HUMAN AS A CARRIER OF THE WORLDVIEW: INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE DIMENSIONS
Keywords:human, individual worldview, collective worldview, world perception, world attitude, world understanding
Purpose. The purpose of the study is to outline the links between individual and collective dimensions of the human worldview. This purpose requires solving two tasks: to update philosophical ideas formed by reflection on human and community worldview; to identify and generalize the relationship of singular and general in the context of the problem of human worldview. Theoretical basis. The study is based on philosophical reflections about manifestations of singular and general worldviews. Such reflections appeared in European philosophy quite a long time ago (Dilthey, Rickert, Jaspers). Ukrainian and foreign philosophical discourse considers both measures of the worldview. And a role of the carrier of worldview plays either human or society. We can see that in researches of S. Krymskyi, I. Nadolniy, V. Popov, N. Rozhanska, V. Tabachkovskyi, V. Shynkaruk, V. Poythress, D. Rousseau, D. Billingham, C. Gianolla and others. However the links between individual and collective dimensions of worldview are not clearly outlined. It is possible to note the research of V. Popov who focuses on the problem of socio-collective and individual dimensions of worldview. But the scientist focuses more on the use of the concept of worldview in these two meanings. Human as a social being interacts with worldviews of other individuals. That is why we can speak of two dimensions of the worldview function: individual and collective. This problem became topical due to acuteness of the links between human and society in modern life. Originality. The author outlined key links between individual and collective dimensions of human worldview functioning. The study identified a role of human as a carrier of the worldview in formation of collective worldview. Conclusions. Human as a worldview carrier plays a key role in formation of collective worldview. In philosophical discourse thoughts about links between individual and collective worldviews are different and sometimes conflicting. We have a discussion problem of uniformity and diversity of collective worldview. Collective worldview is showed as a circulation of different ideas and views of individuals. But collective worldview is showed as a whole system of individual views too. Collective worldview manifests as integrated phenomenon because it is based on common worldviews of individuals. At the same time the human is influenced by collective worldview in particularly as a past generation heritage.
Artyukh, V. A. (2011). Dmytro Chizhevs’ky about the Worldwide View Basis of the Ukrainian Philosophical Process. Philosophical Ideas in the Culture of Kievan Rus, 5, 23-38. (in Ukrainian)
Bazaluk, O., & Balinchenko, S. (2020). The Ethics Laws as a Basis for Building a Cosmic Civilization. The Sofia Republic. Philosophy and Cosmology, 24, 131-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/24/13 (in English)
Chyzhevskyi, D. (2005). Narysy z istorii filosofii na Ukraini: Filosofiia Hryhoriia Skovorody. In Filosofski tvory (Vol. 1). Kyiv: Smoloskyp. (in Ukrainian)
Didenko, V., & Tabachkovskyi, V. (2002). Svitohliad. In Filosofskyi entsyklopedychnyi slovnyk (pp. 569-570). Kyiv: Abrys. (in Ukrainian)
Dilthey, W. (2011). Das Wesen der Philosophie. M. Tselter, Trans. from German. Moscow: Intrada. (in Russian)
Farion, O. O. (2015). The Spiritual Basic Concepts in the Writings of Thinkers of Kiev School of Philosophy. Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University Journal, 1(79), 31-37. (in Ukrainian)
Gianolla, C. (2019). Worldview. Dicionário Alice. Retrieved from https://alice.ces.uc.pt/dictionary/?id=23838&pag=23918&id_lingua=1&entry=24326 (in English)
Grygoriyiv, N. (1941). Ukrainska natsionalna vdacha. Winnipeg. (in Ukrainian)
Jaspers, K. (2009). Psychologie Der Weltanschauungen. O. Kysliuk & R. Osadchuk, Trans. from German. Kyiv: Yunivers. (in Ukrainian)
Kolotylo, M. O. (2017). Mentality and mental thinking as a sociocultural phenomenon: the ontological status and anthropological dimensions. Current problems of philosophy and sociology, 15, 66-69. (in Ukrainian)
Kulchytskyi, O. (1981). Vvedennia v problematyku sutnosty filosofii. In Memoirs of the Shevchenko scientific society (Vol. 191, pp. 1-86). Paris-New York-Munich. (in Ukrainian)
Liovochkina, A. (2002). Etnopsykholohiia. Kyiv: MAUP. (in Ukrainian)
Mirchuk, I. (1942). Svitohliad ukrainskoho narodu. Sproba kharakterystyky. Naukovyi zbirnyk Ukrainskoho universytetu v Prazi, 3, 225-243. (in Ukrainian)
Nadolniy, I. F. (2015). Worldview – a key problem of knowledge and activity. Herald of the National Academy for Public Administration under the President of Ukraine, 4, 50-54. (in Ukrainian)
Nechuy-Levytsky, I. (1992). Svitohliad ukrainskoho narodu: Eskiz ukrainskoi mifolohii. Kyiv: Oberehy. (in Ukrainian)
Popov, V. (2016). The birth of the concept of "Weltanschauung". Universytetska kafedra, 5, 81-89. (in Ukrainian)
Popov, V., & Popova, O. (2019). Sotsialno-kolektyvni ta indyvidualni vymiry poniattia "svitohliad". In D. Shevchuk (Ed.), Liudyna i kultura (pp. 117-133). Ostroh: The National University of Ostroh Academy. (in Ukrainian)
Poythress, V. S. (2019). Does redemptive history have priority to worldview? With implications for preaching. Westminster Theological Journal, 81, 35-47. Retrieved from https://frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/PoythressVernDoesRedemptiveHistoryHaveAPriority.WTJ-81.1.pdf (in English)
Rickert, H. (1998). Die Philosophie des Lebens. Trans. from German. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr, Vist-S. (in Russian)
Rousseau, D., & Billingham, J. (2018). A Systematic Framework for Exploring Worldviews and Its Generalization as a Multi-Purpose Inquiry Framework. Systems, 6(3), 27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030027 (in English)
Rozhanska, N. V. (2015). National outlook and national philosophy: A structural analysis. Naukovi pratsi. Filosofiia, 257(245), 25-28. (in Ukrainian)
Rylsky, T. (1888). K izucheniyu ukrainskogo narodnogo mirovozzreniya. Kievskaya starina, 23, 266-306. (in Russian)
Shlemkevych, M. (1981). Sutnist filosofii. In Memoirs of the Shevchenko scientific society (Vol. 191, pp. 87-243). Paris-New York-Munich. (in Ukrainian)
Shynkaruk, V. (1986). Svitohliad. In Filosofskyi slovnyk (pp. 462-464). Kyiv. (in Ukrainian)
Spengler, O. (1998). Vsemirno-istoricheskie perspektivy. I. Makhankov, Trans. from German. In Zakat Yevropy: Ocherki morfologii mirovoy istorii (Vol. 2). Moscow: Mysl. (in Russian)
Spivak, L., & Savytska, O. (2011). Etnopsykholohiia. Kyiv: Karavela. (in Ukrainian)
How to Cite
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).