Universalism
(Redirected from Universalists)
Universalism, in philosophical and theological discourse, denotes the doctrine that certain principles, truths, or values—whether moral, metaphysical, or soteriological—possess universal applicability, transcending cultural, national, religious, or individual boundaries. This encompasses moral universalism (the meta-ethical thesis that ethical norms apply objectively to all agents irrespective of contextual distinctions), as well as theological variants affirming the ultimate reconciliation or salvation of all beings.
- Universalism refers to various interpretive frameworks that aim for the whole, that is, they offer a universally binding, and above all ethically binding, conception for interpreting the world. Apart from older religious (Buddhism, Christianity) or quasi-religious (Confucianism) universalisms, since the Enlightenment, primarily immanent ideas of this kind have developed and gained a broad following. The reason for this was the newly established perception of the unity of global space following the voyages of discovery, and a conception of the unity of humankind, grounded in both Christianity and modern rationalism (modernism). Accordingly, with the revolutions at the end of the 18th century, the idea developed that humanity should act as an agent in the world and in world history in order to bring about the unity that had previously only been rudimentary and conceptualized into reality. The dominant ideologies of the left and center have adopted this program and positioned themselves as the vanguard of humanity, drawing their sense of mission largely from the notion that they are at the beginning of a new era that will ultimately fully realize globalization. The failure of such plans has always been viewed by the proponents of these ideologies merely as a delay of the Second Coming, while the de facto globalization brought about by the Industrial Revolution has been seen as an indication of objective development in the desired direction. The coexistence of globalization as a worldview, the persistent obstacles, and the actual convergence of the most distant regions of the world has significantly shaped the front lines of the global civil war. In contrast, the attempts at resistance, whether in the form of a conservative counter-globalization (propagated, for example, by the Spann School with its recourse to Christianity) or in the defense of particularisms (nationalist, traditionalist, or fundamentalist), have largely been in vain. The same applies to the attempt at an alternative – nominalist – interpretation, which demanded a fundamental reference to the concrete in place of the unified. The problem with nominalism, besides a number of logical difficulties (especially the formulation of general propositions whose validity one doesn't actually want to acknowledge, for example, when it comes to the right of every religion, every people, etc.), is the power of the great process of unification, which has gained a completely different dynamic since the beginning of the information age. In light of this, what remains is only a relativization of the unified in the name of those differences that persist politically and culturally and whose existence is undeniable.
Quotes
- “Multiculturalism is also part of a broader pathology of the Western and white world, in which Christian universalist and Enlightenment universalist ideas have taken on utopian, neurotic, or suicidal forms.” — Martin Lichtmesz (2021)
- “All people are to be loved equally. But since one cannot care for everyone, one must primarily care for those who are more closely connected to oneself, as it were, by fate, due to the circumstances of place, time, or some other factor.” — Augustine
- “Yet a fear of leveling universality, of power without countervailing power, of the unchecked and unbridled nature of individual rule, of the rise of dark circles and cults, has remained with us. We know that the necessarily compelling unity of the world state endangers freedom, that freedom presupposes a free play of forces and powers. And this, even though we also know that this free play entails the compulsion to defend oneself and all its dangers.” — Erwin Hölzl
