Hubbry Logo
WorldviewWorldviewMain
Open search
Worldview
Community hub
Worldview
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Worldview
Worldview
Worldview
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A worldview (also world-view or world view) or Weltanschauung is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view.[1] However, when two parties view the same real world phenomenon, their world views may differ, one including elements that the other does not.

A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[2]

Etymology

[edit]

The term worldview is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung [ˈvɛltʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] ⓘ, composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('perception' or 'view').[3] 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 as a social reality.

Weltanschauung and cognitive philosophy

[edit]

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.[4][5]

The term Weltanschauung is often wrongly attributed to Wilhelm von Humboldt, the founder of German ethnolinguistics. However, Humboldt's key concept was Weltansicht.[6] 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 Immanuel 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 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 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."[7]

If it were possible to draw a map of the world on the basis of Weltanschauung,[8] 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,[8] environmental-climatic conditions, the economic resources available, socio-cultural systems, and the language family.[8] (The work of the population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza aims to show the gene-linguistic co-evolution of people).

According to James W. Underhill, worldview can periodically be used very differently by certain linguists and sociologists. It is for this reason that Underhill, and those who influenced him, attempted to wed metaphor in, for example, the sociology of religion, with discourse analysis. Underhill also proposed five subcategories for the study of worldview: world-perceiving, world-conceiving, cultural mindset, personal world, and perspective.[6][9][10]

Comparison of worldviews

[edit]
See also: Social Axioms Survey

One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical or consistent theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview – precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[11] 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.[12]

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.[13][14] Additionally, religious believers might not wish to see their beliefs relativized into something that is only "true for them".[15][16] 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.[17][clarification needed]

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."[18]

The comparison of religious, philosophical or scientific worldviews is a delicate endeavor, because such worldviews start from different presuppositions and cognitive values.[19] Clément Vidal has proposed metaphilosophical criteria for the comparison of worldviews, classifying them in three broad categories:

  1. Objective consistency, comprising scientific validity and scope
  2. Subjective consistency, comprising personal utility and emotional satisfaction
  3. Intersubjective consistency, comprising collective utility and narrative coherence.

Characteristics

[edit]

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,[20] 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.

Terror management theory

[edit]
Main article: Terror management theory
In terror management theory, one's worldview helps to alleviate the anxiety caused by awareness of one's own mortality.

A worldview, according to terror management theory (TMT), serves as a buffer against death anxiety.[21] 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).[21]

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.[21] Using a test of death-thought accessibility (DTA), involving an ambiguous word completion test (e.g. "COFF__" could either be completed as either "COFFEE" or "COFFIN" or "COFFER"), Canadian 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.[21] No significant changes on mood scales were found immediately following the worldview threat.[21]

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.[21] 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.[21] Religious participants with a creationist worldview were found to have a significantly higher level of death-thought accessibility than those of the control group.[21]

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.[22]

Religion

[edit]
Religious practices will tie closely to a religion's worldview.

Nishida Kitaro wrote extensively on "the Religious Worldview" in exploring the philosophical significance of Eastern religions.[23]

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."[24]

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."[25]

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".[26]

David Bell has also raised questions on religious worldviews for the designers of superintelligences – machines much smarter than humans.[27]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Worldview

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A worldview, derived from the German philosophical term Weltanschauung meaning "world perception" or "view of the world," constitutes a coherent set of fundamental assumptions, beliefs, and values about the nature of , , and that orients an individual's or society's interpretation of experiences, knowledge, and decision-making. Emerging in late 18th-century , particularly through thinkers like and later systematized by , the concept denotes a holistic intuitive grasp of the and life's purpose, distinct from mere empirical data or specialized disciplines, and serving as a foundational frame for addressing existential queries such as the origins of the , moral order, and human purpose. Psychological research frames worldviews as cognitive-affective structures that exert causal influence on behavior, resilience, and interpersonal dynamics, with empirical studies linking specific orientations—such as optimism toward human agency or pessimism regarding natural laws—to measurable outcomes in health, motivation, and social cooperation. While worldviews enable adaptive navigation of complex realities through pattern recognition and value prioritization, they also underpin ideological conflicts when incompatible assumptions about evidence, hierarchy, or progress collide, as seen in historical tensions between materialist scientism and teleological traditions. Explicit articulation of one's worldview, often through first-person reflection or comparative analysis, fosters clarity in reasoning and mitigates unexamined biases that distort causal inference from observable data.

Definition and Origins

Core Definition

A worldview is a foundational set of presuppositions, beliefs, and commitments about the nature of reality, existence, knowledge, value, and purpose that provides a coherent framework for interpreting the world and guiding human action. These elements form an integrated perspective influencing perception, reasoning, and behavior, often operating below conscious awareness to filter experiences and prioritize causal explanations consistent with core assumptions. Unlike isolated opinions, a worldview functions as a holistic system addressing ultimate questions, such as the origin and structure of the universe, the reliability of sensory data, and criteria for moral judgment, thereby enabling predictive and explanatory consistency in diverse contexts. Philosophically, worldviews encompass domains like metaphysics (concerning being and ), epistemology (methods of justification and truth), and ethics (normative principles), which interlink to form a unified orientation toward . This structure arises from first-hand encounters with existential realities—such as contingency, , and finitude—prompting reflective synthesis rather than arbitrary constructs, as evidenced in historical philosophical traditions where coherence with observed phenomena determines viability. While individual worldviews vary, their truth-value hinges on empirical alignment and logical rigor, not cultural prevalence or institutional endorsement, underscoring the need for scrutiny against verifiable data over biased narratives from sources prone to ideological distortion.

