Talk:Social world: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger (→Weltanschauung: new section) |
imported>Larry Sanger m (→Weltanschauung) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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? | ||
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 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 10:44, 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?
(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 think this needs to be clarified. --Larry Sanger 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)