Ravich Takaew, Ph.D. (Fellow of the Royal Society of Thailand)
Anek Suwanbundit, Ph.D.
Nasirat Aditharinbhirom, Ph.D.
Metha Harimtepathip, Ph.D.
Program of Doctor of Philosophy (Philosophy and Ethics), Graduate School,
Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University

Abstract

The world is characterized by technological transformation, cultural plurality, competing truth claims, artificial intelligence, social fragmentation, and uncertainty concerning the future. Under such conditions, philosophy can no longer be confined to the search for an absolute and final answer. It must also become a practical intellectual activity that enables human beings to live meaningfully amid diversity and change. This article develops Suan Sunandha Philosophy as a Thai intellectual orientation within moderate postmodernism, drawing particularly upon Kirti Bunchua’s five philosophical paradigms of thought and the principles of moderate postmodern thought. The article proposes three fundamental methodological principles: (1) detachment to one’s existing beliefs, (2) reread all, reject none, and (3) seeking common ground while reserving differences. These principles are translated into four practical orientations for contemporary life: creativity, adaptivity, cooperation, and requisitivity. The ultimate aim is not the discovery of an immutable philosophical system but the continuous development of human quality of life and authentic happiness according to reality. Suan Sunandha Philosophy is therefore interpreted as a philosophy of lifelong learning, intellectual humility, pluralistic cooperation, and continuous human development.

Keywords: moderate postmodernism, Suan Sunandha Philosophy, philosophical paradigm, quality of life, creativity, adaptation, cooperation, seeking

Introduction

Human beings have always attempted to understand reality through systems of belief, knowledge, reason, religion, science, culture, and lived experience. Yet the contemporary world has made the relationship between human beings and knowledge web. Scientific knowledge has expanded enormously, while social media and artificial intelligence have simultaneously multiplied competing interpretations of reality. Traditional religious and cultural narratives coexist with scientific rationality, technological innovation, individualism, pluralism, and rapidly changing social identities.

The central philosophical problem of the present era, therefore, may no longer be simply “What is the truth?” It increasingly becomes “How can human beings live well when different forms of truth, knowledge, values, and meanings coexist?” This question provides an important point of departure for moderate postmodernism. Rather than simply rejecting modernity or accepting radical relativism, moderate postmodernism seeks to critically examine inherited knowledge while preserving what remains valuable for human life. the scholars in program of doctor in philosophy and ethics, graduate school, Suan Sunandha University have characterized moderate postmodernism as an approach that integrates the strengths of modern and postmodern thought while avoiding their respective extremes, particularly by emphasizing the development of quality of life.

Within this intellectual context, Suan Sunandha Philosophy can be understood as a developing Thai philosophical orientation that emphasizes the practical question of how human beings can use diverse forms of knowledge to improve life without becoming imprisoned by any single intellectual framework. Its central concern is therefore not merely truth as an abstract possession, but wisdom as a process of living and developing quality of life according to reality.

Kirti Bunchua’s five philosophical paradigms of thought

An important foundation for this perspective is Kirti Bunchua’s account of philosophical paradigms of thought. Rather than understanding intellectual history simply as a linear accumulation of knowledge, the paradigm approach can be interpreted as a history of the fundamental assumptions through which human beings understand reality. This concept is descripted as follows:

The primitive paradigm can be summarized by the maxim: “Everything depends upon the will of the transcendent power.” Human beings primarily understood their existence through supernatural or transcendent agency.

The ancient paradigm can be represented by the classical formula: “Ipse dixit (Thus said the authority)”. Knowledge was strongly associated with the wisdom and authority of recognized thinkers.

The medieval paradigm emphasized: “Goodness is prescribed by Scripture.” Religious revelation and sacred texts provided an important foundation for truth and moral order.

The modern paradigm subsequently placed increasing confidence in rationality and scientific methodology: “Everything proceeds according to scientific process.” Modernity consequently achieved extraordinary advances in science, technology, medicine, and human control over the natural environment.

The postmodern paradigm challenged the assumption that a single rational or scientific framework could exhaustively explain human reality. Radical postmodernism consequently emphasized: “Deconstruct meaning.” after that moderate postmodernism, however, moves beyond deconstruction toward reconstruction and practical human development. Its central orientation can be summarized as: “Developing quality of life toward authentic happiness according to reality.” This final transition is philosophically significant. Deconstruction becomes a means rather than an end. Criticism is valuable not because destruction itself is desirable, but because critical examination can reveal limitations and create possibilities for better ways of living.

The five paradigms should not necessarily be interpreted as a hierarchy in which the newest paradigm simply eliminates all previous ones. A more productive interpretation is that each paradigm represents a particular human attempt to make sense of existence.

