A Minimal Philosophical Agenda' Worldview Construction as a Philosophical Method' Wedesnday 31th Jan - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – A Minimal Philosophical Agenda' Worldview Construction as a Philosophical Method' Wedesnday 31th Jan PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: f1700-ZDc1Z


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

A Minimal Philosophical Agenda' Worldview Construction as a Philosophical Method' Wedesnday 31th Jan


1. A Minimal Philosophical Agenda. Worldview Construction as a ... But very na ve and unsufficient principle of ' thesis, antithesis, synthesis '. Rescher 2001 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:166
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 49
Provided by: wind867


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: A Minimal Philosophical Agenda' Worldview Construction as a Philosophical Method' Wedesnday 31th Jan

A Minimal Philosophical Agenda. Worldview
Construction as a Philosophical Method.
Wedesnday 31th January 2007Clément
Vidal(ECCO, VUB)clement.vidal_at_philosophons.com
Table of content
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. The philosophical method
  • 3. The worldview agenda
  • 4. What are the best philosophical worldviews?
  • 5. Worldview confrontation and diffusion
  • 6. Application - Towards an integrative worldview
  • 7. Conclusion

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
  • Take over of science over philosophy
  • Mind, time, space, cosmos, etc
  • Philosophical trends (Ricoeur 1979)
  • Analytic philosophy
  • Continental philosophy
  • Philosophy as a worldview

Collapse of todays philosophy
  • Analytic
  • No general guideline
  • Continental
  • Lack of method
  • Specializations
  •  Philosophy of x 

The problems
  • A method is any procedure to attain a certain
    aim. So
  • (1) What is the aim of philosophy?
  • (2) How can we make rational, informed and useful
  • In Poppers words
  • If philosophical theories are all irrefutable,
    how can we ever distinguish between true and
    false philosophical theories? (Popper 1958, p266)

2. The philosophical method
2. The philosophical method
  • As many different methods as different
  • Metaphilosophy
  • Broad 1947 (Analysis, Synopsis, Synthesis)
  • Popper 1958 (Philosophy as problem solving)
  • Rescher 2001 (Philosophical agenda)
  • Leo Apostel and the Worldview group
  • (Apostel, Van der Veken 1991)

(No Transcript)
3. The worldview agenda
What is a worldview?
  • Worldview/Philosophy of the eski or the mayas
  • Distinction
  • Worldview questions
  • Worldview components
  • A worldview is a collection of concepts that
    must allow us to construct a global image of the
    world, and in this way to understand as many
    elements of our experience as possible.
  • adapted from (Apostel, Van der Veken 1991, 17)

The seven questions. (Apostel, Van der Veken
(a) Bacteria (b) Scientific (c) Religious (d)
4. Values Reference signal / goal
Self system
6. Knowledge acquisition perception
5. Action theory action
2. Explanation Past
1. Model Present
3. Futurology future
Worldview of an individual in a cybernetic
system. Reproduced without the kind permission of
Francis Heylighen (2000).
  • Evolution of the questions?
  • No.
  • very general
  • minimal
  • domains of philosophy.
  • Evolution of the answers?
  • Yes!
  • An important characteristic attributed to
    conscious beings is the ability to form internal
    models of the world they experience the greater
    the consciousness, the more complex the models.
  • (Russell, P. 1996, 83)

4. What are the best philosophical worldviews?
Necessity to have a worldview
  • Homo quaerens (Rescher 2001, 7)
  • Sociological need.
  • No beliefs gt feelings of insecurity and distrust
    (Echardus, 1998)
  • Psychological need
  • Beliefsgt increase of well-being (Myers, 1993).

The class of philosophical worldviews.
  • Philosophical worldviews as rational worldviews
  • Tension speculative/critical attitude
  • Compare
  • How much is 57?
  • Is there a God?

Philosophical worldviews.Three criteria
  • Rationality
  • Widest possible synopsis (Broad, Descartes)
  • Open discussion

Three analogies
  • How can we construct the best philosophical
  • Answer all questions in a coherent manner.
  • Three analogies for the worldview questions
  • Axioms
  • A system of equations
  • Problem to solve

  • Finding models for the worldview axioms.
  • Completude
  • A theory is complete iff it contains P or non-P
    for every sentence P in the language
  • Coherence
  • No proof of both P and non-P.

Axioms (2)
  • Completeness Coherence?
  • (1) uncomplete and coherent worldview
  • Scientific worldview
  • (2) Complete and incoherent worldview
  • Religious worldview
  • complete then coherent.
  • Gödel, limit of the analogy.

