Worldview

A worldview or world-view is the

fundamental cognitive orientation of
an individual or society
encompassing the whole of the
individual's or society's knowledge
and point of view.[1][2][3][4] A
worldview can include natural
philosophy; fundamental, existential,
and normative postulates; or themes,
values, emotions, and ethics.[5]

Worldviews are often taken to

operate at a conscious level, directly
accessible to articulation and
discussion, as opposed to existing at
a deeper, pre-conscious level, such as
The Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world (as seen here, as at
the idea of "ground" in Gestalt 2017) is a scatter plot depicting societies on closely linked cultural
psychology and media analysis. values, grouped by worldviews, based on the World Values Survey.

Contents
Etymology
Types of worldviews
Attitudinal
Ideological
Philosophical
Religious
Theories of worldviews
Assessment and
comparison
Linguistics
Characteristics
Religious practices will tie closely to that religion's worldview.
Weltanschauung and
cognitive philosophy
Terror management theory
Causality
Religion
Classification systems for
worldviews
Roland Muller's
classification of
cultural worldviews
 Michael Lind's
classification of
American political
worldviews
James Anderson's
evangelical
classification of
worldviews
Related terms
Belief systems
Conventional wisdoms
Folk-epics
Geists
Memeplexes
Mindsets
Paradigms
Reality tunnels
Social norms
See also
References
External links

Etymology
The term worldview is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung [ˈvɛltʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ( listen),
composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('perception' or 'show').[6] The German word is also used in
English. It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy, especially epistemology and refers to a wide
world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global
description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts
with it.

Types of worldviews
There are a number of main classes of worldviews that group similar types of worldviews together. These
relate to various aspects of society and individuals' relationships with the world. Note that these
distinctions are not always unequivocal: a religion may include economic aspects, a school of philosophy
may embody a particular attitude, etc.

Attitudinal
An attitude is an approach to life, a disposition towards certain types of thinking, a way of viewing the
world.[7] An attitudinal worldview is a typical attitude that will tend to govern an individual's approach,
understanding, thinking, and feelings about things. For instance, people with an optimismic worldview
will tend to approach things with a positive attitude, and assume the best.[8] In a metaphor referring to a
thirsty person looking at half a glass of water, the attitude is elicited by asking "Is the glass half empty or
half full?".
Ideological

Ideologies are sets of beliefs and values that a person or group has for normative reasons,[9] the term is
especially used to describe systems of ideas and ideals which form the basis of economic or political
theories and resultant policies.[10][11] An ideological worldview arises out of these political and
economic beliefs about the world. So capitalists believe that a system that emphasizes private ownership,
competition, and the pursuit of profit ends up with the best outcomes.

Philosophical
A school of philosophy is a collection of answers to fundamental questions of the universe, based around
common concepts, normally grounded in reason, and often arising from the teachings of an influential
thinker.[12][13] The term "philosophy" originates with the Greek, but all world civilizations have been
found to have philosophical worldviews within them.[14] A modern example is postmodernists who argue
against the grand narratives of earlier schools in favour of pluralism, and epistemological and moral
relativism.[15]

Religious
A religion is a system of behaviors and practices, that relate to
supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements,[16] but the
precise definition is debated.[17][18] A religious worldview is one
grounded in a religion, either an organized religion or something
less codified. So followers of an Abrahamic religion (e.g.
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.), will tend to have a set of
beliefs and practices from their scriptures that they believe is
given to their prophets from God, and their interpretation of those
scriptures will define their worldview.

Theories of worldviews Some religious symbols in clock-wise

order from top: Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, Bahá'í Faith, Hinduism,
Assessment and comparison Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Slavic
One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic neopaganism, Celtic polytheism,
Heathenism (Germanic paganism),
beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the
Semitic neopaganism, Wicca,
worldview considered as a logical or consistent theory. These Kemetism (Egyptian paganism),
basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical Hellenism (Greek paganism), Italo-
sense) within the worldview – precisely because they are axioms, Roman neopaganism.
and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[19] However
their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically.

If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive
dialogue between them.[20]

On the other hand, if different worldviews are held to be basically incommensurate and irreconcilable,
then the situation is one of cultural relativism and would therefore incur the standard criticisms from
philosophical realists.[21][22][23] Additionally, religious believers might not wish to see their beliefs
relativized into something that is only "true for them".[24][25] Subjective logic is a belief-reasoning
formalism where beliefs explicitly are subjectively held by individuals but where a consensus between
different worldviews can be achieved.[26]

A third alternative sees the worldview approach as only a methodological relativism, as a suspension of
judgment about the truth of various belief systems but not a declaration that there is no global truth. For
instance, the religious philosopher Ninian Smart begins his Worldviews: Cross-cultural Explorations of
Human Beliefs with "Exploring Religions and Analysing Worldviews" and argues for "the neutral,
dispassionate study of different religious and secular systems—a process I call worldview analysis."[27]

