Modern World Research Paper
The Modern World View vs The Traditional World View
A Brief Introduction
There are two fundamental ways of looking at the world. The modern world view and the traditional world view.
There are only two fundamental ways, because all ways are variants on one of these two.
The first - the traditional world view - is the way that humans have looked at the world since the beginning - it is certainly the way that all known human societies have looked at the world: native Americans, Australian aboriginals, the Chinese Empire, the Indian empire (not the later British Raj), the Persian Empire, the ancient Egyptians, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Inuit, the Moslem civilization, Christendom (before the so-called "Enlightenment") and all other known …show more content…
Was it that they did not understand about gas and satellites? That, of course, is what post-"Enlightenment" propaganda teaches. Many traditional societies did not know much about the physical properties of the universe, because that is not what primarily interested them. On the other hand, quite a few of them knew a surprising amount about the physical "facts" but understood that they were only the outward signs of eternal Principles - not mere physical "accidents" as the modern mind imagines them to be.
The "Enlightenment" brought in a new doctrine, which truly began the modern world view. This was the doctrine that the physical senses are our only source of sure knowledge. In doing this they turned their backs on the wisdom of the whole of humanity before them. They believed that physical facts and "evidence" are our only way of knowing.
Descartes was one of the earliest proponents of this new skepticism, and he was a very radical thinker. He said that ultimately we can be sure of nothing, not even the evidence of our senses. All we can know for certain, without any reliance on traditional wisdom, is cogito ergo sum - "I think therefore I am". He was quite right. If we are genuinely skeptical, we should not logically make a special exception for the sense-data and their supposed "evidence". But, of course, without "cheating" and making a special exception, there could have been no further
A Brief Introduction
There are two fundamental ways of looking at the world. The modern world view and the traditional world view.
There are only two fundamental ways, because all ways are variants on one of these two.
The first - the traditional world view - is the way that humans have looked at the world since the beginning - it is certainly the way that all known human societies have looked at the world: native Americans, Australian aboriginals, the Chinese Empire, the Indian empire (not the later British Raj), the Persian Empire, the ancient Egyptians, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Inuit, the Moslem civilization, Christendom (before the so-called "Enlightenment") and all other known …show more content…
Was it that they did not understand about gas and satellites? That, of course, is what post-"Enlightenment" propaganda teaches. Many traditional societies did not know much about the physical properties of the universe, because that is not what primarily interested them. On the other hand, quite a few of them knew a surprising amount about the physical "facts" but understood that they were only the outward signs of eternal Principles - not mere physical "accidents" as the modern mind imagines them to be.
The "Enlightenment" brought in a new doctrine, which truly began the modern world view. This was the doctrine that the physical senses are our only source of sure knowledge. In doing this they turned their backs on the wisdom of the whole of humanity before them. They believed that physical facts and "evidence" are our only way of knowing.
Descartes was one of the earliest proponents of this new skepticism, and he was a very radical thinker. He said that ultimately we can be sure of nothing, not even the evidence of our senses. All we can know for certain, without any reliance on traditional wisdom, is cogito ergo sum - "I think therefore I am". He was quite right. If we are genuinely skeptical, we should not logically make a special exception for the sense-data and their supposed "evidence". But, of course, without "cheating" and making a special exception, there could have been no further