Worldview

A worldview is the set of beliefs about the world at large, that a person or society uses as the basis for its functioning and position in life and the cosmos, and which forms the foundation for decisions and actions. Because of this it therefore has a moral impact.

One can use the metaphor or compass or a gyroscope with a map, used for navigating life and helping to decide how to steer and where to go.

The worldview, that provides the cosmogeny and teleology for Man and society, is based on the state of thinking in science and philosophy, and how these (try to) provide answers on Man's most important questions about Man, life and the cosmos. See also Schema FMC00.275 below which details these fundamental questions to be answered. One of today's key 'battlefields' is the explanation of human consciousness. For a short description of cosmogeny and teleology, see also Discussion area on Meaning of life

In the 20th and 21st centuries, one could distinguish the following main worldviews:

the materialistic worldview, dominant worldwide, based on mineral science (incl. all the modern theoretical and applied sciences: physics, astronomy, medicine, etc) .. with as its 'militant spearpoint' atheism
the spiritual worldview, based on spiritual science (incl. anthroposophy, theosophy, hermetics, esoteric christinanity, etc)
the 'fundamentalistic' religious worldview (eg in islamitic or hindu countries where religion still has the upper hand influence on society over science, but also creatonism in the US could be suggested as an example)

The worldview question is very much interlinked to the question of belief and religion. For example: the materialistic worldview may lead or leads to atheism, but not all people adhering to this worldview are militant or convinced atheists (maybe on the contrary).

The difference in worldview and belief system is, of all ages, polarizing and historically underlying prosecution and wars - see worldview wars.

Aspects

popular contemporary acronym VABE, stands for 'Values Assumptions Beliefs Expectations' and relates to what is called worldview. It describes the values, assumptions, beliefs and expectations that develop within people as a result of their upbringing, education, work experiences and hundreds of other life experiences. It is used oa in psychology, leadership, coaching, etc.
key elements that are central to worldview debates (see also Schema FMC00.275)
- cosmogony: the quest for creation of cosmos?
- teleology: the quest for purpose, meaning?
- eschatology: death and the destiny of the soul, and destiny of humankind as a whole?
- see more on: Meaning of life#Note 1 - Relevant concepts and terminology
angles of perspective
- dogmas (the imposing of beliefs, eg in religion)
- mysteries (accepting and living the awe of non-knowing)
- philosophy and science (intellectual-rational building of systems using thought, and experiment)
Rudolf Steiner's twelve worldviews (1914-01-21/22-GA151)

Illustrations

Schema FMC00.275 is a comparative overview by the DL (author/editor of this site) of the key questions that a worldview must answer, based on Apostel's work on worldviews in 1994 (second column). These are related to the 'seven riddles' by du Bois - Raymond's speech in 1880 (often referenced by Rudolf Steiner), and more recently Rupert Sheldrake's challenge of the dogmas of science in 2012 (see TED movie and his books).

The right column adds five key issues with the 'mineral science worldview' (by myself in 2014, without knowing the three others then). The goal here was to try and point out in the most condensed way possible where mineral science goes in error versus the more holistic meta-representation offered by spiritual science (see also Goethean science).

Lecture coverage and references

Emil du Bois-Reymond (1818-1896) - "Ignorabimus"

was a German physician and physiologist

The two lectures 1905-10-05-GA054 and 1920-09-27-GA232 refer to du Bois-Reymond’s talk

from wikipedia [see also Schema FMC00.275]

In 1880 du Bois-Reymond delivered a speech to the Berlin Academy of Sciences enumerating seven "world riddles" or "shortcomings" of science:
the ultimate nature of matter and force;

the origin of motion;

the origin of life;

the "apparently teleological arrangements of nature" (not an "absolutely transcendent riddle");

the origin of simple sensations ("a quite transcendent" question);

the origin of intelligent thought and language (which might be known if the origin of sensations could be known); and

the question of free will.Concerning numbers 1, 2 and 5 he proclaimed "Ignorabimus" ("we will never know"). Concerning number 7 he proclaimed "Dubitemus" ("we doubt it')