The comparison of religious, philosophical or scientific worldviews is a delicate endeavor, because such
worldviews start from different presuppositions and cognitive values. Clément Vidal[28] has proposed
metaphilosophical criteria for the comparison of worldviews, classifying them in three broad categories:

1. objective: objective consistency, scientificity, scope

2. subjective: subjective consistency, personal utility, emotionality
3. intersubjective: intersubjective consistency, collective utility, narrativity

Linguistics
The Prussian philologist Wilhelm
von Humboldt (1767–1835)
originated the idea that language and
worldview are inextricable.
Humboldt saw language as part of the
creative adventure of mankind.
Culture, language and linguistic
communities developed
simultaneously and could not do so
without one another. In stark contrast
The linguistic map of the world (as seen here, as at October 2019)
to linguistic determinism, which does not correspond precisely to the worldviews of the world.
invites us to consider language as a
constraint, a framework or a prison
house, Humboldt maintained that speech is inherently and implicitly creative. Human beings take their
place in speech and continue to modify language and thought by their creative exchanges.

Edward Sapir (1884–1939) also gives an account of the relationship between thinking and speaking in
English.[29]

The linguistic relativity hypothesis of Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–1941) describes how the syntactic-
semantic structure of a language becomes an underlying structure for the worldview of a people through
the organization of the causal perception of the world and the linguistic categorization of entities. As
linguistic categorization emerges as a representation of worldview and causality, it further modifies social
perception and thereby leads to a continual interaction between language and perception.[30]

Whorf's hypothesis became influential in the late 1940s, but declined in prominence after a decade. In the
1990s, new research gave further support for the linguistic relativity theory in the works of Stephen
Levinson (1947–) and his team at the Max Planck institute for psycholinguistics at Nijmegen,
Netherlands.[31] The theory has also gained attention through the work of Lera Boroditsky at Stanford
University.

If the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is correct, the worldview map of the world would be similar to the
linguistic map of the world. However, it would also almost coincide with a map of the world drawn on
the basis of music across people.[32]

Characteristics
While Leo Apostel and his followers clearly hold that individuals can construct worldviews, other writers
regard worldviews as operating at a community level, or in an unconscious way. For instance, if one's
worldview is fixed by one's language, as according to a strong version of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis,
one would have to learn or invent a new language in order to construct a new worldview.

According to Apostel,[33] a worldview is an ontology, or a descriptive model of the world. It should

comprise these six elements:

1. An explanation of the world

2. A futurology, answering the question "Where are we heading?"
3. Values, answers to ethical questions: "What should we do?"
4. A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action: "How should we attain our goals?"
5. An epistemology, or theory of knowledge: "What is true and false?"
6. An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own "building
blocks", its origins and construction.

Weltanschauung and cognitive philosophy

Within cognitive philosophy and the cognitive sciences is the German concept of Weltanschauung. This
expression is used to refer to the "wide worldview" or "wide world perception" of a people, family, or
person. The Weltanschauung of a people originates from the unique world experience of a people, which
they experience over several millennia. The language of a people reflects the Weltanschauung of that
people in the form of its syntactic structures and untranslatable connotations and its denotations.[34][35]

The term Weltanschauung is often wrongly attributed to Wilhelm von Humboldt, the founder of German
ethnolinguistics. However, as Jürgen Trabant points out, and as James W. Underhill reminds us,
Humboldt's key concept was Weltansicht.[36] Weltansicht was used by Humboldt to refer to the
overarching conceptual and sensorial apprehension of reality shared by a linguistic community (Nation).
On the other hand, Weltanschauung, first used by Kant and later popularized by Hegel, was always used
in German and later in English to refer more to philosophies, ideologies and cultural or religious
perspectives, than to linguistic communities and their mode of apprehending reality.

In 1911, the German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey published an essay entitled "The Types of Worldview
(Weltanschauung) and their Development in Metaphysics" that became quite influential. Dilthey
characterized worldviews as providing a perspective on life that encompasses the cognitive, evaluative,
and volitional aspects of human experience. Although worldviews have always been expressed in
literature and religion, philosophers have attempted to give them conceptual definition in their
metaphysical systems. On that basis, Dilthey found it possible to distinguish three general recurring types
of worldview. The first of these he called naturalism because it gives priority to the perceptual and
experimental determination of what is and allows contingency to influence how we evaluate and respond
to reality. Naturalism can be found in Democritus, Hobbes, Hume and many other modern philosophers.
The second type of worldview is called the idealism of freedom and is represented by Plato, Descartes,
Kant, and Bergson among others. It is dualistic and gives primacy to the freedom of the will. The
organizational order of our world is structured by our mind and the will to know. The third type is called
objective idealism and Dilthey sees it in Heraclitus, Parmenides, Spinoza, Leibniz and Hegel. In
objective idealism the ideal does not hover above what is actual but inheres in it. This third type of
worldview is ultimately monistic and seeks to discern the inner coherence and harmony among all things.
Dilthey thought it is impossible to come up with a universally valid metaphysical or systematic
formulation of any of these worldviews, but regarded them as useful schema for his own more reflective
kind of life philosophy. See Makkreel and Rodi, Wilhelm Dilthey, Selected Works, volume 6, 2019.

