Is it possible for civilisations to reunite the shards of earlier wisdom and understanding to restore a meaningful framework for moral dialogue?
Outline of a talk given at the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 7 Sept 2026
Contemporary visions of the future often depict a world defined by multiple poles or centers of influence, assuming that this arrangement would foster better relations between nations and encourage resolving conflicts through dialogue rather than warfare.
This optimistic belief mirrored a popular sentiment before World War I. At that time, publications argued that war was unlikely; notably, the seminal work The Great Illusion, published in 1910, achieved widespread acclaim across the globe.
Norman Angell, the author, contended that the deep interconnection of international trade made war economically unfeasible, as the financial damage inflicted on the victor would be as severe as that suffered by the loser. This notion effectively challenged the traditional idea of military conquest, leading many to interpret it as proving the impossibility of war.
However, this reasoning was disproven by the outbreak of the Great War.
Currently, the notion of multi-polarity remains relevant, yet the danger of conflict persists and is intensified by the West’s reluctance to genuinely listen to and comprehend what sovereign civilisations communicate. This failure to engage empathetically underlies critical intelligence misjudgments regarding Iran and Russia, as well as the deliberate portrayal of China as so alien that Western perspectives fail to grasp it.
In his influential 1981 volume, After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre observed that the Enlightenment severed Western society from its traditional roots yet did not succeed in establishing a unifying morality grounded solely in Reason. As a result, many Westerners inhabit a state of “moral chaos and fragmentation,” where disintegrative forces have nearly erased genuine moral inquiry within European culture.
It is important to recognize that MacIntyre views this “moral chaos and fragmentation” as intentionally cultivated to undermine attachments to nation, community, and religion—actions designed to weaken national unity and civilisational sovereignty.
According to MacIntyre, only cultural traditions and their accompanying moral narratives can give meaning to concepts like good, justice, and telos:
“In the absence of traditions, moral debate is out of joint and becomes a theatre of illusions in which simple indignation and mere protest occupy centre stage”.
“Lines are drawn early, and participants rush to take sides. But in taking sides they appear to render themselves incapable of hearing the other … Everyone feels the heat, but no one sees the light”, MacIntyre emphasizes.
Our current condition, MacIntyre suggests, consists of scattered remnants of an ancient tradition (Heroic Society) that are too limited to provide sufficient framework. Due to this loss of context, moral discourse—using terms like good, justice, and duty—has become unintelligible, effectively placing the heroic virtues of the Homeric era beyond the grasp of Western thought.
People quickly align themselves into opposing camps. The disintegrative, chaotic forces prevalent today have nearly wiped out moral investigation in European culture. Notably, moral discussions strike one by their recurring lack of conclusion.
When moral judgments become mere expressions of preference, attitude, or sentiment—known as emotivism—the discussion deteriorates into stagecraft dominated by outrage and division.
By adopting these emotionally charged partisan positions, participants render themselves unable to truly listen to The Other. Consequently, nations such as Russia, Iran, or China become invisible within this framework, as their unique perspectives on the world fail to register.
Thus, we find ourselves driven toward conflict by orchestrated narratives designed to compel people to spatially perceive the world in a particular way, often without their awareness. This Enlightenment-influenced push for a ‘one world’ vision seeks to erase all ‘Otherness’—whether Russian, Iranian, or Chinese—rendering it invisible through the prevailing norms and modes by which we engage with ‘things’.
In this ongoing ‘war’, reality seems inverted. Most individuals do not actively shape their perception of the world but instead passively accept its spatialization by external forces. Narratives are crafted and presented repeatedly. This is the functioning of the system. Many in the West believe they have a strong grasp of facts, evidence, and conclusions, but in truth, the structure manipulates and subverts this perceived understanding.
Within this system, spatialization is reversed: messages are delivered first, then narratives are molded to align with predetermined designs. If necessary, the media can reverse course and reshape the narrative in the opposite direction.
The question arises: how might sovereign civilisations break free from the ‘MacIntyre trap’? Is it possible to piece together older insights and wisdom to restore the context that renders moral discourse comprehensible once more?
Escaping the constraining realm of mechanical thinking and manipulated narratives poses significant challenges. It demands a fundamental shift in our mode of presence—how we direct our attention to the world.
Neurologist Iain McGilchrist explains that the manner in which consciousness is disposed toward the world drastically influences what can be perceived and comprehended. By reorienting the way we spatialize our surroundings, our perception broadens, revealing previously hidden dimensions beyond immediate view.
Reclaiming ancient modes of thought—the ‘all-at-once, all together’ style of cognition through imagery and other forms of understanding—can foster mediation between the seemingly contradictory poles of subjective and objective reality that mechanistic rationality often leaves entrenched and irreconcilable. The apophatic method also softens rigid conceptual divides by creating ‘betweenness’, carving out space between blunt, angular arguments. These alternative modes of thought follow logics distinct from Enlightenment constraints.
This is the insight presently offered to the world by Iran and its revival of ancient intellectual traditions.
Albert Einstein once remarked that “the rational mind is a servant; but the intuitive mind is a precious gift. Our world, however, honours the servant – but forgets [ignores] the gift”.
About the Author