1913-11-06-GA063

However, Pythagoras believed to express something particular, namely that one finds the impulse to immerse oneself in the forever imperishable in that what does not deliver anything useful in the development of the human soul in the outer use but in himself; and that one must develop something in the soul that can be applied not in the outer life directly, but that the human soul develops due an inner desire. The recognition of such a pursuit is found with Pythagoras in olden times.
We glance now at a phenomenon of the modern time which I do not mention in order to mention philosophical oddities, but because it is typical for the way of the cultural life of our time.
A worldview has spread from America to Europe that one calls pragmatism. This worldview appears rather weird compared with that what Pythagoras demands from a worldview. Whether something that the human soul expresses as its knowledge is true or wrong for others, this worldview of pragmatism does not ask at all, but only whether a thought that the human being develops as a worldview is fertile and useful for life. Pragmatism does not ask whether something is true or wrong in any objective sense, but, for example, it asks for the following. We immediately take one of the most significant concepts of the human being: should the human being think that a uniform self is in him? He does not perceive this uniform self. He perceives the succession of sensations, mental pictures, and ideas and so on. But it is useful to understand the succession of the sensations, mental pictures and ideas in such a way as if a common self exists; the internal conception is arranged thereby, the human being thereby accomplishes what he accomplishes from the soul like from a downpour; life is not fragmented thereby. We go to the highest idea. For pragmatism, it does not depend on the truth content of the God concept at all, but it asks, should one conceive the thought of a divine being? It answers, it is good that one has the thought of a divine being, if one did not believe the thought that the world is ruled by a divine old being, the soul would remain hopeless; it is good for the soul accepting this thought.— There one interprets the value of the worldview in a quite contrary sense as Pythagoras did. With him, the worldview should interpret what is not for the benefit of life. However, presently a worldview spreads out, and one can expect that it will seize many heads, which almost says — and in practice it has already done it: valuable is what is thought as if it exists, so that life proceeds most profitably for the human being!
We realise that the human development took place in such a way that one almost considers the opposite of a worldview as correct that one regarded as right, so to speak, at the beginning of the European philosophy.
The human attitude developed from the Pythagorean theosophy to the modern pragmatic antisophy.
Since this pragmatism is absolutely antisophy because it considers mental pictures of something supersensible under the viewpoint of practical value and benefit for the sensory world. It is significant that towards our time the antisophical mood penetrates the human souls. That is widespread today what once Du Bois-Reymond, a brilliant representative of natural sciences, explained on a naturalists' meeting in Leipzig (1872) in his ignorabimus speech! Du Bois-Reymond (Emil Heinrich Du B. R., 1818-1896) admits explaining it brilliantly that science has only to deal with the principles of the outer world of space and time, and never even with the slightest element of the soul life as such. Later Du Bois-Reymond even spoke of “seven world riddles” —the nature of matter and energy, the origin of motion, the origin of life, the apparently teleological arrangements of nature, the origin of simple sensations, the origin of intelligent thought and language, and the question of freewill. He says that science cannot grasp them because it must rely on “naturalism.” At that time, Du Bois-Reymond finished his explanations quite typically, while he meant that one would have to penetrate into something else if one even wanted to understand the slightest element of the soul life: may they attempt it with the only way out, with that of supra-naturalism. He added the meaningful words, not as an argument, but as something that he asserts out of his mood quite dogmatically: save that science ends where supra-naturalism begins.

1914-GA018

this volume focuses on world conceptions and their link to cultures and evolution through the ages

1914-01-21-GA151

The Possibility of contemplating the World from twelve different Standpoints through twelve equally justified World-Outlooks.

1914-01-22-GA151

Relations of the seven World-Outlook-Moods (Planets) to the twelve Shades of World-Outlook (Zodiac). The threefold Tone in World-Outlooks (Sun, Moon and Earth). The special case of Anthropomorphism (Earth).

1914-03-26-GA063

That is why we deal in particular in spiritual-scientific fields with the opposition of that worldview which believes to stand firmly on the ground of modern science, and which must - I say expressly “must” - regard spiritual science from its point of view as fantasy and daydreaming. I choose a form of worldview that believes to stand strictly on the firm ground of scientific methodology.

