How we view the world fundamentally shapes how we understand peace, well-being, and justice in society. Throughout history, different worldviews have emerged, each offering distinct perspectives on human purpose, social organization, and the nature of a good society. Understanding these competing visions helps us grasp why societies organize themselves differently and pursue different conceptions of justice. At the heart of this exploration lies a profound question: Is society merely a collection of self-interested individuals, or is it something more-a meaningful whole that connects us to deeper truths about human existence?
Table of Contents
Society as a cosmos and symbolic entity
The philosopher Eric Voegelin introduced a powerful concept to explain how societies understand themselves. He argued that human society is more than just an external fact to be studied-it is what he called a “cosmion,” a little world illuminated with meaning from within by the human beings who create and sustain it. According to Voegelin, society consists of three interconnected layers: a worldview or belief system, an interior cultural world, and an exterior world of work and everyday activities.
What makes this conception remarkable is the idea that societies are symbolically illuminated. Through elaborate systems of symbols-ranging from ritual and myth to philosophical theory-members of a society experience their collective life as more than mere accident or convenience. These symbols make the internal structure of society transparent to the mystery of human existence, connecting individual lives to something transcendent and meaningful. This self-illumination through symbols becomes an essential part of social reality itself.
In traditional societies, this symbolic framework connected members to a transcendental reality beyond the immediate material world. The society’s institutions, practices, and values were understood as reflecting a deeper cosmic order. People experienced their participation in society as participation in something sacred and eternal, not merely as a practical arrangement for meeting material needs.
The modern worldview and its consequences
A dramatic shift occurred with the emergence of the modern worldview, which took shape from the 17th century onwards during the early modern period in Europe. This new perspective fundamentally severed the link between society and the cosmos that had characterized traditional worldviews. Religion changed from being the predominant lens through which reality was interpreted to providing only an alternative explanatory approach.
In this modern framework, secular individuals position themselves as self-defining subjects, free to determine their own purposes and values without reference to transcendent authority. While this brought certain freedoms, it also produced profound consequences. When society loses its connection to a higher purpose, individuals increasingly pursue their own desires without reference to a common good or shared meaning. This shift has led to what many observe as fragmentation and endemic conflict in modern societies.
The problem of pleonexia and distributive justice
Ancient Greek philosophers had a word for the vice that emerges when individuals pursue unlimited acquisition: pleonexia. This concept, which roughly corresponds to greed or avarice, is strictly defined as the insatiable desire to have what rightfully belongs to others. Classical thinkers like Plato and Aristotle understood pleonexia as fundamentally opposed to justice.
Aristotle insisted in his Nicomachean Ethics that all specifically unjust actions are motivated by pleonexia. It represents not merely wanting more, but seeking more than one’s fair share at the expense of others-a relational vice that disrupts equality in human associations. When society lacks a shared framework of transcendent values, this vice tends to flourish unchecked.
The modern worldview’s emphasis on individual autonomy and material success can inadvertently encourage pleonexia. Without a shared conception of distributive justice rooted in something beyond individual preference, societies struggle to answer fundamental questions: What constitutes a fair distribution of resources? What obligations do we have to one another? How should we balance individual freedom with the common good? The fragmentation of shared meaning makes these questions increasingly difficult to resolve, leading to deepening inequality and social conflict.
The traditional worldview and sacramental order
In contrast to the modern perspective stands what we might call the traditional worldview-one that views society not as a mere human construction but as a sacramental order rooted in the divine. The scholar Ananda Coomaraswamy was a prominent interpreter of traditional cultures, particularly those of India and the East. His work emphasized how traditional societies understood life as directed toward a higher purpose beyond material satisfaction.
In traditional worldviews, as Coomaraswamy described them, the organization of society reflects sacred principles rather than arbitrary human preferences. Each person’s role and duties are understood as part of a larger cosmic order. Traditional institutions represented the application of timeless principles about human nature to particular circumstances, designed to facilitate the perfectibility of individuals within their communities.
Cooperation over competition
One of the most significant differences between traditional and modern worldviews concerns the relationship between individuals in society. Traditional societies, operating within a sacramental framework, tended to emphasize cooperation over competition. When life is understood as oriented toward spiritual development and fulfilling one’s divinely ordained duties, the relentless pursuit of material advantage loses its appeal.
Justice in this framework means something quite different from modern conceptions. Rather than focusing primarily on distribution of resources or individual rights, traditional justice centers on each person performing their assigned duties without encroaching on others. The concept of sva-dharma, or one’s own duty, represents that share of universal law for which each person is made responsible by their nature and capacities. When everyone fulfills their proper role, harmony and well-being naturally emerge.
This doesn’t mean traditional societies were perfect or without problems-far from it. But it does point to a fundamentally different way of organizing collective life, one that subordinates material acquisition to spiritual purpose and understands human flourishing as achieved through fulfilling one’s role within a meaningful whole rather than maximizing individual advantage.
The question of purpose and meaning
Perhaps the deepest difference between these worldviews concerns the question of human purpose. The modern worldview, emphasizing naturalistic considerations and seeking to interpret life based on principles derived solely from the material world, struggles to provide an objective foundation for meaning and purpose. If there is no transcendent reality, then purpose becomes whatever individuals or societies choose to make it-a subjective preference rather than an objective truth.
Traditional worldviews, by contrast, locate human purpose in relationship to the divine or transcendent. Life has meaning because it participates in a larger sacred drama. This provides a stable foundation for ethics, justice, and social cooperation-one that doesn’t depend on individual opinion or majority consensus but on principles understood as eternal and universal.
The challenge we face today is navigating between these competing visions. The modern worldview has brought genuine goods: individual liberty, scientific progress, questioning of oppressive traditions. Yet it has also produced fragmentation, loss of shared meaning, and the proliferation of pleonexia that undermines social cohesion. Traditional worldviews offered social harmony and shared purpose, but could also enforce rigid hierarchies and limit individual development. Finding a path forward requires honestly grappling with what each worldview offers and what it costs.
What do you think? Can modern societies recover a sense of transcendent purpose while preserving individual freedom, or are these fundamentally incompatible? How might we address the problem of pleonexia and restore a genuine conception of distributive justice in an age of competing worldviews?
Leave a Reply