Etymology and Terminology

The English term "worldview" is a , or , of the German compound word Weltanschauung, formed from Welt ("world") and Anschauung ("view" or "perception"). This linguistic borrowing entered English usage in the late , reflecting the influence of on Western thought. The concept of Weltanschauung originated in German intellectual circles, with historians of ideas attributing its coinage to the philosopher (1724–1804), whose (1790) employed the term to denote a holistic intuitive apprehension of the shaped by human and . Kant's framework emphasized the subjective structuring of reality through categories of understanding, distinguishing Weltanschauung from mere empirical observation or scientific theory. Subsequent German thinkers, including Goethe and Hegel, expanded its application to encompass broader cultural and existential orientations. In philosophical , "worldview" denotes a comprehensive, integrated framework of beliefs, values, and assumptions about reality's fundamental , purpose, and moral order, often serving as an implicit lens for interpreting . It contrasts with narrower concepts like (which may focus on political or social prescriptions) or (typically confined to scientific methodologies), prioritizing instead an all-encompassing "vision of the world" that includes metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological dimensions. Related terms include in (as a ordered whole) and Lebensanschauung (life-view) in later existential contexts, though Weltanschauung uniquely implies a perceptual totality unbound by strict .

Philosophical Foundations

Weltanschauung and German Idealism

The concept of Weltanschauung, translating to "world-view" or "world-contemplation," emerged as a technical term within , denoting a unified, systematic grasp of reality that integrates theoretical cognition, moral praxis, and aesthetic intuition. First systematically invoked by in the late 18th century, it signified a rational orientation to the cosmos delimited by the faculties of understanding, contrasting with fragmented empirical perceptions or dogmatic metaphysics. Kant's usage, appearing in contexts like his lectures on logic and the essay "What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?" (1786), framed Weltanschauung as a critical standpoint where reason provides direction amid the "starless heavens" of theoretical uncertainty, grounded in the a priori conditions of outlined in the (1781, revised 1787). Johann Gottlieb Fichte advanced Kant's framework by positing Weltanschauung as deriving from the self-positing activity of the absolute I, which generates the dualism of subject and object while resolving it through practical reason. In the Foundations of the Entire Science of Knowledge (Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre, 1794), Fichte argued that the worldview arises dynamically from the I's original act of self-assertion against a posited non-I, synthesizing freedom with necessity and elevating philosophy to a moral science that demands ethical action in the world. This subjective idealism positioned Weltanschauung not as passive contemplation but as an ongoing deed (Tathandlung), influencing subsequent idealists by emphasizing the productive role of consciousness in constituting reality. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling incorporated nature and mythology into the idealist Weltanschauung, viewing it as an intellectual intuition bridging the conscious self and the unconscious productivity of the absolute. His System of Transcendental Idealism (1800) portrayed art as the of , wherein the worldview achieves wholeness by revealing the identity of subject and object in creative production, transcending Fichte's toward a of (). Schelling critiqued purely subjective approaches, insisting that a complete Weltanschauung must account for the pre-conscious forces animating organic and inorganic realms, as elaborated in works like Ideas for a Philosophy of (1797). Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel synthesized these strands, elevating Weltanschauung to its dialectical apex as the self-unfolding of absolute spirit through history, logic, and culture, with philosophy representing its consummate form. In the Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), Hegel depicted the evolution of consciousness from sensory certainty to absolute knowing, wherein fragmented worldviews (Vorstellungen) are sublated into a rational totality that comprehends reality's inner necessity. Unlike Kant's critical limits or Fichte's moral summons, Hegel's objective idealism treated Weltanschauung as the historical actualization of reason, where contradictions propel development toward freedom, as systematized in the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1817). This conception underscored philosophy's role in grasping the present as rational, influencing later hermeneutic expansions while rooting the term firmly in idealist holism.

Cognitive Philosophy and Epistemology

, the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, sources, scope, and limits of , forms a core pillar of any worldview by establishing criteria for justified beliefs about . It addresses fundamental questions such as what constitutes —often analyzed as justified true belief since Plato's Theaetetus (circa 369 BCE)—and how such is acquired, whether through sensory experience, rational intuition, or other means. In the context of worldviews, epistemological commitments determine the reliability of perceptual data versus abstract reasoning, influencing whether a worldview prioritizes empirical observation, deductive logic, or interpretive frameworks. For instance, foundationalist epistemologies posit basic beliefs that serve as anchors for broader knowledge structures, while views justification as deriving from the mutual support among beliefs, shaping holistic worldviews that integrate disparate domains like and . Cognitive philosophy, intersecting with , examines how mental processes such as perception, memory, and inference underpin the formation of epistemic norms and thus worldviews. Drawing from , it reveals that human operates through modular systems, where domain-specific mechanisms process inputs to generate beliefs about and , as evidenced in evolutionary models of decision-making. Rationalist traditions, advanced by Descartes in (1641), emphasize innate ideas and a priori , arguing that resolution via clear and distinct perceptions yields foundational to a realist worldview. Empiricist counterpoints, articulated by Hume in (1739–1740), contend that all ideas trace to impressions from sense experience, limiting worldviews to probabilistic inferences and cautioning against unsubstantiated causal assumptions. Challenges to traditional , such as Gettier's 1963 cases demonstrating that justified true can fail as due to , have prompted reliabilist theories, which validate beliefs based on the reliability of cognitive processes producing them. , proposed by Quine in "Epistemology Naturalized" (1969), integrates empirical , treating knowledge acquisition as a scientific into input-output relations rather than normative first , thereby grounding worldviews in testable cognitive mechanisms. These developments highlight causal realism in epistemology, where accurate worldviews align beliefs with objective structures via evidence-based processes, countering skeptical or relativist tendencies prevalent in some academic discourses despite empirical successes of realist paradigms in fields like physics. Cognitive biases, such as documented in Tversky and Kahneman's 1974 work, further illustrate how flawed inferential shortcuts distort epistemic reliability, necessitating rigorous methodological corrections for truth-seeking worldviews. In practice, epistemological pluralism underlies diverse worldviews: scientific naturalism relies on falsifiable , as formalized in Popper's (1934, English 1959), while constructivist approaches, critiqued for undermining objectivity, prioritize social negotiation of knowledge. , revived by Zagzebski in Virtues of the Mind (1996), shifts focus to intellectual virtues like and perseverance, positing that robust worldviews emerge from character-driven inquiry rather than isolated beliefs. Empirical studies, including those on worldview assumptions' impact on (Koltko-Rivera, 2004), confirm that epistemological stances causally influence behavioral outcomes, with realist epistemologies correlating with adaptive problem-solving in controlled experiments. Thus, cognitive and compel worldviews to prioritize verifiable causal explanations over ungrounded narratives, ensuring alignment with observable .

