Pros and Cons of Philosophies of Life

The metaphysical perspective of the maieutics school, in which Unconditional Love is the axiomatic starting point, implies that all philosophies of life are not above universal theo-logy, but rather fall under it. Incidentally, this hierarchy certainly does not disregard the value of individual philosophies of life. Within the limited boundaries of a culture, philo-sophies of life are indispensable: they offer people a spiritual anchor and ensure coherence in a society. And they have done so for many centuries.

At the same time, however, philosophies of life can come to oppose each other with poten-tially disastrous consequences. They can also restrict people in their freedom to such an extent that they can no longer be themselves. The history of mankind offers enough examples of this. The Second World War alone, with its clashes between philosophies of life such as fascism, communism and liberalism, is a case in point. Religious wars seem to have cost human lives for centuries, while political contrasts – between ‘left’ and ‘right’ – can also lead to serious tension worldwide. In all such cases, people are opposed to each other because they (think they) have no common ground. They think they are fundamentally different from each other, with ‘the other’ lacking something or having something that is not right. Serious forms of lovelessness can then be the result.

For example, the Jew accuses the Christian of believing in Jesus, while the Christian accuses the Jew of not believing in Jesus. Both accuse the atheist of not believing in anything, while the latter in turn rejects all forms of belief. The Muslim accuses Jews, Christians and atheists of not recognizing Muhammad, while the latter, according to some, equates to terrorism. Christians have waged crusades, Muslims wage holy wars. The ‘left’ accuses the ‘right’ of being a fascist, racist and climate denier, while the latter identifies the former as a cultural barbarian, atheist and megalo-maniac psychopath. Women accuse men of not being feminine enough, while men accuse women of acting like over-emancipated male females. Blacks blame whites for oppression centuries ago, while whites hold blacks responsible for today’s crime. The American distrusts everything that is not American, while Chinese and Russians do the opposite. The European Union wants to seize all power for itself, while large parts of the European population would perhaps prefer to keep control in their own hands.

In short, because of all the different philosophies and visions, the world has become serious-ly divided and consequently extremely complex. Not infrequently, intolerance is the result. Even between so-called ‘civilized people’ there can no longer be any question of a decent dialogue. What remains is an inhumane exclusion of fellow human beings who happen to think differently. In such a world, hatred prevails and people have distanced themselves further than ever from our basic principle.