Interpretation: Our Worldviews

Have you ever stopped to think that the world we see may not be exactly the ‘real’ world?

Every human being carries within themselves a powerful tool, which can be empowering, but also dangerously limited.

In this article, we will talk about worldviews and the great game of human interpretation in a simple and direct way, in the best straight talk style.

What does interpretation and worldviews mean?

Let's say that worldviews function as invisible filters that we use to interpret reality. Based on them, we make sense of what we experience, hear, or observe. Every human being in the world interprets reality according to their experiences, beliefs, prior knowledge, emotions, and values.

A simple example of this is when two people witness the same event but understand and react to it in different ways. This is because each of them organises the information according to their own emotional baggage.

I don't know if you've ever heard the phrase, ‘We are responsible for what we think, feel and do, but not for how others interpret it.’

Well, interpretation, therefore, is not just the act of ‘understanding’ something. This process is also responsible for attributing (or not) meanings that relate what happens externally to what we carry internally – and vice versa.

The concept of ‘worldviews’ is directly linked to our interpretation process. A worldview is a set of beliefs, principles – or lack thereof – traditions and perspectives that shape how someone observes reality. This set of beliefs is also known as a paradigm.

These paradigms vary among individuals, groups, or societies and influence how they understand concepts such as justice, happiness, progress, spirituality, etc.

In other words, our worldviews act to build or destroy what we understand as collective and individual meaning.

Interpretation vs. Reality

After all, is there an objective reality or is it all just a pre-agreed collective delusion?

A good number of philosophers and scientists defend the existence of a reality independent of our mind's interpretations. They define this idea of reality as something similar to gravity – it exists independently of our will.

Within this concept, our ideas of ‘truth’ and/or “meaning” would be nothing more than a collective construct, a mere result of what groups and societies have agreed to believe and value. These ‘global true’ narratives may even have some basis in objective reality, but only in accordance with what is constructed from the human interpretations involved.

However, when we look at the point of view of some existing lines of thought, we see a veritable smorgasbord of worldviews:

• Scepticism: says that we cannot be absolutely certain about any kind of view, as all forms of knowledge can be questioned.

• Social constructivism: the world is collectively constructed through language and social relations.

• Empiricism: worldviews arise from sensory experiences and observations of events.

• Epicureanism: the world should be understood in terms of the pursuit of happiness and the reduction of pain.

• Stoicism: the worldview should be aligned with reason and nature, accepting what cannot be controlled.

• Structuralism: all worldviews are formed by unconscious structures (such as language and social systems).

• Existentialism: worldview ideas are constructed from freedom and personal choices.

• Phenomenology: the worldview arises from direct experiences and how consciousness interprets what has been experienced.

• Hedonism: guided by pleasure as the fundamental principle of life.

• Humanism: places human beings, their dignity and freedom at the centre of any worldview.

• Idealism: the mind and ideas shape the reality we know.

• Marxism: worldviews reflect the material conditions and power relations in society.

• Materialism: says that there is no belief in any kind of ‘mental power.’ For materialists, the world is physical, solid matter, nothing more, nothing less.

• Nihilism: no worldview has ultimate meaning or objective value; everything is a great void of meaning.

• Perspectivism: argues that every worldview is just one among many possible ones, so there is no single truth that is exclusive to everyone.

• Post-structuralism: there is no fixed worldview, but rather multiple meanings that are in dispute.

• Positivism: only scientific knowledge based on verifiable facts can form the basis of a valid worldview.

• Pragmatism: the value of a worldview depends on its practical usefulness for solving problems.

• Rationalism: reason is the main tool for understanding the world and forming a true view of it.

• Realism: we believe that there is an objective reality, independent of our interpretations.

• Cultural relativism: each culture forms its own paradigm and no culture can be measured or compared to another.

• Transcendentalism: worldviews are anchored in spirituality and the connection between human beings and nature.

• Utilitarianism: the worldview should seek the well-being of as many people as possible.

Yes, these are just a few of the many views and interpretations that exist about reality. And since there is (still) no definitive proof, one that leaves no gaps or doubts, our interpretation of the world becomes a whirlwind of data and information that coexist as chaotic, incessant white noise.

The role of our interpretive mind is to transform all this chaos (Khaos) into cosmos (Kósmos), into order. It captures millions of stimuli per second, organises them, interprets them, fills in the gaps and then delivers a tiny fraction of this data to our consciousness, with the rest remaining ‘running in the background’ unconsciously.

With this, the bigger issue is not the multiplicity of views and ideas, but rather our stubbornness in insisting that only our version of the facts is correct.

Distorted Filters

And so we arrive at the dark side of the force. Our interpretive mind can save us from the madness that absolute chaos can represent, but it also condemns us to the relative madness of confirmation biases, prejudices, our struggles against them, left and right, fake news...

Our interpretive filters are not neutral. They magnify information that confirms what we already believe and blur information that might challenge us.

David Hume would cut through this nonsense with a single question: ‘Do you really see causality, or do you just assume that one event follows another?’

In order to clarify this tricky question a little, let's use a game of billiards as an example.

We see a player hit ball A, which in turn hits ball B, causing it to move in some direction. Are we seeing the movement of these balls or just observing the sequence of events and interpreting them as causality?

Most of what we call “interpretive reading of the world” is just a mental habit, an interpretive addiction that repeats itself until we realise that we are repeating it automatically.

Words create worlds

In the midst of this game, language acts as the primary tool of interpretation, which also makes it an accomplice to our interpretive biases.

