perspective vs paradigm

[BramscoChill]

I am wondering what the difference is and relation between perspective and paradigm. I can't fully wrap my mind around it. Maybe is it the same or about the same.

I am supposing it is something like:
perspective: lens (set of idea's) through which I experience reality
paradigm: a framework of perspectives

So I see a perspective as a less extended belief than an paradigm. It might be just word games, bud it are 2 words, so I suppose they stand for something different.

What are you guys thinking?

[Reciprocality]

Problems like these are so trivial.

 

Instead of questioning where to draw the line between words, try instead to inquire about the dynamics the words are merely representing.

And so far as I entertain your question, I see that you have already found an answer to it. The answer you have found is expressing in particular terms what in general only means 1. people and 2. groups of people.

So far as perspective is something that one person has on a particular thing then a paradigm is something that one person is subject to from his culture of many people which then relates to particular things. Though these are merely words, they can mean whatever you want.

The question is therefore how the logical structure beneath them operates.

Edited February 28, 2022 by Reciprocality

[integral]

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by integral

[Carl-Richard]

"Paradigm" has a technical definition per Thomas Kuhn (with different interpretations), but you can generally think of it like a type of super-category that contains a large amount of sub-categories, and that the sub-categories themselves are interconnected in such a way to create a cohesive and self-consistent higher-order pattern. What is meant by Kuhn's concept of "incommensurability" is simply the statement that these higher-order patterns in their fullest form cannot be derived in any other way. In other words, when you view something from the perspective of one paradigm, the types of explanations that you are able to generate will not feasibly translate to or be readily accounted for by other paradigms.

Any translation would be superficial at best or lead to a significant loss of information. For example, you can take a Freudian analysis of religion and say that it's driven by an unconscious projection of one's past relationships to one's father, which expressed as a mix of fear and admiration, and then you can take a Humanistic analysis and say that religion is driven by one's desire to elevate one's level of self-expression to higher and higher heights (self-actualization and self-transcendence). These two paradigms seem to be very much at odds with each other, but if you remove a lot of the details and reduce it to something like "the desire for meaning", then you might start to see a connection, but of course that removes a lot of the explanatory power of each paradigm.

There does seem to exist some loopholes to this process (partial ones), namely systems theory, where different paradigms that at one time seemed to be incommensurable are partially united under a larger category (I say "partial" as there is much more to these paradigms than their systemic properties).