Anthropologically, worldviews can be expressed as the "fundamental cognitive, affective, and evaluative
presuppositions a group of people make about the nature of things, and which they use to order their
lives."[37]

If it were possible to draw a map of the world on the basis of Weltanschauung,[32] it would probably be
seen to cross political borders—Weltanschauung is the product of political borders and common
experiences of a people from a geographical region,[32] environmental-climatic conditions, the economic
resources available, socio-cultural systems, and the language family.[32] (The work of the population
geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza aims to show the gene-linguistic co-evolution of people).

Worldview is used very differently by linguists and sociologists. It is for this reason that James W.
Underhill suggests five subcategories: world-perceiving, world-conceiving, cultural mindset, personal
world, and perspective.[36][38][39]

Terror management theory

A worldview, according to terror management theory (TMT),
serves as a buffer against death anxiety.[40] It is theorized that
living up to the ideals of one's worldview provides a sense of
self-esteem which provides a sense of transcending the limits of
human life (e.g. literally, as in religious belief in immortality,
symbolically, as in art works or children to live on after one's
death, or in contributions to one's culture).[40] Evidence in
support of terror management theory includes a series of
experiments by Jeff Schimel and colleagues in which a group of
Canadians found to score highly on a measure of patriotism were
asked to read an essay attacking the dominant Canadian
worldview.[40]
In terror management theory, one's
Using a test of death-thought accessibility (DTA), involving an worldview helps to alleviate the
anxiety caused by awareness of
ambiguous word completion test (e.g. "COFF__" could either be
one's own mortality.
completed as either "COFFEE" or "COFFIN" or "COFFER"),
participants who had read the essay attacking their worldview
were found to have a significantly higher level of DTA than the control group, who read a similar essay
attacking Australian cultural values. Mood was also measured following the worldview threat, to test
whether the increase in death thoughts following worldview threat were due to other causes, for example,
anger at the attack on one's cultural worldview.[40] No significant changes on mood scales were found
immediately following the worldview threat.[40]

To test the generalisability of these findings to groups and worldviews other than those of nationalistic
Canadians, Schimel et al conducted a similar experiment on a group of religious individuals whose
worldview included that of creationism.[40] Participants were asked to read an essay which argued in
support of the theory of evolution, following which the same measure of DTA was taken as for the
Canadian group.[40] Religious participants with a creationist worldview were found to have a
significantly higher level of death-thought accessibility than those of the control group.[40]

Goldenberg et al found that highlighting the similarities between humans and other animals increases
death-thought accessibility, as does attention to the physical rather than meaningful qualities of sex.[41]

Causality
An unidirectional view of causality is present in some monotheistic views of the world with a beginning
and an end and a single great force with a single end (e.g., Christianity and Islam), while a cyclic
worldview of causality is present in religious traditions which are cyclic and seasonal and wherein events
and experiences recur in systematic patterns (e.g., Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and Hinduism). These
worldviews of causality not only underlie religious traditions but also other aspects of thought like the
purpose of history, political and economic theories, and systems like democracy, authoritarianism,
anarchism, capitalism, socialism and communism.

With the development of science came a clockwork universe of regular operation according to principle,
this idea was very popular among deists during the Enlightenment. But later developments in science put
this deterministic picture in doubt.[42]

Some forms of philosophical naturalism and materialism reject the validity of entities inaccessible to
natural science. They view the scientific method as the most reliable model for building an understanding
of the world.

The term worldview denotes a comprehensive set of opinions, seen as an organic unity, about the world
as the medium and exercise of human existence. worldview serves as a framework for generating various
dimensions of human perception and experience like knowledge, politics, economics, religion, culture,
science and ethics. For example, worldview of causality as uni-directional, cyclic, or spiral generates a
framework of the world that reflects these systems of causality.

Religion
Nishida Kitaro wrote extensively on "the Religious Worldview" in exploring the philosophical
significance of Eastern religions.[43]

According to Neo-Calvinist David Naugle's World view: The History of a Concept, "Conceiving of
Christianity as a worldview has been one of the most significant developments in the recent history of the
church."[44]
The Christian thinker James W. Sire defines a worldview as "a commitment, a fundamental orientation of
the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true,
partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or
inconsistently) about the basic construction of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live
and move and have our being." He suggests that "we should all think in terms of worldviews, that is, with
a consciousness not only of our own way of thought but also that of other people, so that we can first
understand and then genuinely communicate with others in our pluralistic society."[45]

The commitment mentioned by James W. Sire can be extended further. The worldview increases the
commitment to serve the world. With the change of a person's view towards the world, he/she can be
motivated to serve the world. This serving attitude has been illustrated by Tareq M Zayed as the
'Emancipatory Worldview' in his writing "History of emancipatory worldview of Muslim learners".[46]

David Bell has also raised questions on religious worldviews for the designers of superintelligences –
machines much smarter than humans.[47]

Classification systems for worldviews

A number of modern thinkers have created and attempted to popularize various classification systems for
worldviews, to various degrees of success. These systems often hinge on a few key questions.

