Werner Krieglstein is now viewed as the founder of such a philosophical school as transcendental perspectivism. Overall, it is based on the belief that a human being is not able to know absolute truth because it exists only within the frames of his or her consciousness, which is susceptible to subjectivity and even prejudice. In his opinion, compassion lays the foundations for the successful functioning of any society. In addition to that, according to such an approach, compulsion cannot help people come to a shared understanding of the truth. The scholar subjects too heavy criticism of the doctrine, which sets stress on force because such means of persuasion rely on fear, which can lead only to estrangement (Krieglstein, 81).
Transcendental perspectivism takes its origins in Friedrich Nietzsches philosophy (the rejection of absolute truth), subsequently supported by Mahatma Gandhi. In his book, “Compassion: A New Philosophy of the Other” the author explores the role of empathy and compassion in solving the problems that people have to surmount. First, it is necessary to discuss Krieglsteins views on such concepts as spirituality and religion as a social phenomenon. He attaches primary importance to the so-called “religious awareness”, tolerance and diversity (Krieglstein, 20). His main argument is that every religion has something positive at its core. Naturally, the author does not propose establishing some universal religion but he wants people to become more open to the values of other cultures. At least we should accept religious diversity, which is an obligatory condition for the effective interaction of different religious groups.
In this respect, we should analyze such symbol as “the Sacred Wheel” which represents unity or connectedness. According to Krieglstein, the main problem is that people deem their religious belief the only true one and this prejudice alienates them from one another (Krieglstein, 19). It seems to me that such a viewpoint is quite prudent and people should really be more tolerant. However, I would like to mention that some religions are sometimes almost incompatible with each other mostly due to formal differences. For instance, Muslims do not want to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of Man and the Son of God (this doctrine is the cornerstone of Christianity). There are many such controversies or stumbling blocks (as it would be better to say). Naturally, these conflicts are not unsolvable but it will take a very long time for people to understand that religion is a set of principles or tenets, which can be either accepted or rejected. What unifies almost all of them is empathy or compassion but we seem to overlook it.
As regards the future community and the prospects of its development, Krieglstein states that people should develop new forms of collaboration, though in order to do it a considerable shift in public opinion should be made. The author points out that in every dispute people (even subconsciously) are most likely to strive for domination (Krieglstein, 47). The main purpose is to defeat one’s enemy, rival, or opponent; we always want to subdue the person who objects to us. The scholar says that future relationships should be based on partnership or at least compromise, the decision that can suit both sides. Again, the author emphasizes the concept of unity and connectedness, which, in his opinion, is the main law of the universe and typical of every form of life except human beings.
It stands to reason such philosophy has many positive aspects but the question arises how people can find this common denominator that can serve as the unifying factor. Krieglstein believes that compassion or empathy can perform this function. In my opinion, the notion of compassion is of subjective notion and it can be easily misinterpreted. For example, many people often understand it only as the feeling of pity for the misfortunes of another person but it does not necessarily mean that they would help him or her.
Krieglstein is firmly convinced that educators should foster the feeling of empathy in their students (and subsequently in all humankind). Nevertheless, the most important aspect, in his opinion is the joy (or even the pleasure) of studying. The author says that in the overwhelming majority of cases, children are taught “to buy pleasure”(Krieglstein, 167), though, in fact, pleasure is something that people are entitled to from their birth. He ascribes this pedagogical approach to such phenomenon as consumerism, which has transformed nearly everything in commodity (including the pleasures of life). Furthermore, according to a widely held opinion, education is supposed to prepare a student for real life, which is “a continuous fight for superiority, survival, and discipline” (Krieglstein, 166). Thus, teachers cultivate only those skills necessary to pass through natural selection and to achieve domination.
It is quite possible for us to say that education carries out the order, given to it by society, mostly driven by consumerism, lust for power, and selfishness. We can observe a very curious paradox: teachers attempt to change people for the better but they are not allowed to do it. It seems to me that there are some tacit laws, preventing them from doing it. Certainly, compassion and empathy are officially declared the major principles of any education system but in reality, students are made to believe that their life is a constant rat race or competition and in order to survive they have to be hard working, strong, productive, diligent, etc, though there is no reference to empathy, compassion, or the joy of life. The primary importance is attached to survival skills, which turn a human being into a robot or even some inanimate object that has to attend to “its” duties and nothing else.
