has been said more tangible, or example on what I could do....
Help please.
¨Student in sort of panic
How about: Cavemen lived in the small tribes, their whole world consisted of their tribe and the near by tribes. The believed in nature spirits and worshipped them, so the spirits would return the favor. I don't believe in lake spirits, because that's just silly.
Den harde nordmann
I thought about that part, but in essence it is still the same.
The areas we are raised in is a bit bigger, we have a lot more food, we are more likely to survive, but we still receive the exact same indoctrination as back in the days.
We do no longer believe in a water spirit, but rather the mechanisms of the universe, and whatever part of physics one is not taught properly.
When we grow up, we attempt to expand those ideas, and we attempt to build large constructs on them, whenever the building of something like that fails we look down and doubt it. Then we attempt to do so again, perhaps with some modifications. If it works, then it is a great success that the next generation will attempt to build their ivory tower upon.
The only difference is the size of the construct, and how many times it has fell over to get it where it is today. It is closer to what reality is then our ancestors, but it is still in essence the exact same as what they had.
Then the difference in worldview we are left with is no different of me compared to another man of somewhere else in my country, or some foreigner, as the difference in worldview is compared to another ancestor.
And this is my problem. I do not perceive a actual difference besides what we where indoctrinated with.
That's a rather nihilistic (sorry, Myr) argument. If nothing else, most people nowadays are more capable of abstract thought than the cavemen were.
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
Den harde nordmann
For some reason I doubt that.
They had sit down around the campfire and got bored too.
The only difference is that their pillar of knowledge was a lot shorter.
Den harde nordmann
Hmmmmmm......
Would a person from ancient mesopotania behave him/herself different on 4chan than lets say a modern day person, or a person from ancient Greece, or ancient Egypt?
They would most likely discuss different topics, but lets say they all go to /b/, would they all spread cancer?
vigilantly taxonomish
OK, well, first off, that's a funny mental image.
So, let's examine this. Suppose our ancient Mesopotamian discovers a computer on which a browser is open displaying /b/. The first obstacle here will be figuring out exactly what a computer is and how to operate one. Of course, this doesn't mean figuring out all the details, just the basics. How to operate a keyboard and mouse, what the monitor does, how the browser works. Assuming our ancient Mesopotamian figures all that out, they will then find that they don't understand a word of what is being said, since conversations on /b/ do not happen in Sumerian or Akkadian, and will probably lose interest.
Supposing, however, this person lurks on /b/ long enough to start understanding the language, they will presumably learn to type (not speak) English like a /b/tard, though probably a very ungrammatical one with an extremely limited vocabulary. This will probably take a very long time, and they might at the end of the day still be barely comprehensible.
What I haven't yet factored in is the way in which this person will respond to the anachronisms here. For example, the technology. Our Mesopotamian is encountering computers, the Internet and photographs for the first time, and will probably marvel at these things, which will be both alien to the ancient Mesopotamian worldview and quite astonishing. This person may consider these things to be miraculous and may be thrilled, or they may consider them to be sinister and regard them with distrust.
There are also ideological factors to consider. How does the ancient Mesopotamian feel about the language used on /b/, once they figure out what it means? It's fairly improbable that the Mesopotamian will be offended by the same words that are considered most profane to an English speaker, since profanity is enforced by culture. "Fuck" and "cunt" may appear mild to speakers of some languages, while "devil" or even "idiot" may appear obscene. I am unfamiliar with ancient Mesopotamian sensibilities, so I cannot say what they will or will not find offensive.
Similarly, the ancient Mesopotamian would probably respond differently to the contents of the posts and images from how a modern Westerner would react. Who can say how an ancient Mesopotamian would respond to pornographic imagery? Fetish porn? Gore? The pain series? They might not object to some things a normal /b/ user might find objectionable, like CP (I don't know the ancient Mesopotamian stance on paedophilia, but again, that's an example to be considered). They might be very gravely offended by any and all unfamiliar religious references (i.e. all of them, Mesopotamian polytheism not being a typical subject of conversation on /b/) - or they might simply find them confusing. We must bear in mind that our ancient Mesopotamian probably believes that the world is shaped like a flat disc. A photograph of the Earth from space might astonish or bewilder them.
