A common criticism I see online is that someones worldview, or philosophy for life, is circular. It is considered a negative point when someones opinion of how things work backs itself up against any questions.
An example of a circular argument that would annoy an atheist might go something like:
"There is a God, who is beyond our understanding."
"Can you prove that?"
"Not conclusively, no, because he is beyond our understanding."
It is obvious that a circular argument can be annoying, but I do not think this refutes it. Other than circular, there is only one other form that a worldview can be, and I do not think it is necesserily superior. The other form is incomplete.
A man with an incomplete worldview might frustrate his friend in a discussion just as easily:
"I believe that there are aliens elsewhere in the galaxy."
"Can you answer my questions about this belief?"
"Not all of them, no, because I have not decided exactly how my belief works."
The two forms are a bit like the two ways a piece of string can be: It can be a length of string with ends, or it can be tied to itself so that it makes a loop. It makes either a line or a circle.
I think that all worldviews begin as incomplete, and when it appears that they can answer all questions by eventually referencing themself, they have become circular. This is another way, perhaps, of saying that the view is complete. It is possible that an unforeseen question may open up the view again, but it will always be possible for a man to create more links until it is fixed into a complete view again.
The criticism of a worldview being circular seems an odd one; should a person be criticised because their view is consistent? I don't think so. Should a person be criticised because their view is incomplete? Not unless they are claiming that an incomplete answer is the right one.
There is only one reality, and therefore the functioning of the universe is consistent. You might even say it is circular. The world has never been unsure whether one atom should gain or loose energy when it collides with another. It works, and it works referencing itself. Its functioning is circular. The universe has a circular philosohpy of iteself.
So a worldview that accurately understood the entire universe would also be circular. Complete understanding would be able to answer all questions. Therefore it seems that a circular worldview is superior to an incomplete one because it is closer to the nature of reality.
However, what if none of us have a completed worldview that understands everything? Then we must search and question our beliefs, seeking new things so that we can understand more. The circle of our understanding must first be broken before more line can be added to it to make it complete again. The circle must be broken before it can expand. Considering this, an incomplete worldview now appears to be superior, because it is growing closer to complete understanding, whereas the closed view (which is not accurate) remains stagnant.
So at the end of these thoughts, can I say which of the two forms of a worldview is better? I must admit that the answer is no, I can't. I am unsure if one should be sought over the other.
But I do think that I have found enough reason to say that circular opinions should not be criticised as they currently are in discussions and debates.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
I tihnk that some of my beliefs are circular, whilst others are open and still expanding and learning. My foundational beliefs about life are circular, but many secondary ones are undecided. As might be expected, even a space as small as a single human being is enough space for this strange tension of both forms to exist.
See another post about Debate...
Image source: http://cgi.ebay.com/100-8-Glow-Stick-Bracelets-Toy-Party-Favor-Glowsticks-/220541171362
No comments:
Post a Comment