Roland Muller's classification of cultural worldviews

From across the world across all of the cultures, Roland Muller has suggested that cultural worldviews
can be broken down into three separate worldviews.[48] It is not simple enough to say that each person is
one of these three cultures. Instead, each individual is a mix of the three. For example, a person may be
raised in a Power–Fear society, in an Honor–Shame family, and go to school under a Guilt–Innocence
system.

Guilt–Innocence: In a Guilt–Innocence focused culture, schools focus on deductive

reasoning, cause and effect, good questions, and process. Issues are often seen as black
and white. Written contracts are paramount. Communication is direct, and can be blunt.[49]

Honor–Shame: Societies with a predominantly Honor–Shame worldviews teach children to

make honorable choices according to the situations they find themselves in.
Communication, interpersonal interaction, and business dealings are very relationship-
driven, with every interaction having an effect on the Honor–Shame status of the
participants. In an Honor–Shame society the crucial objective is to avoid shame and to be
viewed honorably by other people. The Honor–Shame paradigm is especially strong in most
regions of Asia.[50]

Power–Fear: Some cultures can be seen very clearly in operating under a Power–Fear
worldview. In these cultures it is very important to assess the people around you and know
where they fall in line according to their level of power. This can be used for good or for bad.
A benevolent king rules with power and his citizens fully support him wielding that power.
On the converse, a ruthless dictator can use his power to create a culture of fear where his
citizens are oppressed.

Michael Lind's classification of American political worldviews

According to Michael Lind, "a worldview is a more or less coherent understanding of the nature of
reality, which permits its holders to interpret new information in light of their preconceptions. Clashes
among worldviews cannot be ended by a simple appeal to facts. Even if rival sides agree on the facts,
people may disagree on conclusions because of their different premises."[51] This is why politicians often
seem to talk past one another, or ascribe different meanings to the same events. Tribal or national wars
are often the result of incompatible worldviews. Lind has organized American political worldviews into
five categories:

Green Malthusianism
Libertarian isolationism
Neoliberal globalism
Populist nationalism
Social democracy
Lind argues that even though not all people will fit neatly into only one category or the other, their core
worldview shape how they frame their arguments.[51]

James Anderson's evangelical classification of worldviews

James Anderson says that a worldview is an overall "philosophical view, an all-encompassing
perspective on everything that exists and matters to us".[52] He breaks worldviews down between
(evangelical) "Christian" and "non-Christian." He lists the following non-Christian worldviews:

Islam
Moralistic therapeutic deism
Naturalism
Pantheism
Pluralism
Postmodernism
As such, his system focuses on the similarities and differences of worldviews to evangelicalism.[52]

Related terms

Belief systems
A belief system is the set of interrelated beliefs held by an individual or society.[53] It can be thought of
as a list of beliefs or axioms that the believer considers true or false. A belief system is similar to a
worldview, but is based around conscious beliefs.[54]

Belief systems became increasingly important to 20th century philosophy for a number of reasons, such
as widespread contact between cultures, and the failure of some aspects of the Enlightenment project,
such as the rationalist project of attaining all truth by reason alone. Mathematical logic showed that
fundamental choices of axioms were essential in deductive reasoning[55] and that, even having chosen
axioms not everything that was true in a given logical system could be proven.[56] Some philosophers
believe the problems extend to "the inconsistencies and failures which plagued the Enlightenment
attempt to identify universal moral and rational principles";[57] although Enlightenment principles such
as universal suffrage and the universal declaration of human rights are accepted, if not taken for granted,
by many.[58]
Conventional wisdoms
Conventional wisdom is the body of ideas or explanations generally accepted as true by the general
public, or by believers in a worldview.[59] It is the set of underlying assumptions that make up the base of
a body of shared ideas, like a worldview.

Folk-epics
As natural language becomes manifestations of world perception,
the literature of a people with common worldview emerges as
holistic representations of the wide world perception of the
people. Thus the extent and commonality between world folk-
epics becomes a manifestation of the commonality and extent of
a worldview.[60]

Epic poems are shared often by people across political borders

and across generations. Examples of such epics include the
Nibelungenlied of the Germanic people, the Iliad for the Ancient
Greeks and Hellenized societies, the Silappadhikaram of the
Tamil people, the Ramayana and Mahabharata of the Hindus, the
Epic of Gilgamesh of the Mesopotamian-Sumerian civilization The Epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient
and the people of the Fertile Crescent at large, The Book of One Mesopotamian epic poem from that
Thousand and One Nights (Arabian nights) of the Arab world and is often regarded as the earliest
the Sundiata epic of the Mandé people.[60][61][62] surviving great work of literature and
the second oldest religious text.

Geists
A geist is a German concept, similar to English "spirit", here referring to the spirit of a group or age.[63]
It is the common character or invisible force motivating a collection of people to act in certain ways. It is
sometimes used in philosophy, but can also pragmatically refer to fads or fashions. The weltgeist is the
geist of the world,[64] a volksgeist is the geist of a nation or people[65], and a zeitgeist is the geist of an
age.[66] Geists are similar to worldviews in that they underlie the character of a people, but are more
ineffable in their understanding.

