Worldview...Everyone Has One

[jpcedotal]

There are three questions that have a great deal in forming one's core beliefs.

1. Where did we come from?
2. What went wrong?
3. How do we fix it?

Answer them on here if you want, but also think about what or who helped form your worldview.

 

[exotic walrus]

There are three questions that have a great deal in forming one's core beliefs.

Says?

1. Where did we come from?
2. What went wrong?
3. How do we fix it?

Answer them on here if you want, but also think about what or who helped form your worldview.

1. Space dust
2. Nothing
3. collectivise

 

[jpcedotal]

Says?

1. Space dust
2. Nothing
3. collectivise

1. Space dust ... so life came from the combination of one or more non living material(s)? Was this an accidental/random combination?

2. Does "nothing" mean we will work things out eventually ourselves or that the world is ok as it is?

3. collectivize –verb (used with object), -vized, -viz⋅ing. to organize (a people, industry, economy, etc.) according to the principles of collectivism.

I know you know what that meant and your spelling was a simple typo, but I didn't so I looked it up. If this is what you meant, then the answer is to just separate people according to their beliefs and let each group decide rules and laws and moral codes within each group without affecting another group. Is that close?

 

[exotic walrus]

1. Space dust ... so life came from the combination of one or more non living material(s)? Was this an accidental/random combination?

2. Does "nothing" mean we will work things out eventually ourselves or that the world is ok as it is?

3. collectivize –verb (used with object), -vized, -viz⋅ing. to organize (a people, industry, economy, etc.) according to the principles of collectivism.

I know you know what that meant and your spelling was a simple typo, but I didn't so I looked it up. If this is what you meant, then the answer is to just separate people according to their beliefs and let each group decide rules and laws and moral codes within each group without affecting another group. Is that close?

1. Sure something like that.
2. It has its ups and downs - The question would probably be better if it weren't past tense. 'What is wrong?' - plenty of things.
3. That is the correct spelling in English/Commonwealth orthography but in answer to the original question I refer to global unionism/collectivisation not global segregation.

 

[jpcedotal]

1. Sure something like that.
2. It has its ups and downs - The question would probably be better if it weren't past tense. 'What is wrong?' - plenty of things.
3. That is the correct spelling in English/Commonwealth orthography but in answer to the original question I refer to global unionism/collectivisation not global segregation.

How does global unionism work with so many people with so many contradicting views?...in your own words.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Where did we come from?

This question is so vague I'm not sure what you are asking.

What went wrong?

With what?

How do we fix it?

Fix what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[exotic walrus]

How does global unionism work with so many people with so many contradicting views?...in your own words.

It would take a lot of words and the process itself would no doubt be a long struggle of evolution/revolution amongst human beings.

I can only

 

[jpcedotal]

It would take a lot of words and the process itself would no doubt be a long struggle of evolution/revolution amongst human beings.

I can only

What is the end "product" then? Everyone living in harmony with the same views or individual views or some sort of combination of both?

 

[jpcedotal]

Where did we come from?

This question is so vague I'm not sure what you are asking.

What went wrong?

With what?

How do we fix it?

Fix what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

That's being intentionally obtuse.

 

[exotic walrus]

What is the end "product" then? Everyone living in harmony with the same views or individual views or some sort of combination of both?

Yeah hopefully something like that

 

[jpcedotal]

The "What went wrong" question is from the point that if humans are born with a clean slate, where does the corruption come from?

In a more worldly view, if people are born blank, what causes the hate, the prejudices, the wars...

 

[jpcedotal]

Yeah hopefully something like that

If humans have the ability to make a worldly utopia, what is holding us back?

 

[exotic walrus]

The "What went wrong" question is from the point that if humans are born with a clean slate, where does the corruption come from?

In a more worldly view, if people are born blank, what causes the hate, the prejudices, the wars...

If humans have the ability to make a worldly utopia, what is holding us back?

Ok this is a bit more detailed - they are very broad questions.

In answer to this I would say my world view dictates that these are problems due to systems of power and hierarchy.

 

[Lokke]

There are three questions that have a great deal in forming one's core beliefs.

1. Where did we come from?
2. What went wrong?
3. How do we fix it?

Answer them on here if you want, but also think about what or who helped form your worldview.

1. God
2. man not obey God
3. Jesus fix it.

 

[jpcedotal]

Ok this is a bit more detailed - they are very broad questions.

In answer to this I would say my world view dictates that these are problems due to systems of power and hierarchy.

Not not to the point of anarchy....right? To me, the only secular way to achieve equality is to throw all governing bodies away and let chaos reign. Any law that is introduced will have some sort of opposition...someone will think some else is just trying to constrict or hold power over them.

Even murder...I mean, if all we are is a product of evolution, then why is it wrong to kill another to get what one needs? Animals do it every day...what makes us different?

 

[exotic walrus]

Not not to the point of anarchy....right?

Sure anarchy if it requires a concrete naming.

To me, the only secular way to achieve equality is to throw all governing bodies away and let chaos reign. Any law that is introduced will have some sort of opposition...someone will think some else is just trying to constrict or hold power over them.

Redefining laws and social contracts would be a long and deliberative task. If a law can be shown to hold power over a sector of the society then the opposition is rightly advanced.

Even murder...I mean, if all we are is a product of evolution, then why is it wrong to kill another to get what one needs? Animals do it every day...what makes us different?

Notions from the enlightenment? The evolution of social contracts? Advanced cognitive abilities? I don't know - seems like a separate question.

 

[CoderHead]

What is the end "product" then? Everyone living in harmony with the same views or individual views or some sort of combination of both?

I don't think we're talking about every person on the planet accepting a single viewpoint. We're all individuals and will always disagree. The optimal situation would be one in which each person - though they may have an opposing view - realizes that in order for us to live peacefully we have to work together. Resolve disputes peaceably. Use brains, not brawn. Compromise.

Thinking on a small scale, every time my children disagree and start to fight, I pull them apart and ask them why they're fighting. The first goal is to figure out what two opposing viewpoints exist. The second goal is to figure out if there's a compromise so that neither viewpoint necessarily has to be labeled "wrong." The third, if no compromise can be reached, is to figure out which viewpoint accomplishes the most good while doing the least bad. I constantly stress to my children that in order for us to live together in one house as a family, we have to make compromises and do what's good for the family as a whole, not just us as individuals.

If every time my children disagreed I gave the biggest, strongest one permission to beat the tar out of the weaker one, it would be more like society today. Sooner or later, the weaker one would either be killed or would run away. Neither would be a good option.

I think it's summed up best in this: in all things, strive to do no harm.

 

[jpcedotal]

I think it's summed up best in this: in all things, strive to do no harm.

But is that realistic? There are those who only want to disrupt, to antagonize, to stir up animosity...it is what makes them happy. Do they have a place in utopia without restrictions?

 

[jpcedotal]

Sure anarchy if it requires a concrete naming.



Redefining laws and social contracts would be a long and deliberative task. If a law can be shown to hold power over a sector of the society then the opposition is rightly advanced.



Notions from the enlightenment? The evolution of social contracts? Advanced cognitive abilities? I don't know - seems like a separate question.

Maybe so....So mankind is working toward some new peaceful world of enlightenment...a step forward. Does evolution ever go backwards? The world seems to be getting worse, not better...or is that just my personal point of view?

 

[CoderHead]

Those are the restrictions: cause no harm to others.

I'm not saying that this is in any way possible. People are horrible creatures and we'll never have a unified society. I'm just saying, in order to live peacefully, we must strive to do no harm.