Core Components

Fundamental Elements

The fundamental elements of a worldview consist of interconnected presuppositions that address ultimate questions about , , , , and purpose, forming the foundational framework through which individuals interpret . These elements are not arbitrary but arise from efforts to coherently explain observed phenomena, such as the origin of the universe on June 13, 2025, when the confirmed early galaxy formations challenging some models, prompting reevaluation of metaphysical assumptions. Philosophers like James Sire identify seven core questions that delineate these elements: prime (e.g., a versus impersonal ), the nature of the external world, human composition (material or with immaterial aspects), what occurs at , the basis of , criteria for right and wrong, and the meaning of human history. Ontology and metaphysics form the bedrock, positing what constitutes —whether a transcendent creator, as in theistic systems evidenced by fine-tuning constants like the (approximately 10^{-120}), or purely material processes in naturalism, where empirical data from supports conservation laws but struggles with the universe's low-entropy initial state. This element determines , rejecting acausal quantum interpretations without empirical warrant for violating observed in macroscopic events. Epistemology addresses how knowledge is acquired and validated, distinguishing between (reliant on sensory data, as in yielding verifiable predictions like general relativity's 1919 eclipse confirmation) and (prioritizing logical deduction, critiquing induction's limits per Hume's problem). Coherent worldviews integrate reliable sources, wary of biases in academic institutions where surveys show over 80% of social scientists identify as left-leaning, potentially skewing interpretations of data on . Anthropology examines human nature, debating whether persons are merely biochemical machines (supported by neuroscientific correlations like fMRI activation during decision-making) or bearers of inherent dignity implying free will, evidenced by quantum indeterminacy at microtubular levels in Orch-OR theory but contested by deterministic neuroscience. Empirical studies, such as twin heritability estimates of 40-50% for personality traits, underscore genetic influences alongside environmental factors, challenging blank-slate views. Axiology and provide standards for value and morality, often grounded in —deontological rules from divine commands (e.g., biblical prohibitions correlating with societal stability metrics in longitudinal data) versus , where utilitarianism's aggregation ignores individual rights, as critiqued in experiments showing intuitive deontology in 90% of respondents. Cross-cultural universals, like prohibitions on in 97% of societies, suggest evolved or objective bases rather than pure . Teleology concerns purpose and destiny, positing whether history trends toward (e.g., Enlightenment optimism amid rising global GDP per capita from $1,000 in 1820 to $17,000 in 2023) or cycles toward , with eschatological views incorporating empirical cosmology's heat death prediction unless countered by metaphysical intervention. These elements cohere or conflict; for instance, materialist ontologies undermine objective ethics by reducing values to subjective preferences, lacking causal grounding for observed in altruistic behaviors unexplained by alone.

Characteristics and Structures

Worldviews possess several defining characteristics that distinguish them as integrative frameworks for interpreting . Chief among these is systematic coherence, requiring internal logical consistency where component beliefs reinforce rather than contradict one another. Another is comprehensiveness, as worldviews address a broad spectrum of existential inquiries, including the nature of , purpose, order, and historical trajectory. They also demand empirical adequacy, aligning propositions with observable evidence from the physical and social world, rather than relying solely on subjective appeal. Additional traits include criticality, involving reflexive of their own premises, and versatility in applying to diverse experiences. Structurally, worldviews often manifest as narrative constructs, comprising a foundational story with elements such as a setting (the and its origins), characters (divine or agents), conflict (disorder or ), and resolution (redemption or progress). This form integrates disparate experiences into a unified account, as seen in religious traditions where myths encode causal explanations of . Alternatively, they adopt propositional structures, organized around systematic answers to core questions: What constitutes prime (ontology)? How is knowledge attained ()? What defines value and (axiology)? What is ()? And what accounts for the universe's order (cosmology)? Philosopher James Sire delineates seven such questions—prime , external , human identity, postmortem fate, epistemic possibility, moral knowledge, and history's meaning—that form a hierarchical , with foundational ontological commitments supporting derivative ethical and practical ones. These structures enable worldviews to function holistically, with hierarchical layering where axiomatic presuppositions (e.g., versus ) underpin broader implications for , , and daily conduct. Empirical testing reveals that structurally robust worldviews, such as those emphasizing causal realism, better predict outcomes in domains like physics or by prioritizing verifiable mechanisms over ungrounded . Incoherent or narrowly scoped alternatives falter under scrutiny, as their failure to integrate leads to explanatory gaps. Thus, effective worldviews balance resonance with propositional rigor, fostering adaptive responses to while maintaining unity.