There are a number of other things that could be considered. For example, humour. Will our ancient Mesopotamian be amused by lolcats, or will that kind of humour simply fall flat? How will they feel about trolls?
There is also, of course, the possibility that this person will navigate away from /b/ and explore the other boards, or the wider Internet. Here they could be potentially exposed to a range of strange and unfamiliar ideas, such as capitalism, materialism, Christianity, communism, anarchism, Islam, surrealism, nihilism, racism (in the modern sense) and many more besides. If they return to /b/ after this, one would imagine their worldview at this point will be quite different - no longer purely ancient Mesopotamian, but ancient Mesopotamian with many modern influences and ideas about the world. Their spelling and grammar might have improved, too.
edited 18th May '11 1:12:52 PM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
victorinox243
Imagine some dude who had a house on the very western tip of Portugal. I've been there. You can see the curvature of the Earth unobstructed for 180º.
Den harde nordmann
Bobby G: But that is just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
It does not even touch the question.
vigilantly taxonomish
Nitpicking? I thought I addressed your question in considerable depth.
In order to even post on /b/, the ancient Mesopotamian would have to learn a number of things alien to their worldview, by which point their worldview would have shifted so much that it's impossible to say how they'd act on /b/. They may even be indistinguishable from the average poster there by that point.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Den harde nordmann
Would that not just imply that "worldview" is a false world of metaphysics then?
They would then be no different from kids of various cultures of today, who get access to a computer and post shit on /b/ for child porn and giggles because they are not accountable?
They would post something different due the cultural difference, but beyond that, would or would they not behave like b-tards?
vigilantly taxonomish
No, a worldview is not a "false" view of metaphysics* . I have a worldview, you have a worldview, Aristotle had a worldview, Stephen Hawking has a worldview.
The differences in worldview between an ancient Mesopotamian and a modern /b/tard would almost certainly be incredibly vast, and then you still have to factor in differences in individual personality (not all modern kids behave like /b/tards).
If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that an ancient Mesopotamian, somehow transported to the modern world, were taught standard English and how to operate a computer, and then shown /b/, they might react in a number of ways. Assuming they were interested in posting on /b/, and assuming that the content didn't offend their sensibilities, they might well behave like a modern /b/tard, though some of their posts might be unusual or confusing due to different ideas about the world from those of the average modern person.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Den harde nordmann
For the sake of the thought: Why do they need to learn English or learn how to use computers? It is irrelevant for the question, since this is metaphysics.
So basically they would return to the human behavior of 100% venting and sharing ideas, and become Mesopotanian b-tards?
Would using the Cave allagory allow me to claim roughly anything provided it is caused by indoctrination?
vigilantly taxonomish
I'm sorry, please explain to me how "what would an ancient Mesopotamian posting on /b/ behave like?" is a metaphysical question, because I'm not following that at all.
Potentially.
Plato's cave, you mean?
Presumably, though be careful not to fall into the trap of assuming that the present man's worldview is necessarily inherently truer or more enlightened in every respect than those that preceded it.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Den harde nordmann
Yupp, platos cave.
The thought experiment of having a cave, chain someone in there, make them see images of the world, one of them eventually manages to run, is shocked by the world that is discovered, goes back and tells the others, and the other can not image it and thinks he is presenting a lie.
I think I am going to be fine in avoiding that present worldview is more "true", since it is still a worldview, and because of that it is equally false because it is another worldview.
It might be closer to what the world looks like, but that is because we have set the values that we want down in stone when we measure.
World view, or how one perceives reality.
While I shamelessy admit this is related to a school assignment, it is currently 9 pm here and it is for tomorrow, so replies would not turn into doing what I was suppose to do. At the least not in time.
Anyhow, the assignment irks me because I have problems even getting an angle towards it. Mainly because ones view of reality is limited by what one know, but what is true is universally true if its true in the first place.
Even if ones view of reality is covered by superstition, it does not change anything.
I first thought of diving it into periods: Stone Age, then ancient period, then Early dark ages, etc... But I could not figure out a way of doing so.
In essence the view of the world has not changed from the stone age until some point in the dark age, and then something gradually when the Renesscance and the Enlightment period came.
Even if it is there, the changes are so slow and so gradual that they are not even steps, but a really really long slide.
\\
edited 11th May '11 1:18:43 PM by del_diablo
A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.