Memeplexes
A memeplex is a group of memes, within the theory of memetics. This is a way of approaching ideas and
worldviews using the theory of Universal Darwinism. Like the gene complexes found in biology,
memeplexes are groups of memes, or worldviews, that are often found present together. Memes were
first suggested in Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene.[67]

Mindsets
A mindset is a set of assumptions, methods, or notations held by one or more people or groups of
people.[68] The idea is common to decision theory and general systems theory. A mindset is often seen to
arise out of a person's worldview, a mindset is a temporary attitude guided by a person's worldview.[4]

Paradigms
Paradigms are outstandingly clear patterns or archetypes, the typifying example of a particular model or
idea.[69] Especially in science and philosophy, a paradigm is a distinct set of concepts or thought
patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate
contributions to a field.

Reality tunnels
A reality tunnel is a theoretical subconscious set of mental filters formed from beliefs and experiences,
every individual interprets the same world differently, hence "Truth is in the eye of the beholder". The
idea being that an individual's perceptions are influenced or determined by their worldview. The idea
does not necessarily imply that there is no objective truth; rather that our access to it is mediated through
our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. The term can also
apply to groups of people united by beliefs: we can speak of the fundamentalist Christian reality tunnel or
the ontological naturalist reality tunnel. A parallel can be seen in the psychological concept of
confirmation bias—the human tendency to notice and assign significance to observations that confirm
existing beliefs, while filtering out or rationalizing away observations that do not fit with prior beliefs
and expectations.[70]

Social norms
Social norms are collective representations of acceptable behavior within a group,[71] including values,
customs, and traditions.[72] These represent individuals' understanding, or worldview, in regards what
others in their group do, and what they think that they ought to do.[73]

See also
Attitude polarization
Basic belief – The axioms under the epistemological view called foundationalism
Belief – Psychological state of holding a proposition or premise to be true
Bayesian network, also known as Belief networks
Christian worldview
Cognitive bias – Systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment
Conformity
Contemplation
Context (language use)
Conventional wisdom
Cultural bias
Cultural identity
Eschatology – Theological views of the end of the world
Observation, also known as Extrospection
Framing (social sciences) – Effect of how information is presented on perception
Ideology – Set of beliefs and values attributed to a person or group of persons
Life stance
Mental model
Mental representation – Hypothetical internal cognitive symbol that represents external
reality
Metaknowledge
 Metanarrative – A theory that gives comprehensive interpretation to events or experiences
based on a claim of universal truth
Metaphysics – Branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of reality
Mindset
Mythology
Ontology
Organizing principle
Paradigm
Perspective
Philosophy – The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or
conduct.
Psycholinguistics – Study of relations between psychology and language
Reality – Sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent
Reality tunnel
Religion – Sacred belief system
Schema (psychology)
Scientific modelling
Scientism
Set (psychology)
Social justice – Concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society
Social norm
Social reality
Social constructionism, also known as Socially constructed reality – Theory that shared
understandings of the world create shared assumptions about reality
Subjective logic
Truth – In accord with fact or reality
Umwelt – Bological foundations central to the study of communication and signification
Value system