Classification and Comparison

Major Types of Worldviews

Theistic worldviews assert the existence of one or more transcendent deities who created the and intervene in affairs, often emphasizing absolutes derived from divine revelation or scripture. These include monotheistic traditions such as , , and , as well as polytheistic systems like Hinduism's devotional aspects, where approximately 84% of the global population identifies with some form of as of 2020 surveys. Empirical adherence is evidenced by over 2.3 billion and 1.9 billion worldwide, shaping behaviors through doctrines of purpose, , redemption, and an . Philosophically, theism relies on arguments from design, cosmology, and personal experience, though critics note potential confirmation biases in religious studies. Naturalistic worldviews, also termed or , hold that the universe consists solely of matter and energy governed by impersonal natural laws, rejecting entities as unnecessary for explaining reality. Proponents argue that empirical science—evidenced by discoveries like in 1927 and via Darwin's 1859 —provides sufficient causal accounts without invoking deities. As of 2023, about 16% of the global population identifies as non-religious or atheist, concentrated in regions like and , where secular policies correlate with lower religiosity rates per data. This perspective prioritizes evidence-based , viewing human purpose as emergent from biological and social , though it faces challenges from fine-tuning arguments in cosmology, such as the precise constants enabling life observed in 1973 by . Pantheistic or monistic worldviews equate the divine with the itself, positing an immanent oneness where is a unified whole without a personal creator separate from creation. Exemplified in Hinduism and certain Buddhist schools, these views influenced over 1 billion adherents as of 2020, emphasizing interconnectedness and transcendence through enlightenment rather than external salvation. Philosophically rooted in Spinoza's 1677 , which describes God as Natura naturans, aligns with holistic interpretations of experiments since the 1935 EPR paradox, suggesting non-local unity, yet it diverges from empirical dualism by dissolving subject-object distinctions. Critics, including theistic philosophers, argue it conflates causality with divinity, lacking explanatory power for observed moral intuitions absent in pure naturalism. Postmodern worldviews challenge objective truth and grand narratives, asserting that knowledge is constructed through language, power structures, and cultural contexts, leading to where validity is subjective or community-bound. Originating in thinkers like Lyotard’s 1979 , which diagnosed incredulity toward metanarratives, this type gained traction in Western academia post-1960s, influencing fields like social sciences despite empirical pushback from replication crises revealing biases in 2015 studies. It manifests in and deconstructionism, but surveys indicate limited mass appeal, with only niche adoption outside elite institutions, often critiqued for undermining causal realism by prioritizing discourse over verifiable data. Proponents cite Foucault’s analyses of from the 1970s, yet detractors highlight self-defeating logic, as cannot consistently apply to itself without assuming absolute skepticism.

Methods of Comparison

Methods of comparing worldviews typically involve structured frameworks that assess internal coherence, alignment with empirical evidence, explanatory power, and practical implications, drawing from philosophical and traditions. These approaches prioritize tests of logical consistency and correspondence to observable reality over subjective appeal, enabling rigorous differentiation between competing systems such as , naturalism, or . One established set of metaphilosophical criteria classifies evaluations into objective, subjective, and intersubjective dimensions. criteria emphasize logical consistency (absence of contradictions within core propositions), scientificity (compatibility with established empirical findings), and scope (breadth of phenomena explained). Subjective criteria examine personal consistency (alignment with individual experiences), (effectiveness in guiding decisions), and emotional resonance, while intersubjective criteria assess collective consistency, societal , and narrative coherence across groups. To apply these, assessment s probe relational gaps: the is-ought verifies if factual claims (is) logically support normative prescriptions (ought); the ought-act checks if values translate into feasible actions; and the is-act evaluates if observed behaviors align with described realities. Higher-order s incorporate dialectical reasoning, integrating multiple perspectives to rank worldviews, as demonstrated in comparisons between scientific naturalism and , where empirical often favors the former. Structural comparison uses categorical frameworks to map and contrast worldviews across fundamental domains, facilitating identification of divergences and dependencies. The Worldview Inquiry Framework, for instance, organizes inquiry into seven categories— (fundamental entities), metaphysics (relations among entities), cosmology I (initial conditions), cosmology II (dynamics), axiology (values), (actions), and (knowledge justification)—eliciting responses via targeted questions like "What exists independently of human perception?" for . Documentation records beliefs consistently, followed by evaluation for systemicity (interconnectedness) and coherence (absence of conflicts traceable to root assumptions). Comparison proceeds by tabulating responses across worldviews, revealing causal chains; for example, materialist ontologies may conflict with deontological axiologies if they deny objective moral facts, whereas theistic systems integrate them via transcendent grounds.
CriterionDescriptionExample Application
Logical ConsistencyInternal harmony without contradictionsTesting if a worldview's supports its , e.g., rejecting non-empirical claims.
Empirical CorrespondenceAlignment with verifiable dataComparing predictions on cosmic origins against evidence (13.8 billion years ago) and fine-tuning constants.
Explanatory ScopeCoverage of existential and scientific questionsAssessing if a explains alongside physical laws, where dualism may outperform strict .
Predictive PowerCapacity to forecast outcomesEvaluating societal results, e.g., secular worldviews correlating with declining birth rates (global fertility at 2.3 in 2023) versus religious ones sustaining higher rates.
Empirical and historical testing supplements these by examining real-world outcomes, such as societal stability or technological advancement under different worldviews; for instance, Enlightenment rationalism's emphasis on evidence-based inquiry has driven scientific progress since the , outpacing dogmatic alternatives in predictive accuracy. Critics note that academic sources advancing such methods, often from , may underemphasize cultural biases favoring secular frameworks, necessitating cross-verification with diverse datasets.

Psychological Dimensions

Formation and Cognitive Biases

Worldviews emerge primarily through early processes, where children internalize assumptions about from family, peers, and cultural environments, establishing foundational beliefs about , , and . Longitudinal studies show that parental transmission of values and norms accounts for significant variance in offspring worldviews, with genetic factors contributing approximately 20-40% to ideological orientations, as evidenced by twin studies examining political and social attitudes. These initial structures solidify during and emerging adulthood, when exposure to diverse experiences—such as , , or trauma—can prompt revisions, though core elements often persist due to emotional attachments formed in youth. using Q-methodology reveals that personal worldviews coalesce around subjective interpretations of life events, blending innate predispositions with learned schemas to create coherent narratives. Cognitive biases systematically distort the acquisition and integration of information during worldview formation, favoring consistency over empirical accuracy. , a pervasive tendency to selectively attend to supporting incipient beliefs while discounting contradictions, entrenches early assumptions by filtering environmental inputs; experiments demonstrate this effect in ideological domains, where participants rate worldview-aligned arguments as more persuasive regardless of logical merit. Anchoring bias further compounds this by fixating initial exposures—such as cultural narratives encountered in childhood—as reference points, leading to underadjustment in subsequent evaluations; for instance, individuals anchored on familial religious or political views exhibit reduced to alternative frameworks in adulthood. , wherein cognitive effort is directed toward defending preferred conclusions, reinforces worldview coherence, as studies indicate heightened activity in reward centers when processing concordant information, thereby creating self-perpetuating loops that resist falsification. Availability heuristic influences formation by overemphasizing vivid or recent events in shaping assumptions about reality's structure; meta-analyses of under uncertainty link this bias to exaggerated threat perceptions in worldviews, such as heightened following personal crises. These biases, rooted in evolutionary adaptations for rapid threat detection and social cohesion, yield functionally adaptive but epistemically flawed worldviews, with empirical models showing that bias mitigation via deliberative practices—like statistical training—can modestly enhance worldview flexibility, though entrenched views in adults change primarily through repeated disconfirmatory experiences. Institutional sources, including academia, often underreport the role of such biases in non-Western or conservative worldview formation due to sampling skews toward progressive demographics, potentially inflating perceptions of universal in acquisition.

