dear Terry,
I can agree, in terms of a logical sequence that one might become aware of the possibility of yes/no prior to becoming aware that one has a world view. But, I must already have a primitive world view such that yes/no is a feature of such a world in order to apply a yes/no decision.
So, I can agree with the usefulness of your observation, but I can also assert that a world view is implicit even in the case of pre-conscious decisions. The fact that we might not bother with philosophy until we have an elaborated world view doesn't mean there isn't a world view implicit in every cognitive event.
Cheers
Keith
>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 14/11/10 3:08 AM >>>
Dear Cay and Jody,
You say <snip> ... worldview is more fundamental than ethics. Worldviews,
paradigms or epistemological positions determine ethical points of view, as
well has how we put our positions into practice. <endsnip>
This is a limited assumption only valid if you take a mentalist or similar
perspective.
On a more real and less cognitive front, one of the interesting biological
systems of organisms, including humans, is that which enables an organism to
take multiple inputs and convert them to a single output: a yes/no or do/do
not or like/dislike .
This fundamental biological process is the essence and basis of ethics. It
is not dependent on thinking, conscious cognition, or theoretical
constructs.
The ability to biologically convert multiple inputs into a single output
as 'ethical' decisions, the ability to biologically create the 'yes/no from
multiple inputs, is what provides the core underlying human processes by
which it is possible to make the judgements necessary to build a
'worldview'.
Hence from ethological and other biological, or even 'design and emotion'
perspectives, the human ability to do ethics is more fundamental than the
human ability to have a worldview. From these perspectives, the findings is
opposite of what you suggest.
Best wishes,
Terry
|