References
1. "world-view noun – Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes – Oxford Advanced
Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com" (https://www.oxfordlearnersdiction
aries.com/definition/english/world-view). www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com.
2. "Worldview – Definition of Worldview by Merriam-Webster" (https://www.merriam-webster.co
m/dictionary/worldview). Retrieved 2019-12-11.
3. "worldview definition – Open Education Sociology Dictionary" (https://sociologydictionary.or
g/worldview/). Retrieved 2019-12-11.
4. Funk, Ken (2001-03-21). "What is a Worldview?" (http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/P
ersonal/worldview.html). Retrieved 2019-12-10.
5. Palmer, Gary B. (1996). Toward A Theory of Cultural Linguistics. University of Texas Press.
p. 114. ISBN 978-0-292-76569-6.
6. "Online Etymology Dictionary" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/worldview).
Etymonline.com. Retrieved 2019-12-02.
7. "Attitude – Definition of Attitude by Merriam-Webster" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic
tionary/attitude). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2019-12-13.
 8. "Definition of optimism" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimism), Merriam-
Webster, Merriam-Webster, archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20171115083225/https://
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimism) from the original on November 15, 2017,
retrieved November 14, 2017
9. Honderich, Ted (1995). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (https://archive.org/details/oxf
ordcompaniont00hond). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-866132-0.
10. Oxford Dictionaries definition; retrieved 20/02/2019 definition/ideology (https://en.oxforddicti
onaries.com/definition/ideologycom)
11. "PII: B0080448542007227" (http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Politics,%20Ideology%20
and%20Discourse.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 2019-01-28.
12. "PHILOSOPHY – meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary" (https://dictionary.cambridg
e.org/dictionary/english/philosophy). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2019-12-20.
13. "Philosophy – Definition of Philosophy by Merriam-Webster" (https://www.merriam-webster.c
om/dictionary/philosophy). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2019-12-20.
14. Garfield, Jay L; Edelglass, William, eds. (2011-06-09). "Introduction".
998.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195328998 The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy (http
s://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195328) Check |url= value
(help). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195328998.
15. "Postmodern – Definition of Postmodern by Merriam-Webster" (https://www.merriam-webste
r.com/dictionary/postmodern). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2019-12-20.
16. "Religion – Definition of Religion by Merriam-Webster" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/di
ctionary/religion). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2019-12-16.
17. Morreall, John; Sonn, Tamara (2013). "Myth 1: All Societies Have Religions". 50 Great
Myths of Religion. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 12–17. ISBN 978-0-470-67350-8.
18. Nongbri, Brent (2013). Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. Yale University
Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15416-0.
19. See for example Daniel Hill and Randal Rauser: Christian Philosophy A–Z Edinburgh
University Press (2006) ISBN 978-0-7486-2152-1 p200
20. In the Christian tradition this goes back at least to Justin Martyr's Dialogues with Trypho, A
Jew, and has roots in the debates recorded in the New Testament For a discussion of the
long history of religious dialogue in India, see Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian
21. Cognitive Relativism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/cog-rel.
htm#H5)
22. The problem of self-refutation is quite general. It arises whether truth is relativized to a
framework of concepts, of beliefs, of standards, of practices.Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/relativism/)
23. The Friesian School on Relativism (http://www.friesian.com/relative.htm)
24. Pope Benedict warns against relativism (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnu
m=49207)
25. Ratzinger, J. Relativism, the Central Problem for Faith Today (http://www.ewtn.com/library/C
URIA/RATZRELA.HTM)
26. Jøsang, Audun (2001). "A Logic For Uncertain Probabilities" (https://eprints.qut.edu.au/720
4/1/Jos2001-IJUFKS.pdf) (PDF). International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and
Knowledge-Based Systems. 9 (3): 279–311. doi:10.1142/S0218488501000831 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1142%2FS0218488501000831).
27. Ninian Smart Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs (3rd Edition)
ISBN 0-13-020980-5 p14
28. Vidal, Clément (2012). "Metaphilosophical Criteria for Worldview Comparison" (http://homep
ages.vub.ac.be/%7Eclvidal/writings/Vidal-Metaphilosophical-Criteria.pdf) (PDF).
Metaphilosophy. 43 (3): 306–347. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.508.631 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vi
ewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.508.631). doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2012.01749.x (https://doi.or
g/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9973.2012.01749.x).
29. Fadul, Jose (2014). Encyclopedia of Theory and Practice in Psychotherapy and Counseling
(https://books.google.com/?id=WRrzBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA347&lpg=PA347&dq=Edward+Sapi
r+also+gives+an+account+of+the+relationship+between+thinking+and+speaking+in+Englis
h#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Sapir%20also%20gives%20an%20account%20of%20the%20
relationship%20between%20thinking%20and%20speaking%20in%20English&f=false).
p. 347. ISBN 978-1-312-34920-9. "Edward Sapir also gives an account of the significant
relationship between thinking and speaking in English."
30. Kay, P.; Kempton, W. (1984). "What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?". American
Anthropologist. 86 (1): 65–79. doi:10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050 (https://doi.org/10.152
5%2Faa.1984.86.1.02a00050). JSTOR 679389 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/679389).
31. "Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics" (https://web.archive.org/web/20040909044414/h
ttp://www.mpi.nl/world/). Archived from the original (http://www.mpi.nl/world/) on September
9, 2004. Retrieved September 8, 2004.
32. Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1964) [1st pub. 1956]. Carroll, John Bissell (ed.). Language, Thought,
and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (https://books.google.com/books?id=
W2d1Q4el00QC&printsec=frontcover). Cambridge, Mass.: Technology Press of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ISBN 978-0-262-73006-8. Pp. 25 (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=W2d1Q4el00QC&pg=PA25&dq=%22map+or+plan+of+an+actual+realm
+of+ideas%22), 36 (https://books.google.com/books?id=W2d1Q4el00QC&pg=PA36&dq=%
22stock+of+conceptions+common+to+people%22), 29-30 (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=W2d1Q4el00QC&q=%22environmental+conditions%22), 242 (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=W2d1Q4el00QC&pg=PA242&dq=%22language+family%22), 248 (https://book
s.google.com/books?id=W2d1Q4el00QC&pg=PA248&dq=music).
33. Diederik Aerts, Leo Apostel, Bart de Moor, Staf Hellemans, Edel Maex, Hubert van Belle &
Jan van der Veken (1994) ""World views. From Fragmentation to Integration (http://www.vu
b.ac.be/CLEA/pub/books/worldviews.pdf)" VUB Press. Translation of (Apostel and Van der
Veken 1991) with some additions. – The basic book of World Views, from the Center Leo
Apostel.