Terror Management Theory

Terror Management Theory (TMT) posits that human awareness of inevitable death generates existential anxiety, which individuals manage through endorsement of cultural worldviews that imbue life with meaning and promise symbolic or literal immortality, alongside pursuits of derived from adherence to those worldviews. Developed in the 1980s by psychologists Jeff Greenberg, , and Tom Pyszczynski, TMT draws from Ernest Becker's 1973 book , which argued that much human behavior serves to deny mortality's terror. The theory's core hypotheses include that reminders of mortality—termed —increase defense of one's worldview, such as heightened against worldview-threatening outgroups and bolstering of ingroup values. Empirical support for TMT stems from over 500 studies since 1986, primarily using experimental paradigms where participants write about or watch mortality-related stimuli, followed by measures of worldview defense. For instance, has been shown to increase donations to charity when aligned with participants' values, preference for similar others, and support for political figures promising cultural continuity. These effects are posited to operate unconsciously via distal defenses after initial conscious suppression of thoughts, distinguishing TMT from mere appeals. In the of worldviews, TMT frames them as psychological buffers: shared beliefs in transcendent entities, heroic legacies, or rewards mitigate terror by implying one's values endure beyond physical . Criticisms of TMT highlight methodological concerns and replicability challenges amid the broader in . High-powered replications, such as Many Labs 4 in 2022, failed to reproduce classic effects on worldview defense tasks, suggesting potential overestimation of effect sizes in original studies due to small samples and . Meta-analytic reviews indicate variable success in replicating effects, with some paradigms showing low evidential value when scrutinized via z-curve analyses. Proponents counter that null findings often stem from procedural deviations and that robust effects persist in preregistered studies under optimal conditions, maintaining TMT's utility for understanding worldview rigidity in response to existential threats. Despite these debates, TMT underscores how death awareness may causally reinforce commitment to worldviews, influencing behaviors from to .

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Worldviews

In prehistoric societies, the foundational worldview was , which attributed agency and spirits to natural phenomena, animals, and objects, serving as the oldest reconstructed trait of shared by the of extant groups. Phylogenetic analysis of 33 diverse societies, using Bayesian methods and proportional likelihood estimates (0.99 for , p < 0.05), confirms its universal presence and primacy over later developments like afterlife beliefs (proportional likelihood 0.5) or shamanism (0.56), suggesting an adaptive role in early social cooperation without centralized deities. This animistic framework persisted in transitional societies, evolving into more structured cosmologies as agriculture enabled complex hierarchies around 10,000 BCE. Ancient Near Eastern worldviews, as in Mesopotamia from circa 3500 BCE, centered on polytheistic pantheons organized as divine families under a patriarchal sky god like Anu, who presided over a council of deities controlling natural and human affairs through capricious wills. Creation narratives, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish (circa 1800 BCE), depicted cosmic order emerging from primordial chaos via divine conflict, with gods like Marduk forming the world from the body of Tiamat, reflecting a view of existence as inherently unstable and requiring ritual placation. Egyptian religion, contemporaneous from around 3100 BCE, integrated polytheism into state and daily life, with deities like Re (sun god) and Osiris (underworld ruler) embodying cycles of renewal and judgment; ma'at—cosmic balance and truth—underpinned ethics and kingship, while elaborate tomb preparations evidenced a detailed afterlife orientation, including mummification and the Weighing of the Heart ritual documented in texts like the Book of the Dead (circa 1550 BCE). These systems projected human familial dynamics onto the divine, anthropomorphizing gods with emotions and hierarchies to explain unpredictable phenomena. In ancient India, the Vedic worldview, rooted in oral traditions composed circa 1500–500 BCE, emphasized rta (cosmic order) maintained through yajna (sacrificial rituals) to Vedic gods like Indra and Agni, as preserved in the , the oldest layer of scripture. This ritualistic cosmology, focused on reciprocity between humans and deities for prosperity and fertility, transitioned in the Upanishads (circa 800–200 BCE) to introspective monism, positing as ultimate reality and atman (self) as its essence, with knowledge (jnana) enabling liberation from samsara (cycle of rebirth) via realization of unity. Ancient Greek perspectives, evolving from Mycenaean polytheism (circa 1600 BCE) to Homeric epics (8th century BCE), featured anthropomorphic Olympian gods led by as sky father, whose familial intrigues mirrored human society; Hesiod's Theogony (circa 700 BCE) outlined genealogy from chaos to ordered cosmos, while pre-Socratic philosophers like Thales (circa 585 BCE) began rational inquiries into underlying principles (arche), shifting toward naturalistic explanations. East Asian pre-modern worldviews, particularly in China from the Zhou dynasty (1046–256 BCE), integrated ancestor veneration with philosophical systems: Confucianism prioritized ren (humaneness) and li (ritual propriety) for social harmony and filial piety, viewing the cosmos as a moral order responsive to ethical governance, as articulated in the Analects (5th–3rd century BCE). Taoism, per the Tao Te Ching attributed to Laozi (6th century BCE), advocated wu wei (effortless action) in alignment with the Tao (impersonal way), perceiving reality as fluid and interdependent, eschewing anthropocentric control for natural spontaneity. In medieval Europe (circa 500–1500 CE), the Christian worldview dominated, positing a singular, omnipotent creator God whose providential order governed a fallen creation, with human purpose centered on redemption from original sin through faith, sacraments, and ecclesiastical authority, as synthesized in scholasticism drawing from Augustine (354–430 CE) and Aquinas (1225–1274 CE); this linear teleology—culminating in judgment and eternity—contrasted polytheistic cyclicity, reinforced by biblical exegesis and canon law. Parallel Islamic views from the 7th century CE emphasized tawhid (divine unity) and submission to Allah's will, with a rationalist tradition in figures like Al-Ghazali (1058–1111 CE) integrating revelation and philosophy amid feudal and imperial structures. These pre-modern frameworks generally subordinated individual agency to transcendent or communal orders, causal chains interpreted through ritual, divine caprice, or moral cosmology, until Enlightenment challenges.