1921-08-06-GA206

is about the concept of world conception, also linking it to the functioning of Man as a threefold being

Below follow only a few passages

Let us simply observe the fact that, on the one hand, we have before us what people thought to win through a careful study of material processes, rising as far as the human being. To begin with, this was to be the only contents of a world-conception; people believed that only this enabled them to stand upon a firm ground. It was something completely new in comparison with what was contained, for instance, in the medieval world-conception.
During the past three, four, five centuries, something entirely new had been gained in regard to a knowledge of Nature, and nothing had been gained in regard to the spiritual world. In regard to the spiritual world, a philosophy had finally been reached, which saw its chief task, as I have expressed myself yesterday, in justifying its existence, at least to a certain extent. Theories of knowledge were written, with the aim of stating that it was still possible to make philosophical statements, at least in regard to some distant point, and that perhaps it could be stated that a super-sensible world existed, but that it could not be recognised; the existence of a super-sensible world could, at the most, be assumed.
...
The modern civilisation, which began in the fifteenth century and reached its climax in the nineteenth century, merely lays claim on one third of the threefold human being: the thinking part of man, the head of man. And we must ask: What occurs within the dreaming, feeling part of the human being, within the sleeping, willing part of the human being, and what occurs from the time of falling asleep to the time of waking up? Indeed, as human beings, we may be soundly materialistic within our life of thoughts. This is possible, for the nineteenth century has proved it. The nineteenth century has also proved the justification of materialism; for it has led to a positive knowledge of the material world, which is an image of the spiritual world. We may be materialists with our head ... but in that case we do not control our dreaming life of feeling, nor our sleeping life of the will. These become spiritually inclined, particularly the life of the will.
...
You see, I must continually call attention to the difference between real logic, a logic of reality, and the merely abstract logic of the intellect. .. a living logic is something quite different from an abstract logic. What may be deduced logically, need not really take place; the very opposite can take place. For this reason, there is such a great difference between the things to which we gradually learn to swear in the materialistic epoch, between the abstract thinking logic, which merely takes hold of the head, and the sense of reality, which is alone able at the present time to lead us to welfare and security.
At the present time, people are satisfied if an un-contradicted logic can be adduced for a world-conception. But, in reality, this is of no importance whatever. It is not only essential to bear in mind whether or not a conception may be logically proved, for, in reality, both a radical materialism and a radical spiritualism, with everything which lies in between, may be proved through logic.
The essential point today is to realise that something need not be merely logical, but that it must correspond with the reality, as well as being logical. It must correspond with reality. And this corresponding with reality can only be reached by living together with reality. This life in common with reality can be reached through spiritual science.
...
One might say: Well, spiritual science is also a science which merely speaks of other worlds, instead of the materialistic worlds. But this is not so. What is taken up through spiritual science, even if we ourselves are not endowed with spiritual vision, is something which educates the human being. Above all, it does not educate the head of man, but it educates the whole of man, it has a real influence upon the whole of man. It corrects particularly the harm done by the spiritual opponent who lives within the sensualists and materialists, the opponent who has always lived within them.
...
The evolution of humanity needs a conscious spiritual impulse in order to live. For we should always make a distinction between the value which a particular wisdom, or anything else in life, may possess in itself, and its value for the evolution of humanity. The intellectualism which forms part of materialism has furthered human development in such a way that the life of thoughts has reached its highest point.
To begin with, we have the technique of thinking contained in Scholasticism, which constituted the first freeing deed; and then, in more recent times, we have the second freeing deed in natural science. But what was meanwhile raging in the subconsciousness, was the element which made the human being the slave of his instincts. He must again be set free. He can only be freed through a science, a knowledge, a spiritual world-conception, which becomes just as widely popular as the materialistic science: he can only be set at liberty through a spiritual world-conception, which constitutes the opposite pole of what has developed under the influence of a science dependent solely upon the head.
...
In regard to the historical development of our civilisation, we are not only living within a slow process of illness, but at the present time we are living within an acute illness of our civilisation.
What arises in the form of a world-conception should be a true remedy; it should be a truly medical science, a cure. We should be permeated by the conviction that such a world-conception should be really significant for what rises out of our modern civilisation and culture; we should be filled with the conviction that this world-conception really has a true meaning, that it is not merely something formal, something through which we gain knowledge, through which we acquire the concepts of the things which exist outside, or through which we learn to know the laws of Nature and to apply them technically. No, in every true world-conception there should be this inner character intimately connected with man's being, namely, that out of this true world-conception we may obtain the remedies against illness, even against the process of death; the remedies which should always be there.
So long as we do not speak in this manner and so long as this is not grasped, we shall only speak in a superficial way of the evils of our time, and we shall not speak of what is really needed.

