It takes many villages…

In my last post, I discussed societal issues related to self-worth and the sense of being enough. I explored what matters in our society and our lived reality, and how the dynamics of self-worth seem to be closely tied to the values and goals pursued by Western societies in particular.

I concluded by posing a list of questions that arose for me on this topic. My aim was to stimulate reflection and awareness, and encourage discourse and collective commitment to addressing the issues as well as promoting change. But that wasn’t all I was promoting. While the feedback I received was generally in line with what I meant to achieve, I was surprised to find that my partner, of all people, was the one who got upset.

What made him angry was that he wanted answers, not just questions. Although, as I would put it, the work of a philosopher involves raising questions, thinking critically, reflecting, engaging with different approaches, and encouraging others to do the same—something I consider a form of service—he felt that I already knew the answers, or at least some of them. He believed I was holding them back and wanted me to share them. I heard him. So, here we are—let’s give it a try, in the service of a good life!

Well, the first and most important step to changing the way things are – and that was indeed the aim of my last post – is to become aware and mindful. This means taking an honest, vulnerable and critical look at the current state of things. We must not look away, numb ourselves, run away, or sugarcoat things. Instead, we need a clear and honest assessment of what is there. I believe that awareness, combined with self-honesty, is the first step towards change.

But it is not enough to simply become aware of what is going wrong and needs to be changed. We also need to cultivate, or rather unlock, an inner guidance system that identifies what is good for oneself, for others, the world and what is in it – for the greater or collective good.

Secondly, just as important as the subjective aspect is the objective one: working together and striving for the collective good. While many people lead conscious lives and seek alignment and authenticity, they often encounter systemic limitations that prevent them from fully realizing their potential. These individuals may struggle to effectively use their inner guidance system due to factors such as work environments, politics, socio-political circumstances, and societal values and goals—elements that society has implicitly agreed upon regarding how things should function, a long time ago.

And don’t get me wrong; I understand that everyone’s definition of “good” or what constitutes a good life is not identical. My inner guidance system may consider something different as good for me than yours does for you. The search for a consensus on what makes a good life is an ancient and ongoing quest. For instance, Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, argues that the good life is achieved through eudaimonia, or flourishing. This involves living in accordance with reason and virtue, practicing moral and intellectual virtues, finding a balance between extremes, and cultivating meaningful friendships. For example, a person living according to Aristotle’s approach might strive to balance a demanding career with quality time spent with family, engage in continuous learning through reading and educational activities, and nurture deep, supportive relationships with friends. By making thoughtful decisions, avoiding excesses, and fostering both personal and professional growth, such a person reflects Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia.

In the Letter to Menoeceus and the Principal Doctrines, Epicurus argues that the good life is achieved through the pursuit of simple pleasures and the avoidance of pain, with a focus on tranquillity (ataraxia) and, like Aristotle, meaningful friendships. He advocates for a life of moderation and intellectual enjoyment rather than physical indulgence. For example, someone following Epicurus might find contentment through quiet moments with close friends, engaging in reflective conversations, and enjoying simple, daily pleasures like a leisurely walk or a home-cooked meal. Similarly, John Stuart Mill, a proponent of utilitarianism and author of Utilitarianism, argued that the good life is one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure. He distinguished between higher and lower pleasures, asserting that intellectual and moral pleasures are superior to mere physical ones. For instance, a person living according to Mill’s philosophy might prioritize activities such as pursuing advanced education, contributing to charitable causes, and engaging in thoughtful discussions, valuing these enriching experiences over temporary physical pleasures.

Although our understanding of what constitutes a good life may differ, I believe we can all agree that meeting our needs and working towards a good life for everyone is important. We need to genuinely acknowledge that what’s good for me, the needs of others, and the well-being of the planet all matter. Recognizing and committing to the fact that these needs are interconnected and that meaningful change requires addressing them on a large scale is a crucial step.

Further we need to live as authentically and consciously as possible, aligning with our true selves and our needs. By doing so, we can serve as role models and beacons for others, inspiring them to unlock their own guidance systems and find alignment. This example in turn helps our children and following generations learn how to navigate their emotions, needs, develop self-love, build confidence, and grow into empathetic, conscious, and authentic adults who feel worthy and enough.

Also, learning should not be framed as a competition, nor should our knowledge be used to define our worth. Schools should not merely emphasize scientific knowledge or enforce conformity through comparison. Instead, education must celebrate and embrace each student’s uniqueness, nurturing their individual interests and potential. Schools should empower and help children to understand the world, life, and themselves by creating dynamic spaces for curiosity, self-expression, exploration, and deep questioning.

We need to slow down, reflect, rethink, and rebuild. We should define the good life as both our individual and collective goal and work towards it. It’s crucial to stop allowing a handful of powerful figures—whether executives, lobbyists, politicians, or others—to dictate what matters based solely on capital, money, profit, or personal interests. This shift must be enforced through systemic changes and collective action to ensure that decision-making aligns with the broader good. What truly matters is all of us striving to make life the best experience possible. To achieve this, we must recognize that our well-being, the well-being of others, and the health of this beautiful and wondrous planet are deeply interconnected. Embracing this interconnectedness and striving for balance and alignment is essential. Only then can we truly thrive!