34. "Weltanschauung – Definition of Weltanschauung by Merriam-Webster" (https://www.merria
m-webster.com/dictionary/Weltanschauung). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2019-12-17.
35. "Worldview (philosophy) – Encyclopedia.com" (https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-a
nd-religion/philosophy/philosophy-terms-and-concepts/worldview-philosophy).
Encyclopedia.com. 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2019-12-17.
36. Underhill, James W. (2009). Humboldt, Worldview and Language (Transferred to digital
print. ed.). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0748638420.
37. Hiebert, Paul G. Transforming Worldviews: an anthropological understanding of how people
change. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008
38. Underhill, James W. (2011). Creating worldviews : metaphor, ideology and language.
Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0748679096.
39. Underhill, James W. (2012). Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: truth, love, hate & war.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107532847.
40. Schimel, J., Hayes, J., Williams, T., & Jahrig, J. (2007). Is Death Really the Worm at the
Core? Converging Evidence that Worldview Threat Increases Death-Thought Accessibility.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 5, pp. 789-803.
41. Goldenberg, J. L., Cox, C. R., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (2002).
Understanding human ambivalence about sex: The effects of stripping sex of meaning.
Journal of Sex Research, 39, 310–320.
42. Danielson, Dennis Richard (2000). The Book of the Cosmos: Imagining the Universe from
Heraclitus to Hawking (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=RYr-swEACAAJ&printsec=fr
ontcover&dq=editions:ISBN0738202479). Basic Books. ISBN 0738202479.
43. Indeed Kitaro's final book is Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious Worldview
44. David K. Naugle Worldview: The History of a Concept ISBN 0-8028-4761-7 page 4
45. James W. Sire The Universe Next Door: A Basic World view Catalog p15–16 (text readable
at Amazon.com)
46. Zayed, Tareq M. "History of emancipatory worldview of Muslim learners" (https://www.acade
mia.edu/9631989).
47. Bell, David (2016). Superintelligence and World-views: Putting the Spotlight on Some
Important Issues. Guildford, Surrey, UK: Grosvenor House Publishing Limited.
ISBN 9781786237668. OCLC 962016344 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/962016344).
48. Muller, Roland (2001). Honor and Shame. Xlibris; 1st edition. ISBN 978-0738843162.
49. "Three Colors of Worldview" (http://www.knowledgeworkx.com/articles/three-colors-of-world
view). KnowledgeWorkx. Retrieved 2016-02-25.
50. Blankenbugh, Marco (2013). Inter-Cultural Intelligence: From Surviving to Thriving in the
Global Space. BookBaby. ISBN 9781483511528.
51. Lind, Michael (12 January 2011). "The five worldviews that define American politics" (http://
www.salon.com/2011/01/12/lind_five_worldviews/). Salon Magazine. Retrieved
16 December 2016.
52. Anderson, James (2017-06-21). "What Is a Worldview?" (https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-
worldview/). Ligonier Ministries. Retrieved 2019-12-20.
53. "Belief system definition and meaning – Collins English Dictionary" (https://www.collinsdictio
nary.com/dictionary/english/belief-system). Retrieved 2019-12-19.
54. Rettig, Tim (2017-12-08). "Belief Systems: what they are and how they affect you" (https://m
edium.com/intercultural-mindset/belief-systems-what-they-are-and-how-they-affect-you-1cd
87aa775ff). Medium. Retrieved 2019-12-19.
55. Not just in the obvious sense that you need axioms to prove anything, but the fact that for
example the Axiom of choice and Axiom S5, although widely regarded as correct, were in
some sense optional.
56. see Godel's incompleteness theorem and discussion in e.g. John Lucas's The Freedom of
the Will
57. Thus Alister McGrath in The Science of God p 109 citing in particular Alasdair MacIntyre's
Whose Justice? Which Rationality? – he also cites Nicholas Wolterstorff and Paul
Feyerabend
58. "Governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms enumerated by
Jefferson; governments are created to protect those freedoms that every individual
possesses by virtue of his or her existence. In their formulation by the Enlightenment
philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries, inalienable rights are God-given natural rights.
These rights are not destroyed when civil society is created, and neither society nor
government can remove or "alienate" them."US Gov website on democracy (http://usinfo.sta
te.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm3.htm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2008
1201190718/http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm3.htm) December 1,
2008, at the Wayback Machine
59. "Conventional Wisdom – Definition of Conventional Wisdom by Merriam-Webster" (https://w
ww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conventional%20wisdom). Retrieved 2019-12-13.
60. "World Folk-epics" (http://www.languageisavirus.com/poetry-guide/world_folk-epics.php).
Language is a Virus. Retrieved 2019-12-17.
61. "Epic poetry" (http://www.languageisavirus.com/poetry-guide/epic_poetry.php). Language is
a Virus. Retrieved 2019-12-17.
62. "The 20 Greatest Epic Poems of All Time – Qwiklit" (https://qwiklit.com/2013/09/10/the-20-gr
eatest-epic-poems-of-all-time/). Qwiklit.com. 2013-09-10. Retrieved 2019-12-17.
63. "Geist dictionary definition – geist defined" (https://www.yourdictionary.com/geist).
www.yourdictionary.com. Retrieved 2019-12-17.
64. "Definition/Meaning of Weltgeist" (http://www.engyes.com/en/dic-content/Weltgeist).
EngYes. Retrieved 2019-12-17.
65. "Volksgeist – Encyclopedia.com" (https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesaur
uses-pictures-and-press-releases/volksgeist). Encyclopedia.com. 2019-11-26. Retrieved
2019-12-17.
66. "Zeitgeist – Definition of Zeitgeist by Merriam-Webster" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/d
ictionary/zeitgeist). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2019-12-17.
67. Dawkins, Richard (1989), The Selfish Gene (https://books.google.com/?id=WkHO9HI7koEC
&pg=PA192) (2 ed.), Oxford University Press, p. 192, ISBN 978-0-19-286092-7, "We need a
name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission,
or a unit of imitation. 'Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable
that sounds a bit like 'gene'. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate
mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being
related to 'memory', or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with
'cream'."
68. "MINDSET – meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary" (https://dictionary.cambridge.or
g/dictionary/english/mindset). Retrieved 2019-12-10.
69. "Definition of paradigm by Merriam-Webster" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
paradigm). Retrieved 2019-12-04.
70. "Introduction to Reality Tunnels: A Tool for Understanding the Postmodern World" (https://m
edium.com/reality-tunnels/introduction-to-reality-tunnels-a-tool-for-understanding-the-postm
odern-world-72cdd98af9d0). 2017-01-21. Retrieved 2019-12-06.
71. Lapinski, M. K.; Rimal, R. N. (2005). "An explication of social norms". Communication
Theory. 15 (2): 127–147. doi:10.1093/ct/15.2.127 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fct%2F15.2.12
7).
72. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. NewYork: Harper.
73. Cialdini, R. D. (2003). "Crafting normative messages to protect the environment" (http://ww
w.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/cialdini.pdf) (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological
Science. 12 (4): 105–109. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.579.5154 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
summary?doi=10.1.1.579.5154). doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01242 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F
1467-8721.01242).

