12-15-2016, 03:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2016, 03:42 AM by Adriano Neres Rodrigues.)
(12-14-2016, 05:11 PM)irukandji Wrote: Hi Adriano-
I did some research on Wiki regarding world view and it looks like world view is a many, many, many faceted idea. Individuals can construct worldviews, or they can operate at a higher level, like a community level or national level.
Much of this went way over my head and I didn't want to delve into all of them, so I pulled out two simpler world views that I thought might be of interest to this fascinating topic.
The first is from philosopher Leo Apostel.
A worldview should consist of 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 theory of action: "How should we attain our goals?"
5.A 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.
The second is from author, Roland Muller, who suggested cultural world views can be broken down into three separate world views:
Guilt–Innocence: In a Guilt/Innocence focused culture, schools focus on deductive reasoning, cause and effect, good questions, and process. Issues are often seen as black and white. Written contracts are paramount. Communication is direct, and can be blunt.
Honor–Shame: Societies with a predominantly Honor-Shame worldview teach children to make honorable choices according to the situations they find themselves in. Communication, interpersonal interaction, and business dealings are very relationship-driven, with every interaction having an effect on the Honor-Shame status of the participants. In an Honor-Shame society the crucial objective is to avoid shame and to be viewed honorably by other people. The Honor-Shame paradigm is especially strong in Asia and the Middle East.[23]
Power–Fear: Some cultures can be seen very clearly in operating under a Power-Fear worldview. In these cultures it is very important to assess the people around you and know where they fall in line according to their level of power. This can be used for good or for bad. A benevolent king rules with power and his citizens fully support him wielding that power. On the converse, a ruthless dictator can use his power to create a culture of fear where his citizens are oppressed.
The wiki article stated:
"It is not simple enough to say that each person is one of the three cultures above. Instead, each individual is a mix of the three. For example, a person may be raised in a Power-Fear society, in a Honor-Shame family, and go to school under a Guilt-Innocence system."
I actually thought the second one, Honor-Shame, Guilt-Innocence, Power-Fear applies more to the Grimms than the first one. However, I like the first one and I may attempt to post something based on the six elements.
This is really wordy and I apologize for that.
I am fascinated by this post. Worldview is a very complex concept and it really calls my attention because if you think about it when we are debating different opinions and different ways of interpretation of reality (in our case in this forum, different interpretations of the show) what we are really doing is debating different worldview. The way I interpret Nick's actions (for example) as from a hero or a sociopath (@izzy that was for you) is directly affected by my worldview. Your way of interpretation of Nick's action is directly affected by your word view.
Now I am the one changing the subject of my own thread but that is OK.
That's why grimm culture ended up playing a hole in this topic. Culture is not worldview but it affects one's worldview directly. Certainly other elements also affects like politics view, religion, family values, moral and cultural values and so.
I think the hardest think about understanding others people opinion is that you most of the time must try to first understand their worldview first. And those elements that affects it.
The last thing. Have you think that the concept of worldview itself can be affect by the worldview of the one creating the concept? I mean. Worldview for me can be one thing. For you can be another thing similar (of course) but slightly different just because we have different interpretations of the world around us?
(12-14-2016, 05:45 PM)izzy Wrote: So in the generic sense of this thread,let me make a few comments. The short course in cultural anthropology and sociology as a combined discipline yields the following:
The purpose of a society is to enforce the taboos and mores of the culture.
The above is rather terse and there are other caveats and qualifiers and descriptors around that statement but it suffices for this purpose.
Viewed differently, a culture cannot exist if their is not a collective force of society to enforce the mores and taboos of the culture.
In the absence of a society, it is just ad hoc every generation rules.
We only have a limited view of the world of Grimms, but from what we have seen there is not society of Grimms that act together to enforce the mores and taboos among Grimms, so ergo, there is no Grimm culture.
I hope the Anthropology perspective helps. I am always happy when I get to use on of my degrees for something - LOL!
Them I got nervous with the lazzy writers. Apparently the grimm don't care to find each other. Suddenly Nick found out a book with the genealogy of all grimm families. At least the grimm families with the keys. I may be wrong but I think it is easier to believe there is a Grimm society somewhere and Nick is stupid one that is not part of it. The owner of the book manage to keep that book updated. Josh's dad found Nick. Kelly apparently knew everything Nick was doing while Nick though she was dead. What I mean is that apparently there is a Grimm communication network in some level. Nick is the only one out of it. Unfortunately the grimm genealogy book will be out dated.
But if there is a Grimm network, why didn't they help Trubel before she got to Nick? I don't understand those grimm.
“If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.”
— Attributed to Winston Churchill
— Attributed to Winston Churchill