Talk:Social world: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger m (→Weltanschauung) |
imported>Roger A. Lohmann |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
That assumes that a world view is necessarily shared with other people, so that it is an essential part of a social world view. But surely it is possible for unusual people to produce their own idiosyncratic world views which are not part of a social world. No? | That assumes that a world view is necessarily shared with other people, so that it is an essential part of a social world view. But surely it is possible for unusual people to produce their own idiosyncratic world views which are not part of a social world. No? | ||
:Holy cow, Larry! You posted these comments almost before i created the page! ;-) Seriously, that limitation is worth noting in the article, but most contemporary users of the concept do indeed make that assumption. In fact, it is in the study of the distinctive social worlds of what you term 'unusual people' that the concept has really come into its own in recent decades. | |||
(2) There is another problem with this. The definition offered says a social world is "a broadly relational concept...to indicate any particular system or network of social knowledge, awareness and relations." I notice that ''people'' (and hence, society properly speaking) are not included in this definition. But the next sentence goes on and asserts that people and other items ''are'' included in social worlds: "Thus, when someone refers to 'my social world' they are ordinarily indicating an entire set of people, places and things that includes the people they know or have known in the past..." | (2) There is another problem with this. The definition offered says a social world is "a broadly relational concept...to indicate any particular system or network of social knowledge, awareness and relations." I notice that ''people'' (and hence, society properly speaking) are not included in this definition. But the next sentence goes on and asserts that people and other items ''are'' included in social worlds: "Thus, when someone refers to 'my social world' they are ordinarily indicating an entire set of people, places and things that includes the people they know or have known in the past..." | ||
The question is: does a social world include ''collectively-held norms, ideas, etc.,'' as the definition states (this ''could'' be the same as a weltanshauung), or does it include "people, places and things" that are known (this ''could not'' be the same as a weltanshauung)? | The question is: does a social world include ''collectively-held norms, ideas, etc.,'' as the definition states (this ''could'' be the same as a weltanshauung), or does it include "people, places and things" that are known (this ''could not'' be the same as a weltanshauung)? | ||
:I would have thought it went without saying that it is people who have relationships, attitudes and awareness, but apparently not. That's easily remedied. On the other hand, as we've discussed before, your conception of society as expressed here in the parenthetical (and hence society properly speaking) is most definitely NOT shared by many of the most frequent users of the concept of social world for the very reason cited in your first point. Many would argue that the exclusive nature of the social worlds of the New York "400" and of Whyte's Street Corner Society render the notion of a larger, more encompassing "society" bound together by collectively-held norms that embraces them both either trivial or incoherent. (What "collective-held norms" were evident in the reactions of black and white social worlds to the O.J. Simpson trial, for example?) I'm not asking you to agree or disagree; I'm just trying to render the concept as accurately as i can. | |||
[[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 16:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
I think this needs to be clarified. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | I think this needs to be clarified. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:32, 6 May 2009
Weltanschauung
Two comments...
(1) "The phrase world view (or in German, weltanschaung) can also be used in the same way..."
weltanschauung (two u's)
That assumes that a world view is necessarily shared with other people, so that it is an essential part of a social world view. But surely it is possible for unusual people to produce their own idiosyncratic world views which are not part of a social world. No?
- Holy cow, Larry! You posted these comments almost before i created the page! ;-) Seriously, that limitation is worth noting in the article, but most contemporary users of the concept do indeed make that assumption. In fact, it is in the study of the distinctive social worlds of what you term 'unusual people' that the concept has really come into its own in recent decades.
(2) There is another problem with this. The definition offered says a social world is "a broadly relational concept...to indicate any particular system or network of social knowledge, awareness and relations." I notice that people (and hence, society properly speaking) are not included in this definition. But the next sentence goes on and asserts that people and other items are included in social worlds: "Thus, when someone refers to 'my social world' they are ordinarily indicating an entire set of people, places and things that includes the people they know or have known in the past..."
The question is: does a social world include collectively-held norms, ideas, etc., as the definition states (this could be the same as a weltanshauung), or does it include "people, places and things" that are known (this could not be the same as a weltanshauung)?
- I would have thought it went without saying that it is people who have relationships, attitudes and awareness, but apparently not. That's easily remedied. On the other hand, as we've discussed before, your conception of society as expressed here in the parenthetical (and hence society properly speaking) is most definitely NOT shared by many of the most frequent users of the concept of social world for the very reason cited in your first point. Many would argue that the exclusive nature of the social worlds of the New York "400" and of Whyte's Street Corner Society render the notion of a larger, more encompassing "society" bound together by collectively-held norms that embraces them both either trivial or incoherent. (What "collective-held norms" were evident in the reactions of black and white social worlds to the O.J. Simpson trial, for example?) I'm not asking you to agree or disagree; I'm just trying to render the concept as accurately as i can.
Roger Lohmann 16:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this needs to be clarified. --Larry Sanger 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)