Modern and Postmodern Evolutions

The Scientific Revolution, spanning the 16th and 17th centuries, marked a pivotal shift toward empirical observation and mathematical reasoning in understanding the natural world, challenging geocentric and theologically dominated cosmologies. Key developments included Nicolaus Copernicus's heliocentric model published in 1543 and Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica in 1687, which formalized laws of motion and universal gravitation, fostering a mechanistic worldview that emphasized human agency through scientific mastery of nature. This era synthesized rational inquiry with lingering theistic elements but progressively empowered secular explanations, laying groundwork for Enlightenment thinkers who prioritized reason over revelation. The Enlightenment in the 18th century extended these foundations, promoting individualism, human rights, and progress through reason and empiricism, as articulated by figures like in Two Treatises of Government (1689) and Immanuel Kant's emphasis on autonomy. This period engendered secular humanism, which posits ethical frameworks derived from human reason and evidence rather than divine authority, influencing political structures like constitutional democracies. The Industrial Revolution from the late 18th to 19th centuries accelerated these changes, urbanizing societies and correlating with declining traditional religious adherence, as empirical data showed shifts from agrarian piety to materialist optimism amid technological advances. By 1900, these evolutions had entrenched a modernist worldview of objective truth, linear progress, and scientific positivism, underpinning capitalism and nation-states. Postmodernism emerged in the mid-20th century as a reaction to modernism's perceived failures, including the world wars and totalitarian ideologies, questioning grand narratives of inevitable progress and universal rationality. Key thinkers like in The Postmodern Condition (1979) defined it as incredulity toward metanarratives, while analyzed knowledge as shaped by power relations, and 's deconstruction highlighted textual instabilities over fixed meanings. Characteristics include epistemological skepticism, viewing truth as socially constructed rather than objective, and emphasizing fragmentation, irony, and cultural relativism over modernist coherence. Critiques of postmodernism highlight its promotion of relativism, which undermines empirical verification essential to scientific advancement; for instance, scholars argue that denying absolute truth leads to moral and epistemological paralysis, as seen in analyses tracing relativist tendencies from Nietzsche through postmodern thought to practical inconsistencies in rejecting all claims to objectivity. Empirical studies and philosophical rebuttals, such as those contrasting postmodern doubt with critical rationalism's falsifiability, contend that while modernism's hubris warranted scrutiny, postmodern rejection of hierarchical truth claims risks eroding causal reasoning and institutional trust in evidence-based knowledge. This evolution reflects a tension between modernism's verifiable achievements in technology and governance and postmodernism's focus on subjective narratives, with ongoing debates over whether the latter fosters pluralism or nihilism.

Societal and Cultural Roles

Impact on Individual and Collective Behavior

Worldviews exert a profound influence on individual decision-making by providing foundational assumptions about reality that filter perceptions and guide choices. Psychological research defines a worldview as a coherent set of beliefs about physical and social reality, which shapes cognition, motivation, and behavioral responses to uncertainty. For instance, individuals holding a "Survivor" worldview, characterized by cynicism toward social institutions, exhibit lower self-esteem and heightened risk aversion in personal decisions, as evidenced by longitudinal studies linking such orientations to pessimistic health behaviors. Similarly, worldviews inform moral disengagement processes, where social assessments embedded in one's outlook—such as perceptions of fairness or threat—moderate self-control and ethical lapses, with empirical models showing that adversarial worldviews correlate with reduced accountability in dilemmas. In prosocial domains, religious worldviews often predict elevated levels of cooperative behavior, particularly toward ingroup members, though effects vary by measurement and context. Meta-analyses of experimental data indicate that supernatural beliefs foster active prosociality, such as charitable giving, but this is amplified in intuitive rather than deliberative tasks and primarily benefits co-religionists, suggesting a parochial rather than universal mechanism. Secular worldviews, by contrast, show weaker self-reported prosocial tendencies in some cross-cultural surveys, though behavioral lab tests reveal mixed results, with religiosity's edge diminishing when controlling for cognitive styles like intuition. These patterns underscore causal pathways where worldviews align actions with perceived existential imperatives, such as divine accountability versus humanistic self-reliance. On a collective level, worldviews drive group dynamics by framing social issues and mobilizing coordinated responses, often amplifying polarization. Sociological analyses of social movements demonstrate that participants' behaviors—such as protest tactics or alliance formation—mirror their underlying worldview, distinguishing allies from adversaries based on shared assumptions about justice or order. For example, "Localised" worldviews prioritize problem-solving through community action, leading to reform-oriented collective efforts, while "Orthodox" orientations emphasize preservation of traditions, fostering resistance to change in group norms. Worldview clashes contribute to prejudice and intergroup hostility, as defense mechanisms against perceived threats prompt derogation of outgroups, with studies across cultures linking such conflicts to escalated societal tensions rather than mere ideological disagreement. Empirical evidence from crowd behaviors further reveals that collective actions polarize positions, eroding neutral stances and entrenching behavioral divides along worldview lines.