I do agree with Krieglstein but it is now quite clear to me how humankind can break this vicious circle. It can be done on an individual level; a person can become free of consumerism or lust for dominance but these are the diseases of society in general. It is hardly possible that many people can undergo such radical change.
Transcendental perspectivism can also be viewed as an ethical theory. To some extent, it reminds the ethics of care, the belief that people are interdependent and thus have to cooperate in order to achieve their goals. Krieglstein also sets stress on cooperation or even partnership (Krieglstein, 45). Moreover, we can draw parallels between perspectivism and deontological ethics, in particular Kantian theory. According to it, we have to place ourselves in the position of other people in order to evaluate the morality or immorality of our actions. In my opinion, perspectivism, deontological, and care ethics spring from a very old Christian formula “Love thy neighbor as thyself”.
Apart from that, perspectivism should be compared and contrasted with Utilitarian ethics, in which the morality of the action is determined by its contribution to the general welfare. In other words, a person may violate already existing rules if such violation will give benefit the society or at least does no harm. In his book, Krieglstein also speaks about the importance of unity and connectedness but the author argues that the very principles of social order are hypocritical. Naturally, everyone acknowledges that general welfare should be the main priority though, in fact, every person consciously (or subconsciously) longs for domination. According to Krieglstein, the only way to attain equilibrium between personal interests and the interests of the community is compassion or even empathy as the ability to understand the problems of another person and urge to help him or her (Krieglstein, 46). In my opinion, such a view has already been expressed by many philosophers, scholars, and theologians but it is unlikely that this idea can ever be fully implemented. In order to substantiate this statement, we should first analyze the most general feature of human psychology. To a varying degree, every person is liable to egoism. Moreover, the instinct of self-preservation and sexual desire are the leading motives of our behavior at least according to Freud. These base instincts force out empathy or compassion.
Another aspect of perspectivist philosophy, which should be discussed, is its attitude towards emotion and reason (and logic). Krieglstein points out that Western philosophy has always distinguished these concepts and even made them utterly inconsistent with each other. For instance, according to Rene Descartes, a person should be guided only by logic or pure reason(Krieglstein, 165). Additionally, many religions associate emotions with some base instincts, and even selfishness, as it is in Buddhism. Such an approach seems to disregard the positive sides of this phenomenon. First, without them, a human being will eventually turn into a calculating machine, the creature, which can hardly be called alive. Secondly, compassion, itself is based on emotions; thus, they should not be separated from reason but father from a single entity.
In this regard, we should also discuss Krieglsteins views on sexuality. The author argues that people are forced to suppress their sexuality, which eventually causes frustration and even hatred. The scholar says that philosophical views and religious principles often consider sexuality as something base or even depraved in its very nature. Aristotle, for instance, ascribes it to the so-called “appetitive beast” driven only by desire. In his turn, Krieglstein states that a sexual act is a chance for a man and a woman to “share joy” (Krieglstein,60 ). It seems to me that the role of emotions and sexuality cannot be underestimated but one cannot forget that they also can be the underlying cause of selfishness and violence. A person who searches only for sensual pleasures is not likely to feel compassion for other human beings.
Finally, one may also pay attention to Krieglsteins views on the universe. He puts forward the theory of “communicating universe”. The scholar states that the Earth is a living organism and human beings are an inseparable part of this organism. He says that at least linguistically many cultures support this idea, for example, such phrase as “Mother Earth” has its equivalents in many languages (Krieglstein 201). Such a view is not entirely original because famous English sociologists also viewed the Universe and our planet in particular as living creature. I believe that such an approach has yet to be substantiated. Nevertheless, it cannot be disregarded.
Thus, having analyzed Werner Krieglsteins book “Compassion: A New Philosophy of the Other” we can arrive at the conclusion that the author focuses on compassion, which he views as the common denominator, able to unite not only any particular society but humanity in general. However, Krieglstein also mentions that some deep-rooted stereotypes must be broken; otherwise, such unification will never take place.
References
Werner J. Krieglstein. “Compassion: A New Philosophy of the Other” Rodopi, 2002.