Marc Carvallo A "view" isn't necessarily a perceptual view; it can be an opinion or belief, even about quite abstract matters. A "worldview" is not what you get when you look out the window of the International Space Station, it is a conception of the world. And "world" is not necessarily a particular planet; it may refer to all of existence as a whole.

Various metaphysical theses can be considered to be worldviews. Here is an example of a worldview that is clearly metaphysical:

https://www.palgrave.com/cn/book/9783319409757

Dear Karl,

I have a doubt on some of your answer: (i) "view" is necessarily perceptual and abstract; it is sensory-basedness; (ii) conceptualism vs. non-conceptualism (see the most recent scientific discussions) can be reduced (in the positive sense) to 'sensory-basedness' vs. 'non-sensory basedness'; (iii) what I mean by "world" is a system consisting of {matter;space;time}; (iv) can one see the far side of {matter;space;time}? (iv) "worldview" betrays itself as perceptual (see the phrase of "view"); (v) even God as the most immaterial (and accordingly 'abstract') 'One' can only be perceived by human beings (as the 'many').

Thanks in advance for your answer. Marc.

Dear Marc Carvallo .

From the New Oxford American Dictionary [same as Mac Dashboard Dictionary]:

• View, n. ... a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion: [e.g.] strong political views.
• Conception, n. ...the way in which something is perceived or regarded: [e.g.] our conception of how language relates to reality. [NB: "conception" is an ordinary everyday term and implies nothing about the philosophy issue of conceptualism vs. non-conceptualism]
• Perception, n. ... a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something... [e.g.] we need to challenge many popular perceptions of old age.
• Worldview, n. A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

I think you should consult a dictionary more often, since the terms you view as having one literal meaning actually have many senses. You can't always go by the etymology.

Dear Karl,

Where are your answer(s) upon my doubts regarding your answer, from (i) through (v)? In stead thereof you give me very easy descriptions from the New Oxford American Dictionary! This is outright ridicular! Please give me your reaction(s) upon my added doubts regarding your answer, from (i) through (v). Thanks in advance again for those reaction(s). Marc.

Marc Carvallo RE: "Where are your answer(s) upon my doubts regarding your answer, from (i) through (v)? In stead thereof you give me very easy descriptions from the New Oxford American Dictionary! This is outright ridicular [sic]!"

Marc Carvallo, so you regard my answer as outright ridiculous?

What is ridiculous is your insistence that « (i) "view" is necessarily perceptual and abstract; it is sensory-basedness; » — the word "view" is not always used that way in English and is certainly not how "worldview" is used in English. You need to respect common usage.

RE: « (ii) conceptualism vs. non-conceptualism (see the most recent scientific discussions) can be reduced (in the positive sense) to 'sensory-basedness' vs. 'non-sensory basedness' » — Neither the original question of this thread nor my original answer to it raised the issue of conceptualism vs. non-conceptualism, so it is ridiculous of you to criticize me in that regard. Anyway, the reduction isn't obvious; both conceptualism and non-conceptualism in the case of abstract entities like numbers may be non-sensory, using just faculties of imagination and intuition.

RE: « (iii) what I mean by "world" is a system consisting of {matter;space;time} » — If that is what you mean, then it is moot whether you can "view" such a "system" perceptually; systematicity is an organizing principle or set of relationships that is theorized or inferred rather than viewed directly.

RE: « (iv) "worldview" betrays itself as perceptual (see the phrase of "view") » — ridiculous! just see my response to (i) above and the dictionary definitions in my last answer in this thread.

RE: « (v) even God as the most immaterial (and accordingly 'abstract')... » — God was not mentioned in your question; however, "abstract" and "immaterial" are not contradictories (= something is either the one or else the other) but contraries (= something may be neither); conceptions of God may be highly abstract but God himself is not an abstract entity. But again it is ridiculous of you to regard (v) as somehow raising a doubt concerning my answer.

Dear Karl,

Yes, outright ridicular! What is the reason of your reactions? I 'll give my feedback upon your reactions, as follows:

(i) Should any scientist have respect for the common use in English, or is he/she able to imagine a more scientific phrase? (Note that English as language is incomplete, like any language!).

(ii) Where is my criticism against you in this point?

(iii) What is moot in this point? And what do you mean exactly by the concept of 'system'?

(iv) For my feedback, see again (i).

(v) God is explicitly mentioned in this point. Please see carefully point (v)! Am I obliged not to raise any doubt concerning your answer? Which answer?

Thanks finally for your reactions upon my answer containing those (i) through (v). Marc.

Marc Carvallo

RE: (i) Should any scientist have respect for the common use in English, or is he/she able to imagine a more scientific phrase? (Note that English as language is incomplete, like any language!).

Sure, you can stipulate* new senses for words. But then you have to be upfront about the fact that you're doing that. And you can't limit the answer to your definition of "worldview" when you ask for a "clear" distinction between worldview and metaphysics, for the distinction is a preexisting one. I gave you an example (in the link) of a worldview (as ordinarily understood) that is clearly metaphysical (as ordinarily understood), but not directly based on perception. Some metaphysical worldviews are more or less closely allied to sensory perception, e.g. logical positivism (almost absolutely based on sensory perception) and various other kinds of empiricism (where it's a matter of degree).