Empirical Evidence from Studies

The World Values Survey (WVS), a longitudinal cross-national study conducted in waves from 1981 to 2022 across over 100 countries and involving more than 400,000 respondents, provides extensive empirical evidence that cultural worldviews—conceptualized as clusters of values including traditional versus secular-rational and survival versus self-expression orientations—shape societal outcomes such as trust levels, democratic stability, and economic performance. Analysis of WVS data indicates that societies with stronger self-expression values, emphasizing individual autonomy and tolerance, exhibit higher rates of political participation and lower corruption indices, while traditional worldviews correlate with greater emphasis on national pride and family-centric behaviors that bolster social cohesion in high-inequality contexts. These patterns hold after controlling for economic development, with predictive models showing values explain up to 20-30% of variance in governance quality across nations. Cultural Worldviews Theory, empirically tested through surveys and experiments, demonstrates that individuals' preferences for social organization—along hierarchy-egalitarian and individualist-communitarian dimensions—causally influence perceptions of societal risks and policy support, often leading to polarized collective behaviors. A meta-analysis of 23 studies (N > 10,000) found that egalitarian-communitarian worldviews predict heightened concern for environmental risks, while hierarchical-individualist views associate with lower perceived threats from issues like or , with effect sizes ranging from moderate (r = 0.20-0.35) to strong in politicized domains. Experimental evidence from Kahan et al. (2011), involving U.S. samples (N = 1,500+), confirms that presenting identical scientific data on phenomena like global warming increases belief alignment with participants' cultural worldviews rather than converging on consensus, accounting for 15-25% of variance in risk judgments independent of education or . Psychological studies further link worldviews to behavioral outcomes in social contexts, with in a 2023 analysis (N = 800+) revealing that social cynicism and fate-control worldviews positively predict in professional settings, reducing ethical compliance by 10-20% in business decisions. Similarly, survey data on worldview orientations show orthodox (status quo-preserving) views correlate with lower support for initiatives, while localized (problem-solving) worldviews drive higher in addressing inequality, as evidenced in European samples where these traits explained 12% of variance in rates. These findings, drawn from diverse methodologies including longitudinal tracking and controlled manipulations, underscore worldviews' role in filtering empirical realities to sustain group-level behaviors, though causal inferences remain moderated by contextual factors like national development levels.

Key Debates and Criticisms

Relativism versus Objectivism

posits that truths, values, and moral standards are not absolute but depend on individual perspectives, cultural contexts, or social frameworks, lacking any universal applicability independent of human constructs. In contrast, objectivism asserts the of objective realities, truths, and moral principles that hold regardless of subjective beliefs or cultural variations, grounded in the independent nature of and causal relations. These opposing views fundamentally shape worldviews by determining whether individuals perceive reality as fixed and discoverable through reason and or as malleable and constructed through consensus or personal interpretation. Proponents of , particularly cultural or moral variants, argue from observed diversity in ethical practices across societies, suggesting that what is deemed right in one culture—such as historical tolerance of in certain ancient groups—cannot be objectively condemned by outsiders. This position draws support from the empirical fact of moral disagreements, as documented in showing variance in norms like honor killings or property rights, implying no single framework can claim superiority without . Relativists further contend that fosters intolerance by imposing one culture's standards, potentially justifying , and advocate tolerance as a meta-principle derived from recognizing relativity. However, this stance faces internal challenges, as it struggles to condemn universally reviled acts like without appealing to some transcultural benchmark, rendering critiques of oppressors logically inconsistent. Objectivists counter that relativism undermines rational discourse by equating all beliefs as equally valid, eroding the basis for progress or criticism, as evidenced by historical shifts like the abolition of , which relied on appeals to inherent rather than cultural norms. Empirical studies reveal widespread folk intuitions favoring moral objectivism; for instance, surveys across diverse populations indicate that people treat moral facts as mind-independent, disagreeing with relativist portrayals of as mere preference. Experimental further demonstrates practical consequences: exposure to relativist arguments increases in controlled tasks, suggesting it weakens self-regulatory mechanisms tied to perceived moral absolutes. Objectivism, rooted in epistemological realism, maintains that derives from sensory evidence and logical integration, allowing verifiable claims about , such as the objective harm of practices like female genital mutilation, irrespective of cultural endorsement. In worldview formation, correlates with postmodern skepticism toward grand narratives, prevalent in certain academic fields where it discourages hierarchical truth claims, yet this has been critiqued for fostering and impeding scientific or ethical advancement by prioritizing subjective narratives over empirical falsification. , conversely, aligns with causal realism by emphasizing that worldviews must conform to observable patterns—like universal human responses to pain or reciprocity in —rather than arbitrary conventions, enabling predictive models of behavior and societal stability. While explains tolerance amid diversity, better accounts for cross-cultural convergences, such as near-universal prohibitions on gratuitous , supporting a hybrid yet objectively anchored approach in truth-seeking inquiries.

Critiques of Ideological Dominance

Critics contend that progressive ideologies, often rooted in postmodern skepticism toward objective truth and emphasizing frameworks, have entrenched themselves in academia, media, and cultural institutions, marginalizing alternative worldviews such as , , or empirical . This dominance manifests in hiring practices, curriculum design, and processes that favor conformity, resulting in echo chambers where dissenting perspectives face professional repercussions. For instance, surveys indicate that over 60% of U.S. faculty identify as liberal, with ratios exceeding 12:1 Democrat-to-Republican in social sciences and departments, creating environments where conservative or heterodox scholars report systematic exclusion. Empirical evidence of this ideological hegemony includes widespread self-censorship among faculty and students. A 2024 Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) survey found U.S. faculty are four times more likely to self-censor than during the McCarthy era, with 62% avoiding research topics due to fear of backlash and 50% hesitating to speak in faculty meetings. Similarly, student surveys reveal two-thirds self-censor on controversial issues, limiting open debate essential for worldview formation. Organizations like Heterodox Academy argue this stifles viewpoint diversity, impairing institutions' ability to challenge assumptions through rigorous scrutiny. Such critiques extend to causal effects on knowledge production, where dominant paradigms prioritize narrative alignment over falsifiable evidence, as seen in the in exacerbated by ideological conformity. Proponents of these views, including psychologist , assert that monocultures foster , eroding the pluralism needed for causal realism and first-principles evaluation of worldviews. While some defenders claim imbalances reflect meritocratic outcomes, data on hiring disparities—at 39% of elite institutions lacking even one Republican tenure-track faculty—suggest structural barriers beyond individual excellence. In media and public discourse, analogous patterns emerge, with mainstream outlets exhibiting left-leaning skews in coverage, as quantified by content analyses showing disproportionate negative framing of conservative figures or policies. This institutional capture, critics argue, perpetuates a feedback loop where alternative worldviews are delegitimized, hindering societal resilience to empirical challenges like contradicting equity-focused policies. Reforms advocated include blind review processes and incentives for intellectual diversity to restore balance without compromising standards.

