The danger of absolute "ism," or "fluffy ideology."

Namikawa: Last time we talked about how the trend these days is that there's no such thing as absolute ideology, right? That got me thinking about something recently.

I've always had doubts about the term "capitalism." "Capitalism" implies that "capital"—meaning "money"—is the most important thing, right? I find that distasteful. Around that time, a philosopher I respect, Satish Kumar, said something like this:

"Capitalism puts capital first. Socialism puts society first. Both are wrong. What's most important is life. Humans must become vitalists." I was deeply moved by that.

Nora-bukuro: Hmm.

Namikawa: Satish Kumar also advocated shifting from Kant and Descartes' self-centered worldview of "I think, therefore I am" to an altruistic worldview where "only by thinking of others does one truly exist."

But there's that novel by Ito Keikaku, "Harmony," right? That story depicts a future where the entire world is dominated by biocentrism and altruistic thinking, and it's a world that feels suffocating in its own way.

That got me thinking: whether it's "capitalism," "biocentrism," "egoism," or "altruism," doesn't every "-ism" carry the risk of excluding those who don't fit neatly into that "-ism"?

Nora Bag: I see. This is where the ad man's "Well, if you look at it this other way..." kind of thinking comes in handy.

A "principle unbound by principles"—we could call it, say... "Fluffyism" or something like that. We should boldly champion it as an advertising philosophy.

Namikawa: Fluffyism, huh...

That's the perfect "ism" to express advertising-like thinking.

Nora Bag: ...I didn't actually say "Fluffyism," but in the world of ethics, that kind of thinking was proposed after World War II by a scholar named Emmanuel Levinas.

Namikawa: Please tell me more about that.

To be continued next time.