By moderate postmodernism, we asks a further question: “What can still be learned from all of these traditions for the improvement of human life?” This question introduces an important principle of Suan Sunandha Philosophy: “Do not be imprisoned by what you believe”.

Research accounts from 2008 were associated with the Suan Sunandha philosophical tradition similarly presents moderate postmodernism as an approach that does not simply destroy existing belief systems but analyzes their weaknesses and seeks to develop them into something better. Non-attachment to one’s beliefs does not mean believing nothing. Nor does it imply that all claims are equally valid. Rather, it means recognizing that one’s present understanding is historically, culturally, psychologically, and experientially situated. Moderate postmodern reintegrates them with examining these different horizons and engineering the develop human life toward authentic happiness according to reality?”

A person can therefore say: “I believe this, but I remain willing to examine why I believe it, what its limitations are, and whether another perspective may illuminate something I cannot yet see.” This is intellectual humility. It transforms philosophy from a competition for intellectual victory into an ongoing process of inquiry.

The principle of moderate postmodern practice

Suan Sunandha Philosophy was oriented with the principle of moderate postmodern practice that were 3 practice domain. the first principle is: “Detach to what you currently believe”. This principle is especially important in an age of information abundance. Contemporary individuals are constantly exposed to ideological, political, religious, scientific, commercial, and algorithmically personalized information. The danger is not merely ignorance. The greater danger may be premature certainty. A person may mistake with familiarity for truth, authority for validity, popularity for correctness, scientific terminology for scientific evidence, tradition for moral necessity, innovation for progress, or personal experience for universal truth. Moderate postmodernism therefore introduces reflexivity: the capacity to turn one’s critical gaze back upon one’s own assumptions. The question is : “What assumptions allow me to believe that I am right?” This does not weaken conviction. It asked for non-attachment to one’s existing beliefs, through the properly understood, it makes conviction more responsible.

The second principle is: “Reread all, reject none”. This principle ask us rereading everything without prematurely excluding any source of knowledge. It does not mean accepting every claim as true. Instead, it means refusing to discard an intellectual resource before understanding what it may contribute. A contemporary problem may therefore be approached through philosophy, science, religion, history, culture, radical and local knowledge, literature, art, psychology, technology, personal experience, and the lived experiences of ordinary people. Such an approach resembles philosophical hermeneutics, in which understanding emerges through dialogue between different horizons of meaning. Research within the Suan Sunandha Philosophy tradition has explicitly employed interpretation and the fusion of horizons to bring different intellectual traditions into dialogue.

“Reread all” therefore means reopening the conversation with the past. An old idea may contain an insight that modernity overlooked. A scientific theory may correct a traditional misconception. A religious tradition may preserve existential wisdom that technological rationality cannot provide. A young person’s experience may reveal a social reality invisible to an older generation. A marginalized perspective may expose assumptions embedded within dominant institutions. Thus, intellectual development does not necessarily occur by replacing old knowledge with new knowledge. It can also occur through reinterpreting old and new knowledge together.

The third principle is: “Seek common ground while reserving differences”. This principle is particularly important in pluralistic societies. Human beings do not need to agree about everything in order to cooperate. Indeed, demanding complete agreement may destroy the very diversity that generates creativity. Togetherness is needed the points-of-parity and points-of-difference for the creative development and progression.

The philosophical task is therefore to distinguish between agreement about everything, which is unrealistic, and agreement about what we can do together, which is possible. For example, people may disagree about religion, metaphysics, political philosophy, or ultimate meaning while nevertheless agreeing that human dignity should be protected, unnecessary suffering should be reduced, children should have opportunities to learn, communities require trust, the environment should be protected, and human beings should be treated with respect. Common ground creates cooperation. Differences preserve plurality. Together they establish what may be called unity. This orientation is consistent with research within the moderate postmodern tradition emphasizing unity within diversity, openness toward different perspectives, and the development of human quality of life.

Four Powers of Life

Suan Sunandha Philosophy also allied with the principle of moderate postmodern in four orientations of action: Creativity, Adaptivity, Cooperation, and Requisitivity. These may be understood as four dynamic powers through which human beings continuously develop their quality of life. Recent scholarship associated with moderate postmodernism explicitly identifies these four powers.

Creativity the first orientation of action begins when existing answers are no longer sufficient. If one is not attached to inherited solutions, new possibilities become visible. Creativity therefore requires the courage to ask: “What has not yet been tried?” In contemporary society, creativity is essential in art and technology, and also in education, healthcare, organizational design, relationships, public policy, and everyday life. Creativity is thus not simply the production of something novel. It is the capacity to transform limitations into possibilities.