References

  1. https://www.etymonline.com/word/weltanschauung
  2. https://direct.mit.edu/ngtn/article/38/3/397/121232/What-is-a-Worldview-Some-Suggestions-from-the
  3. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Weltanschauung
  4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.3
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10370735/
  6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00344087.2013.767685
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7506207/
  8. https://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/worldview.html
  9. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12378&context=etd
  10. https://www.dbu.edu/naugle/academic-papers/_pdfs/09/worldview_defhistconceptlect.pdf
  11. https://drcone.com/2015/07/24/a-brief-introduction-to-philosophical-inquiry-and-components-of-worldview-part-1-addressing-the-epistemological-questions/
  12. https://www.etymonline.com/word/worldview
  13. https://philarchive.org/archive/ENGTCO-17
  14. https://iep.utm.edu/germidea/
  15. https://iep.utm.edu/fichtejg/
  16. https://iep.utm.edu/schellin/
  17. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/
  18. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
  19. https://iep.utm.edu/epistemo/
  20. https://fire.biol.wwu.edu/alles/Worldviews.pdf
  21. https://i2insights.org/2017/05/02/philosophy-for-interdisciplinarity/
  22. https://www.marketfaith.org/the-seven-questions-that-define-a-worldview/
  23. https://answersingenesis.org/worldview/do-you-understand-worldview/
  24. https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-it-takes-to-make-a-worldview/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6735033/
  26. https://conferencea.org/index.php/conferences/article/download/1644/1567/1628
  27. https://gospelcenteredmusings.com/2014/09/11/correspondence-coherence-in-worldview/
  28. https://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2012/06/08/how-should-we-analyze-a-worldview/
  29. https://thethink.institute/articles/seven-worldview-questions
  30. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/
  31. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2012.01749.x
  32. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/6/3/27
  33. https://wayoftruth.blog/a-journey-to-discover-the-truth/equipping-ourselves/a-method-for-evaluating-worldviews/
  34. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3335/
  35. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-11736-002
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7842614/
  37. https://today.uconn.edu/2022/08/cognitive-biases-and-brain-biology-help-explain-why-facts-dont-change-minds-2/
  38. https://www.verywellmind.com/cognitive-biases-distort-thinking-2794763
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3783359/
  40. https://rips-irsp.com/articles/10.5334/irsp.741
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232554126_The_Psychology_of_Worldviews
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313792975_Terror_Management_Theory
  43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20804234/
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260115000052
  45. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-00369-002
  46. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/8/1/35271/168050/Many-Labs-4-Failure-to-Replicate-Mortality
  47. https://replicationindex.com/2025/04/27/r-i-p-terror-management-a-z-curve-analysis/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10168577/
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4958132/
  50. https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rauhn/ancrelig.htm
  51. http://giza.fas.harvard.edu/lessons/ancient-egyptian-religion
  52. https://vedicheritage.gov.in/upanishads/
  53. https://www.ushistory.org/civ/9e.asp
  54. https://www.accordingtophillips.com/uploads/8/1/8/3/81833274/the_medieval_christian_worldview_4.pdf
  55. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-scientific-revolution/
  56. https://explorable.com/science-and-enlightenment
  57. https://quizlet.com/study-guides/scientific-revolution-enlightenment-key-concepts-dates-and-figures-7e8a7860-72fd-46ce-bf40-5a53124a9408
  58. https://abouthumanism.com/humanism-in-england/
  59. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/19361/BachelorEindwerkstuk_K.A.Werkman.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  60. https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/postmodernism-and-its-critics/
  61. https://www.simplypsychology.org/postmodernism.html
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7527490/
  63. https://ijsred.com/volume5/issue3/IJSRED-V5I3P134.pdf
  64. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43049912
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886919300868
  66. https://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.128
  67. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2024-54904-001.html
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22925142/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10162496/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065260119300310
  71. https://www.britannica.com/science/collective-behaviour/The-results-of-collective-behavior
  72. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
  73. https://cps.isr.umich.edu/project/world-values-survey-wvs/
  74. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=Findings
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494414000619
  76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
  77. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/social-psychology/articles/10.3389/frsps.2024.1375527/full
  78. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
  79. https://philarchive.org/archive/WARRAO-2
  80. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429336515-14/objectivism-versus-relativism-arguing-rik-pinxten
  81. https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
  82. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4153943
  83. https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=cedarethics
  84. https://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/3640/Karimi%2520Kevin_Moral%2520Objectivism%2520Versus%2520Moral%2520Relativism-%2520A%2520Critical%2520Examination.pdf?sequence=2
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6686698/
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103113001339
  87. https://webcontent.indianhills.edu/_myhills/courses/PHI105/documents/lu03_moral%2520objectivism_relativism.pdf
  88. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1600&context=ny_pubs
  89. https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=tis
  90. https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-23-winter/the-hyperpoliticization-of-higher-ed/
  91. https://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-university-faculty-survey-political-leanings-liberal-conservative-moderate-centrist-harvard-yale-variation-across-school-tenure-status-demographics-20241022
  92. https://www.thefire.org/facultyreport
  93. https://knightfoundation.org/reports/college-student-views-on-free-expression-and-campus-speech-2024/
  94. https://heterodoxacademy.org/issues/viewpoint-diversity/
  95. https://righteousmind.com/viewpoint-diversity/
  96. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-higher-education-survive-political-bias
  97. https://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/articles/out-of-balance
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.