The Elephant in the room, The Wood that cannot be seen for the trees, and The Emperor who has no clothes on.

Kerry from Glenbervie

Grateful thanks to Tel Hudson for the inspiration.

Within the title we have three different ways of expressing a similar phenomenon. There is something very obvious going on, yet few if any seem to see it, or it is observed but for whatever reason it isn’t brought to the attention of anyone- they just don’t want to go there. That which is obvious cannot be admitted.

In the case of the Emperor with no clothes, we at least have a reason for why it is that his subjects will not admit the obvious. Because to contradict their sovereign was out of bounds, and likely to risk life and limb. The emperor had been conned and it was only through the honesty and simple naivete of a child who knew nothing of politics that busted the game wide open.

I have been asked to give “proof” of the objective nature of morality, but to me, and to those who share my worldview, that is like asking where the wood is in a world of trees. I’m only too aware that proof is something mathematicians sometimes manage, scientists who deal in the hard sciences sometimes feel they can approximate, and doesn’t even belong in the realm of human relations. But “proof beyond reasonable doubt” is a qualification that might be appropriate. “Evidence” is the term I think best fits.

I’m going to name but two objective moral virtues that are so necessary, and so pervasive in our world that it almost seems superfluous to have to give evidence as to the reality that they are objective, because without presupposing the objective nature of them our world would come to a standstill.

But before I do, I think we need to address the question why is it, that that which is so obvious to some, is so invisible to others, we need to address the question of worldview.

The concept of “weltanschauung” the original German word we translate as “worldview” is associated with German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) who theorized that to understand the meaning of a text, (or any cultural artifact), it’s interpretation can only be as accurate as the interpreter's knowledge of the cultural background or worldview from the period or place from which the historical text is lifted. “Meaning” therefore, is culturally situated. To gain objective knowledge of, for example, Shakespeare’s works and the processes of his thinking, one had to be cognizant of the social milieu in which he lived. It seems that though he developed a more comprehensive understanding of worldview, Immanuel Kant is widely recognized as first employing the term.

'Kant’s Copernican revolution in philosophy, with its emphasis on the knowing and willing self as the cognitive
and moral center of the universe, created the conceptual
space in which the notion of worldview could flourish. The
term was adopted by Kant’s successors and soon became a
celebrated concept in German intellectual life. “A Weltanschauung [worldview] is a comprehensive conception or theory of the world and the place of humanity within it. It is an intellectual construct that provides both a unified method of analysis for, and a set of solutions to, the problems of existence.” ' Professor David Naugle

“Every interpretation, he [Dilthey] reasoned, takes place within a larger understanding of the world (i.e., a Weltanschauung), which itself is historically conditioned. Thus, interpreters of human history and culture must recognize their immersion in a particular historical situation and tradition and in that process come to terms with the finitude of their perspective. ” David W. McIvor International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.

In simpler terms, Margaret Wheatley and Kellner Rogers defines our worldview as that which provides the interpretive framework through which we perceive reality:

“We each create our world by what we choose to notice, creating a world of distinction that makes sense to us. We then ‘see’ the world through the self we have created.”

W. E. Sangster understood cultural memory and its power over the human soul, sometimes for good, sometimes ill, we all have a history, and that history shapes our perception of reality:

“Whatever has been is. Past thought and feeling sink into the subconscious, not to lie forever dormant, but to colour future thought and feeling, and sometimes to rush up with terrible power to effect the will.”

It’s important to understand the difference between a personal worldview and culture. Culture is worldview writ large. Culture is a combination of worldviews that share common values and by which we have general agreement as to how we should conduct ourselves.

“Culture is the effort to provide a coherent set of answers to the existential questions that confront all human beings in the passages of their lives” Daniel Bell

It is impossible to live in a cultural vacuum, we either consciously make an effort to shape our own worldview, or we are inexorably molded into an unthinking conformity to the dominant views within the culture in which we live and move and have our being. For the most part our worldview is a combination between the extremes of both, but we are all a product of our age to some extent.

One of the world's earliest sages to understand, utilize and address the influence and power of cultural forces was the great travelling ambassador for Christ- St. Paul who said:

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind…” Romans 1.2:2

The first steps of freedom from a destructive culture is to recognize the machinery by which we have been moved. The first cog in that cultural machine is observed when we recognize that the weight of culture tends to subsume the ability of the individual to think independently, to exercise skepticism towards one's own worldview. When fully committed, one cannot think outside the parameters of the culture. Even if the culture is not overtly destructive, the first step is to realize that our thinking is structured, or conformed to an overarching narrative, a story that supposedly makes sense of the world.

David Arlidge in his article about the marginalization of traditional marriage, gave us a good reality check on cultural changes by pointing out the circumstances of our Prime Minister’s family. It came as a bit of a shock just how much attitudes have changed in a relatively short time, and yet it all goes on with almost complete acceptance. Yet we mustn’t make the mistake of thinking that all cultural change is for the better as with the abolition of slavery. I don’t think any who have read “The Gulag Archipelago” would dream of saying that the Bolshevik revolution was a step up from the autocratic and dictatorial system of Czarist Russia.

“Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time.” Voltaire.