Adaptivity is not passive submission to change. It is the capacity to distinguish between: “what should change and what should remain”. Technology and AI provides an obvious example. AI may transform professional work, education, medicine, and communication. The moderate postmodern response is neither blind technological optimism nor categorical technological rejection. This distinction is crucial. Technology is a means. Human flourishing is the end. We asks: “What should AI change?”, “What should AI never replace?”, “Which human values must remain at the center?”. Technology must be evaluated according to its contribution to human flourishing. Adaptivity therefore means changing forms while preserving meaningful values.

Cooperation is together orientation of action in the complex situation of today world. the complex problems increasingly exceed the capacity of individuals and single disciplines. Climate change, healthcare, artificial intelligence, social inequality, aging societies, and educational transformation require collaboration across professions and worldviews. Cooperation becomes possible when difference is no longer interpreted solely as a threat. The question becomes: “What can your difference contribute to what I cannot see?”. Difference can consequently become an epistemic resource. The person who thinks differently may reveal what one’s own perspective has overlooked.

Requisitivity is the fourth power that refusing to assume that development has reached its final destination. A person continues to ask: “What can I learn?”, “What have I misunderstood?”, “What needs to change?”, “What remains unexplored?”, “How can life become better?”, “How can my happiness contribute to the happiness of others?”. Individual is seeking the new level, transforms life into a lifelong philosophical practice. It prevents philosophy from becoming a closed doctrine.

The Contemporary Role of the Philosopher

Under the framework of Philosophical Paradigm of thought, Principle of moderate postmodernism, and the orientation of action, the philosopher is no longer merely a producer of abstract theories. The philosopher becomes a mentor, guide, advisor, counselor, or facilitator of human understanding and quality-of-life development. The philosopher has many roles such as.

First, the philosopher as a critic of attachment. The philosopher helps individuals recognize when beliefs have become identities and when identities have become prisons.

Second, the philosopher as a re-reader. The philosopher returns to neglected knowledge and asks whether it can illuminate contemporary problems.

Third, the philosopher as a connector. The philosopher creates dialogue among science, religion, technology, humanities, culture, and lived experience.

Fourth, the philosopher as a mediator of difference. The philosopher searches for common ground without demanding intellectual uniformity.

Fifth, the philosopher as a designer of possibilities. The philosopher helps transform abstract reflection into practical alternatives for living both SDGs and IDGs.

Sixth, the philosopher as a cultivator of quality of life. Ultimately, philosophical reflection must return to life itself.

The activity of Suan Sunandha Philosophy can consequently be represented as a dynamic cycle: Non-attachment → Rereading → Common Ground → Creativity → Adaptivity → Cooperation → Requisitivity → New Understanding

This practical orientation is particularly compatible with moderate postmodernism, which places the development of quality of life at the center of philosophical reflection. This is important because quality of life is never a finished product. the meaning of a good life must remain open to critical reconsideration. The goal is not perfection in the sense of reaching an immutable final state. The goal is continuous improvement without losing sight of reality, human dignity, and meaningful relationships.

Conclusion

Suan Sunandha Philosophy, understood as a Thai orientation of moderate postmodernism, can provide a philosophical response to the intellectual and existential conditions of the contemporary world. Its strength lies neither in defending the past against the future nor in destroying the past in the name of the future. Instead, it proposes a moderation through the principle of practices and the orientations of action. Together, they establish a continuous process through which individuals and societies can respond creatively to change, adapt without losing their humanity, cooperate across differences, and continue seeking deeper understanding. This asks the philosopher not stand outside life as an observer of abstract truth. The philosopher stands within life, participating in the difficult work of interpretation, dialogue, evaluation, cooperation, and transformation. In this sense, Suan Sunandha Philosophy may be understood as a philosophy of intellectual humility, pluralistic dialogue, and role directed toward the continuous development of authentic human happiness according to reality.

References

Amaritwarin S. (2022). Sufficient life. Pispes Press.

Bunchua, K. (2003). Philosophy in simple language. St. John University.

Bunchua, K. (2003). Postmodern Philosophy: Concept to New Education Paradigm. Doung Kamol Book.

Bunchua, K. (2017). Introduction to Philosophy and Ethics. Suan Sunandha University.

Bunchua, K. (2017). Contemporary Philosophy and Ethics. Suan Sunandha University.

ฺBunchua, K., Harimtepathip, M., Gunyaviriya, C. (2025). Analytical Study of the Philosophy of Wisdom Leadership. Journal of Social Religion and Culture. 6(2); 156-164

Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.). Continuum. (Original work published 1960)

Suwanbundit, A. (2025). Postmodern Philosophy and Thoughts. Pispes Press.

Takaew, R. (Editor). (2016). Thailand and good governance according to philosophy of sufficient economy. Suan Sunandha University.

Vattimo, G. (1988). The end of modernity: Nihilism and hermeneutics in post-modern culture (J. R. Snyder, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press.