With this in mind, I’ll close by asserting that, from my perspective, the saying “it takes a village” has evolved to reflect a deeper truth: it takes many villages—and every single one of us—to bring about the changes we want to see in the world.

Have we created a monster?

Life as we humans have created it over thousands of years and live in most parts of this world has something antibiotic, i.e. against life, about it. What is meant by this? If we think about how much time we spend doing gainful work to earn our living (one could also think about this designation), it seems that nowadays we do not work to live, but rather live to work, and the trend is increasing.

There is such a great imbalance in this world as well as in our individual lives that, intuitively, cannot be natural. On the one hand, there are many people who have working hours that only allow them to get barely enough rest, not to mention time for other things they want to do. They are able to support themselves financially, but not even able to do much more. And on the other hand, there are people who are struggling to have just enough to survive, who want to work but can’t get a job. They can’t do much either because they have to worry about finances, food, and survival. (Of course, there are also cases between the extremes). So, it seems that some are working for two or three while others don’t even get to work? Those who have the goods to stay alive don’t have the time to live and the others have the time but not the goods? Isn’t there a middle way?

Many years ago, people started to settle down, build houses, farm, and build more and more of a (world) economy. And it goes on steadily. It seems that everything we ever have is never enough. We have smartphones, cars, houses, etc., but we need bigger, smaller, faster, and so on. To get there, we (as humans) need to perform and work, but at what cost? We will never get where we want to go, there is always something that could be better, smaller, bigger, and so on – there is always more profit to be made. It has long ceased to be about providing us with what we need to live, to live well. It has long ceased to be about the living, rather it’s about the inanimate such as money and the power of those who have it.

This is neither healthy for the world nor for us. We are getting sicker and sicker – physically, mentally, and socially. That’s a high price to pay, and that’s not all – think about it: For all we know, we have to assume that as human beings we have only this one, finite life, and to spend it predominantly in a rush of achievement, attainment, earning and providing seems like a waste of that life – especially when there is not even enough time (and/or energy) left beside it for joy, play, love, creativity, self-development, seeing, hearing, feeling and being – for living.

Life should not mean work and work should not mean hardship, pressure, and burden. Working – understood as being productive and creative – is a part of life (any life – even the smallest microorganisms actively take care of their survival and we humans have always hunted and gathered for food and built for shelter), but it needs to be balanced in itself and with all other aspects of life.

So, I’m not arguing that development, innovation, and activity are bad things per se, but they should not be mainly about profit and power, but about us as humans, as individuals and as a community. Above all, we should develop positively as a human race. And life and all its parts should be in favor of living.

The questions that arise and that we need to think about are therefore: Is, paradoxically, the price of the way of life which we have created and which is supposed to sustain our lives, life itself? Is there a way out of this paradox? The point is: not only did we get ourselves into this mess, but the way of life as we have created it now seems to be a self-runner, and to stop it – to defeat the monster we have created – we need a huge shift in our thinking, in the way we deal with life and the way we make things (and ourselves) work – towards a balanced way of living.

COVID-19, spreading humanity?

In the past few days some thoughts came to my mind that I would like to elaborate on.

The first thought, it’s more of a question though, appeared as I left the drug store after my first visit since the corona virus outbreak had reached Austria: Why is it so hard to be friendly while keeping spacial distance? I know, we have to wear face masks and keep a certain distance and that these times are not easy, but does that mean we cannot greet each other? “A smile goes a long way” it says and, yeah, while wearing masks we don’t see each other’s mouths, but we can smile with our eyes or our voice or our words or even our body language.

There’s kind of a paradox going on it seems. While on the one hand people get out on their balconies to sing and cheer together, excited to show solidarity, on the other hand they just stare and don’t have a single “hello” to spare or buy so much toilet paper that the others can’t get any. I’m puzzled. For Austrians keeping distance emotionally seems to be a lot easier than keeping distance spatially, not only during corona though.

Second, it is often stated these days that people show more solidarity and humanity in this time of crisis. And I begin to wonder: What is humanity? What distinguishes ‘to act humanly’? What makes a certain behavior being considered inhumane? I always liked to think of behaving humanly as being respectful, giving, compassionate and understanding, which is surely true. But while reflecting on the meaning of it I came to think that there are characteristics which as well are part of humanity, like fear and suspicion that are not considered as praiseworthy. Of course, these could in a way be connected to our survival instinct.

So what shows up in this time of crisis? What is it we truly choose when we choose to show more humanity? Is it the compassionate and helping facet? Or is it the distrusting one? Or is it both, but intensified? I think for the most part we are able to decide which part gets stronger and which part we want to give to this world – not only in times of crisis. I would like to raise two subsequent questions to reflect on: Is there another disease spreading besides corona that is much more powerful and much more to be feared? And is this why we now have to face the corona virus pandemic to make meaningful decisions as humans?