The futile hope expressed above is shared by many. Songs have been sung about it, most notably by Eric Burdon and the Animals in 1965.

Sadly, misunderstandings are not on a downward trend. The modern Western world, as we have come to know it, is becoming increasingly postmodern. The focus is more on values, rights, symbols and identities.

To better understand these changes, I googled my way through various “philosophy for dummies” articles and revisited some books I had read years ago.

I started with scepticism. Sceptics (too) come in many forms depending on the time and the culture. To make a long story short I will quote Wikipedia: “Philosophical sceptics are often classified in two general categories: Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and those who advocate for the suspension of judgement due to the inadequacy of evidence.”

In theory, it could be said that Donald Trump’s former counselor Kellyanne Conway was just taking a philosophical approach to the matter, when she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump’s inauguration by stating that Spicer gave alternative facts.

Along those lines, we could even argue that she took philosophy to a higher level, when she later referred multiple times to a non-existent Bowling Green massacre. In terms of ultimate scepticism: Who is to say what is existent and non-existent?

Don’t get me wrong – despite my philosophical forays, I am still a firm believer in reason and knowledge. Kellyanne Conway’s untruths are still fiction not fact.

But the more we communicate, the more evident it becomes that philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein got it right, when he argued that the logical structure of language draws a limit to meaning and thereby to the the expression of thought. To simplify in the extreme: We will always be misunderstood and misunderstand because we each think in our own, subjective way. There is no language and use thereof that everyone would understand alike. Language and the use of it is always relative.

When we combine this limitation with an increasing focus on the individual and on values, rights, symbols and identities instead of more quantifiable issues, the possibilities for misunderstanding become almost limitless.

The more we discuss things that Wittgenstein considered undiscussable due to the limits of language, the more we venture away from sense to nonsense. The issues themselves are not nonsense, but any statement about them is, if Wittgenstein is to be believed.

No wonder we tend to exist in our own, Internet-facilitated bubbles these days. As we discuss the undiscussable, it helps that we at least start off on the same page whether in terms of religion, values, rights, symbols or identities.

At this point I have to stress that in many parts of the world people are either still fighting to survive in a material sense or fighting to get themselves and their opinions heard. Postmodernism is a luxury that is not affordable to all. No wonder Western ideals seem foreign and even naive to many – not only outside the Western world, but also within it, which should not be ignored.

I myself struggle at times to buy into broadly defined, high-flying programmes for the betterment of mankind, or demands for a wide range of services to meet the individual needs of all and sundry.

I am stuck back in the modern world; bemoaning the lack of reason, knowledge, practicality and cost-efficiency, and worrying about financing.

To avoid misunderstandings – programmes that aim to contain the negative effects of climate change are a necessity, not something I would consider high-flying.

The refrain of my theme song starts off with “I’m just a soul whose intentions are good.” It seems at times that our postmodern Western world is positively drowning in good intentions.

Maybe the nature of our intentions is the only thing that truly matters in the long run? Which would lead us into the nightmare of defining good and evil.

First we would have to decide, whether to approach the matter through religion, ethics, philosophy or psychology. The mind boggles – there are so many branches and trees that is impossible to see the whole forest.

Maybe I should go with Spinoza, and define good as something we certainly know is useful to us and evil as something we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything good. Or maybe not – I can just hear Putin defending his war in Ukraine to the Russian people in terms of Spinoza.

So maybe I will just go with the idea that evil actions consist of elements related to unbalanced behaviour involving e.g. expediency, selfishness, ignorance and neglect. Good intentions would in turn consist of elements like compassion, moderation and humility.

As you can see, I am making choices. There is no absolute as far as good and evil goes. There  is my choice and your choice. Which makes it easier to understand why Finland’s and Sweden’s good intentions may not always be considered good in Turkey. Compromises have to be made.

Unless we fully understand this, there is no way for alliances to work in an increasingly postmodern world: A world in which people in their respective bubbles are boosting each others belief that their own definition of good is the right one.

To take this a full circle. Was Kellyanne Conway, and by extension Trump,  just a philosopher with good intentions? Well, pigs may farm, if Orwell is to be believed, but they have yet to fly.

But Kellyanne was onto something. In an increasingly postmodern world everything is subjective. This inevitably affects politics too.

People find it harder and harder to get down from their high moral horses, and cope with the idea that there is a whole world out there that doesn’t see things their way. The question is, where will this fragmentation lead us?

Putin probably looked at the Western world and saw the fragmentation – a weakness as far as he understood. A costly misunderstanding. He never saw the underlying strength. In a postmodern world that focuses less on the material, independence and the right to chart your own path becomes the one thing people are ready to support and defend to the extreme. It is not about countries anymore, it is about each one of us personally.

To come back to my blog title – you will probably misunderstand this blog to some extent, but I have realised that this is not necessarily a bad thing. All thoughts are equal when we discuss the undiscussable.