The seven questions. (Apostel, Van der Veken
System of equations
  • Solving philosophical problems is "comparable to
    solving an intricate set of simultaneous
    equations which may have no solution at all or
    only relative solutions in the sense that we have
    often to choose between giving more weight to
    satisfying (more adequately) one equation or
  • (Wang 1986, 210).

  • every rational theory, no matter whether
    scientific or philosophical, is rational in so
    far as it tries to solve certain problems. A
    theory is comprehensible and reasonable only in
    its relation to a given problem-situation, and it
    can be rationally discussed only by discussing
    this relation. (Popper 1958, 268-269).
  • (1) Understand the problem
  • (2) Conceive a plan
  • (3) Execute the plan
  • (4) Examine the solution
  • (Newell, Simon 1972 Polya 1957)

  • 3. The worldview agenda
  • 4. What are the best philosophical worldviews?
  • 5. Worldview confrontation and diffusion
  • (1) Understand the pb
  • (2) Conceive a plan
  • (3) Execute the plan
  • (4) Examine the solution
  • (Newell, Simon 1972 Polya 1957)

5. Worldview confrontation and diffusion
Worldview confrontation and diffusion.
  • Uniqueness?
  • be afraid
  • be attracted
  • conclusion
  • Worldview confrontation
  • Agree to disagree
  • Satisfaction
  • Application - science against religion
  • Worldview diffusion

One unique worldview or several?
  • Ill argue that we should aim at one.
  • Why be afraid?
  • Totalitarism communist, nazi worldviews
  • Solution -gt critical attitude, open-discussion
  • We would all think the same
  • A worldview is guide, gives recommandations, a
    lot of freedom for actions. (See Heylighen 2000,
    Global Superorganism, sect. 7)
  • The danger is in fragmentation. (Bahm 1979,

One unique worldview or several?
  • Why be attracted by one unique worldview?
  • Worldview components 1,2,3 constrained by
  • Homogeneous societies have fewer conflicts
    (Durkheim 1893). Common values, goals.
  • Conclusions
  • (1) Find a trade-off
  • Less diversity -gt easier to control
  • More diversity -gt more adaptability (Gershenson
  • (2) Two levels
  • The philosopher
  • The historian of philosophy/ideas.

Worldview confrontation
  • Agree to disagree (Harnad 1979)
  • Habermas (1981)  communicative action  (?)

Comparison (Rescher 2001, 31)
  • One philosophical theory/thesis is better than
    another when, other things being equal
  • (1) It addresses and adequately resolves a
    broader range of important questions
  • (2) It exhibis greater internal and systemic
  • (3) It involves fewer anomalies - fewer
    difficulties that need to be met, a fewer seeming
    contradiction that need to be explained away.
  • (4) Its deliberations are less complex and its
    exposition il less complicated it invoves fewer
    distinctions and requires less elaborate
  • (5) Its principles are better substantiated and
    seem less artificial and contrived.
  • (6) It has a better fit to our prephilosophical
    knowledge in everyday life and in natural
  • (7) Its lessons and implication for the conduct
    of life accord better with those of "common
    sense" experience.
  • (8) It encourages a life-outlook that is
    personally more rewarding and socially more

Comparison (Popper 1958, 269)
  •      (1) Does the theory effectively solve the
  •      (2) Can it be in contradiction with other
    philosophical theories requiered to solve
    different problems?
  •      (3) Does it solve it better than other
  •      (4) Has it just moved the problem?
  •      (5) Is it simple?
  •      (6) Is it fecond?

Application science  against  religion
  • Towards more philosophical worldviews
  • (1) A religious worldview more compatible with
    scientific findings.
  • (2) A scientific worldview completed with an
    axiology and a praxiology.

Worldview diffusions
  • How to diffuse a worldview? 
  • (1) refute or show the limitations of the old
  • (2) develop social structures to help people with
    their concrete actions (a pragmatic praxiology).
  • (3) Simplify your worldview for diffusion.

Peace or war?
  • Kant 1781 stopped metaphysical speculations.
  • Good science develops more clearly
  • Wanted peace in the reason absurd!
  • In philosophy, controversy is the life blood of
    the entreprise.  (Rescher 2001, 208).
  • Let the World-View-War begin!

