<i>Buen Vivir</i> and the Art of Living: Comparing Western and Latin American Perspectives on Living a “Good Life”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While interaction and exchange between cultures is arguably increasing in our globalized world, sentiments reflecting division among cultures and ways of being in the world remain. In particular, the relevance of ideas, theory, and philosophy based on traditional “Western” values and a focus on the individual is often drawn into question for collectivist and community-centred cultures—and vice versa. This has implications for education, given that much of the education discourse and approaches based on Western traditions are affecting education system across the globe and across cultures. It is also of particular significance for the educational approach focusing on developing students’ own “art of living.” While undoubtedly significant fundamental differences exist between most cultures, this article aims to suggest that, nevertheless, synergies and connecting points exist between Schmid’s philosophical concept of the “art of living”—which is based on so-called traditional Western philosophy—and the Latin American notion of “buen vivir” (good living)—which is based on the traditions and cultural worldview of Indigenous peoples of this subcontinent. While we acknowledge the vast differences in culture and the depths of the cultural divide, our comparative review indicates that connections can be drawn on fundamental ethical aspects of human co-existence. We argue that these connecting points suggest that Schmid’s philosophy can be of relevance to non-Western cultural contexts, as much as Indigenous ways of knowing and being can be of relevance to those in the “Western” world pursuing an art of living, which, consequently, indicates that an educational approach to the art of living can be relevant to diverse cultural contexts beyond Western-centric settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".