George Orwell, in his brilliant work ‘1984’, shows how the limitations of language prove to be limitations of thought.

For example: if we do not have real and applicable definitions for words such as “unity” and ‘freedom’, how can we conceive the meaning that these words have?

It is not just a matter of looking up dictionary definitions, because the views that each person, culture or society has of what it means to love and be free are usually completely different and multiple. The concepts of these words, as presented in dictionaries, are rarely applicable to the subjective sensations, feelings and interpretations of individuals themselves.

If we take this example a little further, we see that we often use certain words as weapons. An “attack” today is also used to denote “peace operations”. A “terrorist” is referred to in certain cultures and situations as a “freedom fighter”. The facts do not change, but rather the interpretations that the mind makes, often with subtleties adjusted by ulterior motives.

Depending on the prevailing narratives, other words such as ‘visionary’ or ‘lunatic’ have come to be used to describe the same behaviour, thus gaining interpretations opposite to those categorised in dictionaries.

If you want to see these changes in the concepts of words for yourself, look up the word ‘empirical’ in a recent dictionary. If you know what this word means, see how it is being narrated today.

Worldviews in the Age of Social Media

We can say, without exaggeration, that social media has become a laboratory for studying interpretive and linguistic distortions, where every piece of information reflects a different and hyperbolic version of ourselves and the world.

Social media feeds us only the narratives we accept and like to see. In some cases, due to these “personalised experiences”, we become mere caricatures of our own opinions.

Hyperinterpretation is on the rise, and through it we not only read the world, but we read others' interpretations of our own interpretations. All this in an endless and sometimes sterile loop.

Interpretation: Freedom or Imprisonment?

This does not mean that we are doomed, but it does give the impression that we are living under a regime of probation.

Changing our worldview, beliefs, and interpretations is possible, but it requires the discomfort of realising that not everything we believe to be true is actually true. I say this with the awareness that my interpretations may also be repetitions or errors of judgement.

Admitting this does not change them, but it helps to broaden my spectrum of understanding. I believe that no one would want to live a whole life believing that the shadows projected on the wall are more real than the world that awaits outside the cave (Allegory of the Cave by Plato).

And for those who are brave enough, I suggest reading “Discipline and Punish” by Michel Foucault, a true lesson on how we interpret – and how we are interpreted – by the prevailing systems and narratives.

Amidst all this interpretive dance, I cannot fail to mention the irreverent wisdom of Diogenes, the cynic, who walked the streets of ancient Greece with his lantern lit in the midday sun, shouting at the top of his lungs: ‘I am looking for an honest man.’ He was not looking for a man of flesh and blood, but rather an uncorrupted interpretation of humanity. In his brutal satire on social conventions, Diogenes showed us that most of these conventions are merely the result of a foolish collective interpretation, and not natural laws.

Simplified Summary

Our brains do not see reality directly. They interpret it as a kind of simultaneous translator.

What makes this translator so incredible is its ability to make sense of the world, but paradoxically, it is also a great inventor, distorting facts to massage our ego, clinging to first impressions and repeating them in an ‘eternal return.’

The secret here is not to want to fire it or just ‘reprogram’ it, but rather to keep an eye on it, checking and questioning its work when necessary.

Author's note:

I believe, pessimistically – and slightly hopefully – that interpretive humility is one of the most neglected virtues of our time. Assuming that we may be wrong and that our filters may be distorted are antidotes to blind fanaticism, polarisation and anxiety.

In my opinion, true intelligence, if there is such a thing, is not about having the most accurate interpretation, but about having the flexibility to question and change when faced with new evidence and information.

Let's say I can be someone who is open to correction and not someone who calls themselves wise but stubbornly denies anything that ‘conflicts’ with my worldview. I prefer to have people around me who admit they ‘don't know anything’ rather than those who pretend to know everything and have absolute certainties about everything. I think the greatest tragedy is not having a limited worldview, but believing that this view is the only one possible.

Interact (or not), the choice is yours!

The exercise of looking at yourself and questioning your own beliefs may be the quest that really matters. Self-knowledge is not a luxury, it is more like a code that helps refine our filters. The journey may be somewhat lonely, but it does not have to be isolated. So, how about starting by sharing your own interpretation of this article?

In the comments below, you can leave your harshest criticism, your most uncomfortable question, your most reluctant compliment, and even your suggestion for the next topic. And if you think this article isn't completely wrong, how about sharing it with someone who also appreciates a heavy dose of reflection? Go ahead, feel free.

Now, if curiosity reigns in your interpretive filters, enter our backstage UN4RT, where we unravel these concepts with even more depth, artistry, and irreverence.

Oh, if you saw the value in this work and want to support us in our project, consider buying us a coffee on the ‘Buy Me a Coffee’ platform, where you'll find free content and membership plans with bonus content and even more exclusive material, all created by us. Your support makes a difference, and you get some goodies too.

Thanks for choosing us, and see you next time!

“The illusion crumbles when we question reality” - UN4RT

Sources, references and inspirations:

• Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow.

• David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

• Diogenes of Sinope, Lives of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius.

• Edmund Husserl, The idea of Phenomenology.

• Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble: What the Intenet is Hidding from you.

• Epictetus, The Art of Living and Enchiridion.

• Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.

• George Orwell, 1984 and Politics and the English Language.

• Giuliano da Empoli, The Engineers of Chaos.

• Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness.

• Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish.

• General research on worldview concepts within different schools of thought.

• Plato, The Republic (Allegory of the Cave).

• Benjamin Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir, Linguistic Relativity Theory (Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis).

• Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Survillance Capitalism.