1945 - Karl Popper

in his book 'The open society and its enemies'

Closed systems, immunised against all criticism, are incapable of progress, smother all intellectual independence and creativity and eventually perish through their own inflexibility. pen systems, by contrast, which are willing to risk the refutation of even the most seemingly indispensable truths are not only more humane, but prove to be more productive and successful. Scientific as well as political systems are not acceptable unless they are capable of learning and self-correction

Discussion

Note 1 - Worldview debate end 20th century and early 21st century

Worldview perspective

The contemporary debate on worldviews of end 20th century and early 21st century can be sketched with some main viewpoints

[1] materialistic atheism, fighting religion, belief in science and the laws of physics alone
[2] critique of material reductionism [1] and its limitations and focusing on the importance of teleology, morality, consciousness
[3] defending theism and faith against [1]
[4] spiritual (scientific) worldview, as in anthroposophy, theosophy, .. with various positioning of the Christ Impulse and existing religions

.

Representatives

The following individuals are put forth here as representatives of the different worldviews, they are merely presented as voices and representative spearpoints of the above viewpoints, with a suggested list of additional people that could be positioned alongside. Note the groups of approx. 10 people obviously are not all of the same opinion on everything, but can be clustered along the worldview perspectives as described.

[1] - Daniel Dennett (1942-2024) & Richard Dawkins (1942-) - prominent proponents of atheism as a militant spear point of the materialistic worldview, with fierce critique of religion and rejecting religious morality in favor of a rational, evidence-based ethical system; and advocating scientific naturalism and a universe governed by the laws of physics alone;
- others: Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens
- some more: Steven Pinker, Lawrence Krauss, A.C. Grayling, Jerry Coyne, Peter Singer
[2] - Thomas Nagel (1937-) offering a (non-theistic) critique of the material reductionist accounts especially in the context of consciousness, mind, and ethics; and the impact of the materialistic worldview for morality. Elements are: teleology, "the hard problem of consciousness" or the difficulty of explaining subjective experience purely in physical terms
- others: David Chalmers, John Searle, Roger Penrose
- some more: Galen Strawson, Colin McGinn, Raymond Tallis, Philip Goff
[3] - Alvin Plantinga (1932-) .. an example of philosophical integrative positioning of religious belief and contemporary mineral science (god could have used darwinian processes, etc); known for his work on epistemology and defense of theism, particularly Christian theism, and his arguments against naturalism and atheism. This position also emphasizes the limitations of naturalistic worldviews in explaining the origin of the universe and morality; and challenges the notion that science and faith are incompatible.
- some others: William Lane Craig, Edward Feser, Richard Swinburne, C.S. Lewis, John Polkinghorne, Nicholas Wolterstorff, J.P. Moreland

.

Notes

1/ - Regarding assertive or aggressive atheism and attacks on the spiritual, see also Sorat-people or Sorat-men, see Sorat#1924-09-12-GA346 - other translation

Sorat men will also be recognizable outwardly; they will be those who not only ridicule spiritual things, — they will fight it in the most terrible way and they will want to thrust it down into a cesspool. ...
This is why it is so important that everything which can strive towards spirituality should really do so. Everything which opposes spirituality will be there, for this does not work in accordance with freedom but in accordance with determinism. This determinism is moving in the direction where Sorat will be loose again at the end of this century, when a striving to sweep away everything spiritual will be present in the intentions of a large number of earth souls, whom the Apocalypticer prophetically sees with their bestial faces and their strength of a tiger with respect to the execution of their adversarial deeds against the spiritual.
Outbursts of rage against the spiritual are already here today: but they are only the first seeds. ...
What is striven for by the Soratic spirits who are pressing into the soul of humanity is not the world war, but what followed it; this is terrible and will become ever more terrible ..

Related pages

References and further reading

general

Principia Cybernetica: What is a worldview?
Leo Apostel, Diederik Aerts et al.: Worldviews: from fragmentation to integration
C. Vidal: What is a worldview? (2008, paper, see Academia or ResearchGate)

anthroposophical

Sigismund von Gleich: Die Wahrheit als Gesamtumfang aller Weltansichten (1957, again 1989)
Mario Betti: 'Twelve Ways of Seeing the World' - Philosophies and Archetypal Worldviews for Understanding Human Consciousness (2020, original in DE2 2001 as 'Zwölf Wege, die Welt zu verstehen'
Corinna Gleide, Ralf Gleide: 'Der Sternhimmel der Vernunft: Über den Weg der zwölf Weltanschauungen' (2008)