In the realms of the philosophies, religions and philosophies of life, just about anything can be said without proof or justification -- and has been said. Certainly there is no stopping this. But that isn't to say we can't ponder what might make for some reasonable standards for a philosophy, religion or philosophy of life. I think the following seven standards make a good start by which to judge the reasonableness -- and by extension, the legitimacy -- of any belief system.
- There should be some clear distinctions made between "what is" and "what ought to be." It is one thing to observe that something exists -- say, a human penchant for violence, for lying, for adornment or for gift giving. It is another thing to leap to the conclusion that man ought not to be violent, ought not to lie, ought not adorn himself or ought not give gifts valued at more than 50 dollars. The getting from "what is" to "what ought to be" really needs some explaining -- and that is hard enough to do! -- but even before that explaining can begin, the core distinction between "what is" and "what ought to be" needs to be recognized and honored.
Are these seven standards impossible standards, somehow not suitable for our most important endeavor: how we live? Should we significantly lower the bar and allow philosophies and religions the incoherence and inconsistency they seem to need and want? Let's hope not. And let's hope that a new philosophy like noimetics, which I am proposing and which can take into account the errors and pitfalls of previous philosophies and religions, can do a better job than has been previously done of laying out its evidence, articulating its premises and explaining why it's worth your attention.
Eric Maisel is the author of 40 books. You can learn more about noimetics (and watch an interview with Dr. Maisel) at the Academy for Optimal Living.