The reformer of the 16th century, Martin Luther was no stranger to the inherent difficulty of the idea of turning the tide of culture:

“Learn from me how difficult a thing it is to throw off errors confirmed by the example of all the world, and which through long habit have become a second nature to us”

C. S. Lewis remarked on the difficulty of seeing objectively through the all-consuming fog of culture:

“Chronological snobbery is the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited ... Our own age ... certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those wide-spread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.”

An old Chinese proverb says,

“If you want to know what water is, don’t ask the fish.” This is true of those that go with the flow, who simply conform to whatever the majority follow. They have presupposed that whatever the majority say is right, is true and make little attempt to ascertain any validity to what they believe.

Total immersion results in an inability to see from a different perspective or comprehend a truly objective appraisal. As C.S. Lewis said:

“ One can only call a line crooked if one has some idea of a straight line.”

Cultural immersion blinds us not only to the systemic injustices within our own culture, but just as often it blinds us to what is objectively good about it.

From this it follows that the further our worldview is from an accurate representation of reality, the more it will be responsible for blindsiding us.

A woman asked her daughter if she had seen her reading glasses, her daughter responded "No, I don't know where they are". And yet there they were, right on the bridge of her mothers nose. Conflicting worldviews are like that, it can render two people unable to communicate on the same terms. One is blind to the glasses on her mothers face, and the other, aware only that she wasn't seeing clearly, didn't attribute it to the fact she now needed a better pair. A worldview is what we see the world through, and as such unless we are conscious of our spectacles ability to correct our sight we simply assume that how we see the world is not merely our interpretation of it, but how it is in itself. More often than not we look at the world through our rose tinted glasses, (if you’re an optimist) or through our smokey black ones if we’re a pessimist. It is readily seen that Tel Hudson was able to resolve the issue of the four boards, not by changing the facts, but by visiting Specsavers. One can only improve one’s eyesight by consciously “trying on” a new pair of spectacles. It becomes self evident if they improve what we see. By investing in dialectical reasoning we may test our worldview for its ability to inform us of reality. It is our perception of reality that deceives us, why we don’t see the wood for the trees. It is only when you become conscious of an inability to see clearly, that you will perhaps be willing to change your worldview.

Unless we cross boundaries and engage with the assumptions and ideas of the other tribes, at all these other levels, we find ourselves so immersed in our own personal interpretation of reality we can lose any sense of objectivity. This disturbing trend can be seen in media today, there is no sense of objectivity even attempted, reporting is partisan.

“One of the hardest things to do, is to be skeptical about the things that are in most need of skepticism”-

Willard employed the phrase “targeted skepticism” whereby he, in concert with Lewis, advocated being skeptical about those assumptions that everyone tended to take for granted, pointing out the lack of skepticism towards secularism.

Although he may have had something else in mind, Naom Chomsky, might well have been speaking of the power of culture, particularly the extreme skepticism Willard observed that is used to discourage individual questioning of culture:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

Language such as: “Give it a rest…any attempt to prove the existence of an objective morality is a dead duck” and “in the reality we live in is about as useful in determining truth as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” and “ I don't want a discussion on religion" all exemplify this tactic at work.

Think of academia's moratorium on subjects like Intelligent Design, or the State's over restrictive interpretation of the separation of Church and State and its accompanying religious zeal for the promotion of secularism. Think of the promotion of the right to absolute human autonomy, but only for those that exist outside of the womb.

Whatever else you may take from a discussion of the concept of worldview, something that must be understood is that although we can imagine it as a sort of road-map, a grid for orienting ourselves within the world, it takes place in the background of our minds, rather than the foreground of our consciousness. While a worldview is similar to wearing glasses by which the world is interpreted, it is dissimilar in that unlike glasses which are often removed to clean them, a worldview is far less often critically examined.

A worldview may be expressed as the effect on our memory from the sum total of our experiences, how we interpreted those experiences, our beliefs about reality, it also includes any innate knowledge, out of which and through which we come to make every decision and which determines the overall course of our lives. It is like the lens through which we view the world. It is our perception of reality.

As such it isn’t so much looked at- as it is looked through. Because we look through it, we are less aware of it. Unless we take specific stock of our understanding of reality, unless we examine it and make efforts to shape our worldview, we will necessarily be conformed to that culture we swim in. We will be conformed to, pressed into, molded by the culture in which we are immersed.

In his own inimitable style, G.K. Chesterton brings home the significance of understanding why a persons worldview is so important:

“There are some people, nevertheless — and I am one of them — who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos" [our worldview] "affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them.”

The pluralization of culture has entailed the fragmentation and polarization of diverse communities all having to share the same assets but with vastly different goals, and value systems. While each population or community at different levels is claiming to have the objective truth about how to live, without an ontic referent, it is all subjective, yet all are assuming, or to put it another way, all are showing faith in- the idea of objective truth. An ontic referent can be likened to an objective standard, the metric unit of a metre, for instance, refers to the standard metre which is the ultimate definition of the measurement.

Although the Nobel Prize winning scientist Richard Feynman was probably thinking of the search for scientific truth, his idea applies to the search for truth in any sphere:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."

So we see then, that in as far as our worldview doesn’t comport with reality, it will preempt, or prejudice our ability to perceive certain facts. In short we will not see the wood for the trees.

"Ultimately, however, conflict lies not in objective reality, but in people's heads. Truth is simple one argument - perhaps a good one, perhaps not - for dealing with the difference. The difference itself exists because it exists in their thinking."
-- Martin Luther