6. Application - Towards an integrative worldview

Failure of traditional worldviews
  • Understanding our problem situation
  • religious worldview
  • reductionist worldview
  • holistic worldview
  • humanistic worldview
  • individualist worldview
  • Relativism
  •  my little daily life .
  • Remede  evolutionary modelling capacities 
  • (Stewart 2000)

Science first
  • Do not make philosophy a science!
  • Mistakes of Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel, Marx
  • Distinction non-scientific/un-scientific (Broad
  • Firmly and explicitly ground philosophy in
  • Not an option!
  • With at least what is the most established.
  • Evolve with science
  • Ex widest synopsis -gt cosmic scale

Ambition and caution
  • Maxim
  • The more ambition in the questions, the more
    caution with the answers.
  • Hypotheses about hypotheses of science
  •  Hippopo-theses 

(No Transcript)
Systematic philosophy
  • Hegel
  • Evolution is at the heart of his system
  • But very naïve and unsufficient principle of
     thesis, antithesis, synthesis .
  • Rescher 2001
  • Systematicity is more efficient in our goals of

A language for sciences
  • Complexity sciences as a bridging sciences
    (cybernetics, system science)
  • Ex general concepts like feedback,
    self-organization, etc applies to physics,
    chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, etc
  •  No single Man 
  • Key concepts above.
  • More collaborations, use of information

7. Conclusion
Summary of steps to take
  • 1. Make a synoptic review of what could be useful
    to answer the worldview questions.
  • 2. Create or construct the best concepts to make
    a synthesis out of this synopsis.
  • 3. Propose a synthesis, in the form of a
    systematic philosophy.
  • 4. Confront the resulting worldview to show why
    it is a better worldview than the other existing.
  • 5. Show how it can solve the problems of our
  • 6. Diffuse your worldview.

  • The worldview approach is in harmony with
    traditional philosophical domains
  • Paraphrasing a philosopher of Königsberg,
  • Speculative philosophies without content are
  • critical philosophies without synoptic
    conceptions, blind.

Thank you for your attention!
  • Feel free to ask all your questions now or later
  • clement.vidal_at_philosophons.com

Bibliography (1)
  • Apostel, L., Van der Veken, J. (1991)
    Wereldbeelden DNB/Pelckmans. Translated with some
    additions in (Aerts et al.1994).
  • Aerts D., Apostel L., De Moor B., Hellemans S.,
    Maex E., Van Belle H., Van der Veken J. (1994)
    World views. From fragmentation to integration.
    VUB Press. http//pcp.vub.ac.be/CLEA/reports/World
  • Bahm, A. (1979) The philosopher's world model,
    Greenwood Press.
  • Broad, C.D. (1947) Some methods of speculative
    philosophy. Aristotelian Society Supplement 21,
    p1- 32. http//www.ditext.com/broad/smsp.html
  • Broad, C.D. (1958) Philosophy, Inquiry I,
  • Durkheim, E. (1893) The Division of Labor in
    Society. The Free Press, New York.Translated by
    George Simpson (1984).
  • Elchardus M. (ed.) (1998) Wantrouwen en
    Onbehagen, (VUB Press, Brussels).
  • Gershenson, C. (2007) Design and Control of
    Self-organizing Systems, PhD Thesis, VUB,
  • Habermas, J. (1981) The Theory of Communicative
    Action Beacon Press.

Bibliography (2)
  • Harnad, Stevan (1979) Creative disagreement. The
    Sciences 19 18 - 20. http//www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
  • Heylighen, F. (2000) "World View", in F.
    Heylighen, C. Joslyn and V. Turchin (editors)
    Principia Cybernetica Web (Principia Cybernetica,
    Brussels), http//cleamc11.vub.ac.be/WORLVIEW.html
  • Heylighen F. (2007) "The Global Superorganism
    an evolutionary-cybernetic model of the emerging
    network society", Social Evolution History 6 1
  • Kant, E. (1781), Critique of the pure reason.
    Trad. Norman Kemp Smith, ed. Palgrave Macmillan
    2nd Rev edition (September 6, 2003).
  • Myers, D. G. (1993), The Pursuit of Happiness
    (Avon Books)
  • Newell A., Simon H.A. (1972) Human Problem
    Solving, (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs).
  • Polya, G. (1957) How to Solve It, 2nd ed.,
    Princeton University Press.
  • Popper (1958) On the Status of Science and of
    Metaphysics Ratio, 1, No. 2, pp. 97-115. in
    Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of
    Scientific Knowledge (5th edition, revised
    London New York Routledge, 1989), 184-200.
  • Rescher, N. (2001) Philosophical Reasoning. A
    Study in the Methodology of Philosophizing.
    Blackwell publishers.
  • Ricoeur (1979) (reporter). Main trends in
    philosophy. Holmes Meier.
  • Russell, P. (1996) "The Global Brain Awakens Our
    next evolutionary leap" (Global Brain, 1996)
    (originally published in 1983 as "The Global
  • Wang, H. (1986) Beyond Analytic Philosophy, MIT,
    Cambridge, Massachusetts.
About PowerShow.com