INTERACTION OF THE STRUCTURE OF WORLD AND LIFE POSITION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/smdg7w55Keywords:
worldview, structure, content, system, component, knowledge, principle, belief, value, evaluationAbstract
The worldview and related issues have always been in the focus of various disciplines. When a person, an individual, a particular group and society as a whole become the object of research, the issue of self- concept is also mentioned. The worldview, which is an interdisciplinary concept, is studied from different perspectives in the fields of philosophy, psychology, sociology, culturology, anthropology, pedagogy and many others. For example, worldview in psychology is studied as a phenomenon in psychology, behavior in sociology, cultural phenomenon in culturology, ethnocultural image in anthropology, as an object of education in pedagogy. However, the very essence, structure and functional aspects of the worldview are fully and completely embedded within philosophy. Philosophy can, by its universalist character, provide ontological, gnoseological, axiological, praxiological, and other aspects of this phenomenon and give conceptual and methodological guidance to other subjects in this regard. Nevertheless, the issue of worldview is, among other universal problems of philosophy, one of the problems which has not yet been fully resolved. The point is that the worldview is extremely complex and multifaceted. It is difficult to come to a clear understanding of its structure, functional and structural analysis. Therefore, in this article, we will look at some of the worldview studies and try to identify its structure and components. At the same time, we critically analyze existing philosophical ideas so far and draw attention to some gaps and ambiguities. We also examine how the worldview relates to the individual, his or her life position.
Downloads
References
1. Brandt, M. J., & Crawford, J.T. (2020). Worldview conflict and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. p. 36.
2. Frank, J. D. (1973). Persuasion and healing (rev.ed.). New York: Schocken.
3. Ibrahim, F. A., & Owen, S. V. (1994). Factor-analytic structure of the scale to assess World view. Current Psychology, 13.
4. Ibrahim, F. A., Roysircar-Sodowsky, G., & Ohnishi, H. (2001). Worldview: Recent developments and needed directions. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling. 2nd ed.
5. Jung, C. G. (1954). Fundamental questions of psychotherapy. InR. F. C. Hull (Trans.), The collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 16, pp. 111-125).
6. Kluckhohn, F. R. (1950). Dominant and substitute profiles of cultural orientations: Their significance for the analysis of social stratification. Social Forces.
7. Kottler, J. A., & Hazler, R. J. (2001). The therapist as a model of humane values and humanistic behavior. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. T. Bugental, & J. F. Pierson (Eds.), The handbook of humanistic psychology.
8. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
9. Olsen, M. E., Lodwick, D. G., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). Viewing the world ecologically (p. 4). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
10. Pepper, S. C. (1970). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1942).
11. Wolman, B. B. (1973). Dictionary of behavioral science. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
12. Artsishevsky, R.A. (1986). Worldview: essence, specificity, development. –Lviv: Vishka school.
13. Ashmanis, M.G. (1984). The formation of a scientific worldview. Riga: Zinatne.
14. Buchilo, N.F., Chumakov A.N. (2003). Philosophy: textbook. allowance. –M .: PER SE.
15. Vostrikov, I.V. (1987). The ideological and political dominant of the worldview. R n / a: Publishing house of the RSU.
16. Gorbachev, V.G. (2002). Fundamentals of Philosophy. M .: VLADOS-PRESS, 2002.
17. Gritsanov, A.A. (1998). The latest philosophical dictionary. –Minsk: Publishing House V.M. Skakun. – C.425.
18. Kedrov, B.M. (1970). Engels and the dialectic of natural science. M .: Politizdat. p.313.
19. Kravets, A.S. (1986). Worldview: structure and functions in the system of public consciousness // Yearbook of the Philosophical Society of the USSR 1985. M .: Science.
20. Leontiev, A.N. (1993). Needs, motives, emotions / A.N. Leont'ev // Psychology of Emotions / Ed. VK. Vilyunas, Yu.B. Hippenreiter. - M .: Moscow State University. from. 171 -180.
21. Radugin, A.A. (2001). Philosophy. –M .: Center.
22. Social Philosophy: Dictionary / Ed. ed. Kemerova, B.E., Kerimova, T. X. (2003). –M .: Academ. project.
23. Fedoseev, P.N. (1979). Worldview, philosophy, science. M .: Knowledge, 1979.
24. Philosophy: textbook. allowance / ed. Trushkova, V.V. (2004). –M .: Bylina.
25. Philosophical Dictionary. (1991). Ed. Frolova, I.T.–M. from. 263.
26. Khakimov, E.M. (1986). Modeling hierarchical systems. –Kazan: Kazan Publishing House. un-that. from. 28.
27. Shermukhamedova, N.A. (2012). Philosophy – methodological complex. –T:. Noshir.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
