Part Two: Worldviews

Mead, in Types and Problems of Philosophy, acknowledged that there has always been factors at work seeking to undermine or constrain our worldviews, but he also acknowledged that this was one of the reasons these elements were to be in concert with each. I will go one step further and posit that it is the union of elements that has always provided the protection in the battles to undermine or constrain our worldview. When these elements are in concert they are a strong and a formidable protector, but when they are not, they become very weak and vulnerable. Mead suggests that the concept of worldview is no longer important to most today; very few think about worldview and even less know how to articulate it to others. Even more alarming is that we are now conditioned to accept that these elements of our worldview, meant to be in union, best serve us out of union with each other. Through critical theory and offshoots of it like pragmatism and situational ethics, we have become immune to the consistency, openly embracing inconsistency as a norm. 

Mead referenced that these elements that make up our worldview are, in their strongest state, interrelated so intricately that it would be almost impossible to speak of one without speaking of several others in the past, but that is no longer the case. This interrelation was akin to an interwoven fabric and the “knitting” (refining) of this “fabric” provided us purpose and meaning and the means of making sense of our world as we refined our worldview. Mead highlighted the powerful impact of worldviews when he stated that even impulsive or reactive action is based somewhat on worldviews.

Of course, Mead is right. Worldviews are powerful and responsible for most of our behavior but what if there are circumstances that undermine the impact of a worldview? Action is based on reasoning which is based on our interaction with the world, and our interaction with the world begins and ends with our senses as we encounter stimuli from the world through them. Reasoning or thinking is a process rooted in a sequence of actions in which encountered stimuli from the world, interact with our own knowledge housed in our long term memory, which results in new or adjusted knowledge, prompting most of our actions. These have been sorted out in the past through the consistency of our worldviews. In the past, those elements making up our worldview would be in concert with each other in such intimate ways that beliefs in contrast to them would be easily and quickly filtered out. That is no longer the case.  

As I referenced earlier, some of our actions are reactions to emotions or environmental circumstances, and these reactive actions are not impacted by worldview in the normal sense due to their nature, but these were not the vast majority of our actions. Today, I believe one of the goals of critical theory is to position every action and thought to be treated as if they are reactive, rooting them in emotion, feeling and sensuality and not worldview. In the past, when it came to thinking or reasoning, both were primarily impacted by our consistent worldview, but with the elements of our worldview falling out of concert with each other the results are worldviews that are fractured or nonexistent. Couple these fractured or nonexistent worldviews with the growing normalcy of inconsistency and we become anxious people.  

Our worldview, which was the governance of our thinking and reasoning in the past, has become compromised, no longer functioning as a filter of sorts; instead, they have become fractured or nonexistent, opening up the flood gates for every belief, regardless of its origin, to be viable to us. What would happen if our thinking or reasoning were no longer impacted by worldview but instead became a reaction? Our thoughts and reasons would no longer be filtered by our deepest beliefs which live inside our worldview; instead, there would be no filter, leaving our emotions, our feelings and our sensuality—all impacted by situations and circumstances—as the filter to our thoughts and actions. It would equate to practicing medicine according to feeling and emotion, ignoring the accumulated knowledge and training available. The results would not be good, and yet, this is where we find ourselves today. How should we respond? Stay tuned for Part Three!