Decide and Shape-Up: 3 Things to Consider When Choosing a Philosophy of Life

WiseUp Living
Nov 2 · 7 min read

Many of us have very eclectic cultural makeups. Even without realizing it, we often cherry-pick cultural traits from different traditions of life, depending on how much we think those traditions resonate with us at a certain moment in life.

This lifestyle approach is to borrow ideas from different traditions we are comfortable with, mixing and matching the beliefs and practices that are convenient in certain circumstances. It seems like an easier, hassle-free approach to life. Do you agree? How many cultural components can you discern in your personality?

Before I go any further, I want to make things clear right from the beginning: this article is not about discussing if one’s culture/tradition is superior to another. I leave it up to you to decide which practices apply to you and which don’t.

There is no ethnocentricity in this story. This is a safe space.

I decided to address here three main mistakes which, in my opinion, lead to the inability of pursuing a coherent philosophy of life:

  1. Failure to acknowledge that culture is an important shaper of personality.

2. Syncretism or losing sight of one’s individuality: an intercultural cooperation and dialogue mentality is a must on a systemic level as it is the foundation for peace and stability in global politics. However, it might be counterproductive on an individual level, the level of your own personality and self-concept.

Although culture refers to a variety of totems and borders, religious affiliation has had, over time, the strongest and most powerful influence on an individual’s identity. Consequently, religious syncretism could easily lead to religious and spiritual inner struggles. Researches like those conducted by Case Western Reserve University & Bowling Green State University, United States (2016) reveal that struggles around religion and spirituality are robust predictors of poor mental and physical health outcomes.

3. Non-Commitment to something bigger than yourself.

I will go through each one of them and I will try to offer some ideas on how to avoid them.

Number 1: Culture Is an Important Shaper of Our Personality: Implications of Culture for Our Personality and Modern Global Lifestyle

Over the past few decades, due to increasing interdependence between societies, the speed of information propagation, the diminishing constraints of time and space on communication and the simultaneous involvement of an increment number of actors in the same “operating theatre”, we have witnessed the globalization of lifestyle and along with it a remarkable transformation of individual-level lifestyle and how it is designed.

Reflecting on culture is an essential element in successfully designing individual-level lifestyle especially in the context of current systemic complexity with globalizing forces being at play in all societies.

All cultures have their own methods of shaping personalities and lifestyles. Also, self-schemas differ considerably across cultures:

Number 2: Syncretism or Losing Sight of One’s Individuality:

Global Politics VS. The Politics of Everyday Life

The End of the Cold War has brought a reorganization of the world, and the cultural analysis becomes the central interest of a significant number of studies. Samuel Huntington (1993, 1996) starting from the reputed civilization theories of Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee, offered a new paradigm according to which international conflicts and cooperation will be determined by culture and civilization.

Critics of this theory have rapidly developed, not only rejecting the notion of “clash of civilizations”, but also by proposing solutions such as “the dialog between civilizations.”

The German theologian Hans Kung answered to this paradigm of global politics asserting that: “There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions; no peace among the religions without dialogue between the religions;” invoking the need of a “global ethos” created on the foundations of the Golden Rule of Humanity which can be found in all great religions and ethical traditions. (Hans Küng, A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics, 1998, p.92).

The emphasis Hang Kung places on religion is explicable by the fact that, although culture refers to a variety of totems and borders, the religious affiliation exerted, over time, the most powerful influence.

Similarly, the Iranian president Mohammad Khatami reiterated the idea of “Dialog between civilizations”, with the purpose of paradigm change from violence, conflict, intolerance and trans-cultural disagreements towards o culture of peace among world’s civilizations by recognizing the shared ethical values between them. As a consequence, in November 1998, through resolution GA/RES/53/22, the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed the year 2001 as the “United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations.”

Paradoxically, the year 2001 of the “Dialogue among Civilizations” coincided with the events of September 11 which abruptly impacted the concept of dialogue among civilizations in global politics. The Global War on Terror dominated the scene, and the inter-civilizational dialogue was once again marginalized.

The events of September 11 had a forceful cultural impact, which seemed to confirm Huntington's theory on the “clash of civilizations.”

As Bercovitch and Foulkes observed “the post-9/11 period has already been marked by several conflicts which have a pronounced cultural component. These types of inter-cultural conflicts often appear to be intertwined with the use of terrorist-style warfare. Increasingly, we are seeing attacks on prominent cultural symbols such as the bombing of mosques and temples, while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been framed at times as a ‘clash of civilizations” (2011, p.1).

It seems to me that to this day, at the level of international relations, we are constantly gravitating between these two extremes: inter-cultural cooperation and competition, in other words, between dialog between civilizations and clash of civilizations.

In my opinion, the emergence of a global, cosmopolitan and risk culture requires a high degree of cultural behavior knowledge that the modern individual needs to acquire.

In today’s world, individuals are accelerating their lifestyle transformation from local to global cultures, where personal power and well-being increasingly rest on an individual’s capacity to select between different styles of being in the world and manipulate knowledge and information related to different philosophies of life. And any person that aspires to enhance his/her well-being has to build strategies around these new fundamentals of “global lifestyle”.

Yet, cultural and religious cooperation must not be interpreted as and translated into cultural and religious conversion or uniformity under a “global ethos” umbrella.

I agree with the German theologian Hans Kung’s idea that “there will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions” and I think that the cooperation between religions is the foundation of preservation of peace and stability.

Charles Doran (2010, p.41) correctly observes that cooperation and competition are conjoint: “entire books have been written about cooperation as a self-contained concept. But that is a mistake. Cooperation and competition are linked inextricably. “Pure” cooperation alone cannot exist as a behavioral concept, that is, as an interactive concept, in human terms.”

Thus, it is important to understand that there is a need for cooperation between disharmonious relationships not between harmonious ones, in other words, there is a need for cooperation between traditions which are and will remain profoundly rival.

However, when it comes to the individual/inner level, to your own psychology, committing yourself to one well-defined, coherent tradition based on one philosophy of life is a core issue in the development of the self-concept.

It is also a way of finding meaning in life.

Number 3: Commitment to Something Bigger Than Yourself:

Choose Your Own Tradition to Practice and Find Meaning in Life

Many studies have demonstrated a somewhat heart-warming phenomenon: a clear link between spiritual practices, religious and mystical experiences and happiness. Happiness is the orientation to a greater meaning.

Cognitive theorists argue that people’s optimism, hardiness and having a capacity for a meaningful life show better immune system functioning and engage in healthier behaviors. Finding meaning in a loss can also help cope with it.

Why are some people able to find meaning and others are not?

I think part of the reason is the practice of cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is an easy solution: when times get rough, you withdraw and that‘s it. It’s giving up.

I’m learning that really committing to one tradition of life and embracing a faith that celebrates life gives me a sense of purpose.

Of course, inevitably, you’ll encounter roadblocks. It is a tougher challenge than to simply let go and pick up another belief system when you encounter a dogmatic barrier.

But part of being happy is taking on the responsibility of choosing one philosophy of life, orienting yourself to a greater meaning and gaining spiritual, emotional and psychological maturity.