RE: (ii) Where is my criticism against you in this point?

Here it is: "you give me very easy descriptions from the New Oxford American Dictionary! This is outright ridicular"

RE: (iii) What is moot in this point? And what do you mean exactly by the concept of 'system'

"System" just in the vague ordinary sense of a set of interrelated, interconnected, or interacting things or parts of a complex whole. And I told you why it was moot. To quote myself: "systematicity is an organizing principle or set of relationships that is theorized or inferred rather than viewed directly." In other words, there is often more to a system than meets or can meet the eye, so whether it is fundamentally based in perception is debatable (note that rationalism is not empiricism, but rationalists still have a nonfoundational role for perception).

RE: (iv) For my feedback, see again (i).

Likewise, I guess.

RE (v): God is explicitly mentioned in this point. Please see carefully point (v)! Am I obligednot to raise any doubt concerning your answer? Which answer?

God is NOT mentioned in the original question of this thread, or the explanation under it, nor by me in my first answer. In your first reply (to my first answer) you said "I have a doubt on some of your answer: [...] (v) even God as the most immaterial (and accordingly 'abstract') 'One' can only be perceived by human beings (as the 'many’).” This was totally out of the blue and no explanation was given as to why it cast doubt on my answer or why it is relevant to the original question of this thread.

_______________

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

Dear Karl,

(i) (a) if stipulation is positive what is the exact reason of your reaction upon this point?

(b) am I obliged to hold the pre-exsisting defintion/description of worldview=metaphysics?

(c) 'metaphysical worldviews' according to you, doesn't it smack of pleonasm? (see (i) sub (b));

(d) you give me a few examples of logical positivism which belong to the 'objective knowledge' of 20th century; is n't there high time now (in the beginning of mid 21st century) to change it?

(ii) then there is, according to you, a distinction between criticism and feedback; what precisely?

(iii) (a) what is moot is not answered of this point.

(b) your 'systematicity' # 'system'; in addition, there are two (maybe more) descriptions/definitions of the concept of 'system';

(c) your definition/descrption of 'system' or 'set' is from the beginning of the 20th century; it is high time now (in the beginning of mid 21st century) to change it;

(d) please explain me further/explicitly what you do mean by 'rationalists still have a non-foundational role for perception';

(iv) the points (i) through (v) are on my part. On your part you start with RE: (i) ff. So, your: see again (i) on this point (iv) is badly confusing.

(v) (a) you cite me on point RE: (v), though you say that God is NOT mentioned in the original question, so please read me more carefully! Otherwise, don't use RE: (v)! see again (iv).

(b) My original question is addressed explicitly to prof. Hein Retter and NOT to you.

Thanks notwithstanding for your reactions. Marc.

Marc Carvallo

I don’t have the time or energy to address all your difficulties. After this I'm done.

RE: (i) (a) if stipulation is positive what is the exact reason of your reaction upon this point?

Because you are not saying it is a stipulation, you are presenting it as if it’s a fact. Stipulations are neither true nor false; they are useful or not useful (and you’ve given no reason why it is to be preferred). Click on the link I provided in the footnote to my previous answer.

RE: (b) am I obliged to hold the pre-exsisting defintion/description of worldview=metaphysics?

Yes, because you are asking us to explain the distinction. If you are simply using the words in your own stipulated way, why would you need to ask anyone else about your way of making the distinction?

RE: (d) (d) you give me a few examples of logical positivism which belong to the 'objective knowledge' of 20th century; is n't there high time now (in the beginning of mid 21st century) to change it?

I was using those as simple historical examples to explain how sensory perception might be the basis for a metaphysical worldview. It’s your job to see how those same considerations might apply in the metaphysical worldviews that you are interested in. And if you think empiricism is no longer a going concern, try googling it.

RE:(iii) (a) what is moot is not answered of this point.

Huh? Moot means “open to debate”. The issue is, if not all of a system is directly perceivable but partly inferred or postulated, is it still acceptable to regard the basis of the ism that incorporates the system as perceptual? Different people will give you different answers.

RE:(d) please explain me further/explicitly what you do mean by 'rationalists still have a non-foundational role for perception';

Google and read some Kant (“concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind"). Roughly: Although reason is the foundation of knowledge, it largely functions by acting on or structuring sensory experience. (And don't just dismiss Kant as old 18th Century stuff; his concepts and distinctions are still influential.)

RE: (iv) the points (i) through (v) are on my part. On your part you start with RE: (i) ff. So, your: see again (i) on this point (iv) is badly confusing.

Well, I can’t unconfuse you if you keep insisting that “worldview” and “view” are necessarily perceptual. That’s not my point of view (= opinion). That’s not how I view (= construe) the situation. Are you still going to insist that my two uses of view are necessarily perceptual and sensory-based?