External links
GLOGO – Global Governance System for Planet Earth at think tank Gold Mercury
International (http://www.goldmercury.org/centres/#glogo)
Apostel, Leo and Van der Veken, Jan. (1991) Wereldbeelden, DNB/Pelckmans.
Wikibook:The scientific world view
Wiki Worldview Themes: A Structure for Characterizing and Analyzing Worldviews (http://w
ww.projectworldview.org/wikiworldviewthemes.htm) includes links to nearly 400 Wikipedia
articles
"You are what you speak" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090920230544/http://cognation.st
anford.edu/press/newscientist.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original on 2009-09-
20. (5.15 MB) – a 2002 essay on research in linguistic relativity (Lera Boroditsky)
"Cobern, W. World View, Metaphysics, and Epistemology" (https://web.archive.org/web/201
60303174819/http://www.wmich.edu/slcsp/SLCSP106/SLCSP106.PDF) (PDF). Archived
from the original on 2016-03-03. (50.3 KB)
 inTERRAgation.com—A documentary project. Collecting and evaluating answers to "the
meaning of life" from around the world. (http://www.inTERRAgation.com)
The God Contention—Comparing various worldviews, faiths, and religions through the eyes
of their advocates. (http://www.godcontention.org)
Cole, Graham A., Do Christians have a Worldview? (http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/resource/do-
christians-have-a-worldview/) A paper examining the concept of worldview as it relates to
and has been used by Christianity. Contains a helpful annotated bibliography.
World View article on the Principia Cybernetica Project (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/WORLVI
EW.html)
Pogorskiy, E. (2015). Using personalisation to improve the effectiveness of global
educational projects. E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(1), 57–67. (http://ldm.sagepub.com/c
ontent/12/1/57)
Worldviews – An Introduction (http://www.projectworldview.org/worldviews.htm) from Project
Worldview
"Studies on World Views Related to Science" (list of suggested books and resources) (htt
p://www.asa3.org/asa/topics/worldview/index.html) from the American Scientific Affiliation (a
Christian perspective)
Eugene Webb, Worldview and Mind: Religious Thought and Psychological Development. (h
ttps://web.archive.org/web/20100113045231/http://press.umsystem.edu/spring2009/webb.ht
m) Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2009.
Benjamin Gal-Or, “Cosmology, Physics and Philosophy”, Springer Verlag, 1981, 1983,
1987, ISBN 0-387-90581-2, ISBN 0-387-96526-2.
Беляев И.А. Человек и его мироотношение. Сообщение 1. Мироотношение и
мировоззрение / И.А. Беляев // Политематический сетевой электронный научный
журнал Кубанского государственного аграрного университета (Научный журнал
КубГАУ) [Электронный ресурс]. – Краснодар: КубГАУ, 2011. – №09(73). С. 310–319. –
Режим доступа: http://ej.kubagro.ru/2011/09/pdf/29.pdf (https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?
id=17087744).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worldview&oldid=944159726"

This page was last edited on 6 March 2020, at 02:43 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.