Proceedings of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy

Ordinary skepticism is based upon some form of certainty. One may be skeptical about the claims of religion because one accepts the certainties of science or some philosophical argument. One may be skeptical about a certain investment strategy because one believes in various proven economic principles. Absoluteskepticism, on the other hand, has no such certainty upon which to rely. Every standpoint, including absolute skepticism itself, is open to doubt. Thus absolute skepticism is not another philosophical position but raises severe doubt about all philosophy and all knowledge. In this paper I will explore some of the implications of absolute skepticism and how Lao Zi and Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986) may serve as possible representatives of absolute skepticism.

The relationship between mankind and nature is a precarious one at best; at once seemingly irreconcilable and yet there is still certain interdependency. In discussing this relationship we need not merely touch upon modern science or environmentalism as the ancient Chinese thinker Lao-tzu had something to say on the matter in the pre-Qin period of Chinese history. But Lao-tzu writes not merely about the relationship between mankind and its environment, taking theterm ‘nature’ in a much broader sense. I would like to discuss Lao-tzu’s idea of nature from the evolution of the meaning of the term, the relationship between mankind and nature and one of establishment and co-existence. This paper will consider how mankind and nature have an interdependent coexistencethat often turns into contradictory and at times conflicting circumstances. It will divide the relationship between mankind and nature into three categories, namely“mankind and natural conscience,” “mankind and other objects” and “mankind and the natural environment” an pose questions as to how to use Lao-tzi’s thought to establish a “coexistence” between mankind and nature.

In the Choui, the way of worldly change is presented with symbols of Yin and Yang, but the actual situations are discussed with the phase of Gue Hyo (卦爻). And, the operation to determine the phase of Gue Hyo is made by the number. So, the phase number of Gue Hyo and the way order always go along. When we call theoperation that reveals the future world with the specific phase of Gue Hyo as the Jeom (Prediction) of Choui, the Jeom is operated with the number. At this time, the operation method of the number is called Seobeop. In this paper, by examining the Seobeop in the book of Hongbeomhwangeuk (洪範皇極) along with that in Choui, the numerological research will be carried out about the coincidence and difference between the Samjaeron (Three element theory) in theCheonbugeong and the Yin-Yang theory of Choui in the Seobeop.

What is called theory of moral community is a socialpolitical idea that was established by Confucius and Mencius on the base of political practice of Yao, Shun, Yu and King of Chou and that was used as ideology of ancient Chinese Empire. Lao Tzu and Zhuang Tzu criticized the theory of moral community and established their naturalistic philosophical system. Lao Tzu said in the first chapter of Tao Te Ching that “The Tao is too great to be described by the name Tao. If it could be named so simply, it would not be the eternal Tao”. If Tao which is indispensable to mortal fortune can be described, it must have existed in discourse of human beings; If the important pole that accords with fact can be named, it must have named by human beings. So people who lived in ancient times regarded the political idea of Yao, Shun, Yu and King of Chou as Tao that has been justified. At the same time they named Yao, Shun, Yu and King of Chou as sons of Heaven who inherited the vocation of Heaven. Hence by all appearances，Lao Tzu was denying the validity of traditional social-political idea. And Lao Tzu thought the traditional social-political practice, in fact, had kept away from intrinsic morality and switched to extrinsic criterions. Zhuang Tzu, as an inheritor of Lao Tzu, criticized the moral community of Confucius straight from the shoulder. First, according to Zhuang Tzu’s opinion, the system of demise is a way of handing over and taking over power accorded with particular instance of the time which was chosen by Yao, Shun and Yu, but it is not a perfect and universal political pattern as Confucius thought. Second, Zhuang Tzu enumerated many immoral behaviors done by these sons of Heaven, on the one hand, on the other hand he regarded the Confucian politics of all over the world was an hegemonic politics in essence which would destroy human’s moral faith on their autonomy. Contrary to Confucian theory of moral community, Lao Tzu brought forward a social idea of “a little state with a small population" which was often misunderstood as “a small state with a little population”, in fact the idea of “a little state with a small population" is a naturalistic political idea that will safeguard and realize freedom, equality and plural values by weakening compulsion of state and lusts of human beings furthest. Lao Tzu and Zhuang Tzu’s critique and reflection of Confucian theory of moral community, with their social-political idea of “a little state with a small population" will be very helpful to establish correct historical consciousness and build wonderful future society.

Marx concentrated on Western Europe and North America in his core writings, but discussions of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America are scattered throughout his work. In the Communist Manifesto (1848) and his writings for the New York Tribune Marx posited a universal theory of historical and economic development in which non-Western societies represented backwardness, but could progress into modernity with the external impetus of the world market. Later, especially in the Grundrisse (1857-58) and the recently available Ethnological Notebooks of 1879-82, Marx gradually altered this implicitly unilinear model, replacing it with a more multilinear one in which non-Western societies (in which he included Russia) might be able to embark upon an alternate form of modernity that would offer a new challenge to capitalist modernity. The basis of this alternate form was economic, in the “communal” property forms that he saw as underlying many Asian societies, as opposed to Western-style private property.

The topic of this article is the relation between the modern process of globalization and democracy. The agenda starts with the concept of globalization, its different meanings and various layers, traps and paradoxes, consequences and effects, advantages and disadvantages in the horizon of contemporary life. Following a brief introduction into the theme, the article outlines a short historic philosophical review into the development of globalization from theancient times to the contemporary world. The focus of the philosophical view is that of two significant authorities and opposite approaches in the process of developing ‘World Society’ – Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Kant explained the means to the status of ‘World Civility’ as a ‘Natural Purpose’. Hegel exposed the necessity of the development of world history to the state of global freedom. The question: Does the process of making global society threaten democracy in the modern world - is the key issue nowadays. All agree that the globalization process diminishes the area of the authentic political acting. Democracy originates from the ‘polis’ or small town republic and is a symbol of the government in the small political community. The step from the polis democracy to the national state democracy was the result of change from the direct to the representative democracy. The transition from the national to the supranational and global politics requires new essential transformation of the being of democracy.

The one great quality of Socratic gift is that thinking as an activity continues but not repetitively but every time thinking takes place, it takes place a new. Thinking is the one activity that cannot be repeated like prayers and other pieties. All philosophical thinking is new thinking; it has to be new in order to be thinking. Philosophy had to become the handmaid of sociology and could not be allowed to remain surrogate sociology. When this happened new concepts or new conceptualizations became the need of the hour: in the place of the age-old hierarchic social stratification a novel concept of materialism had to be inducted - after all matter is what matters. And in India morally entangled sociology was holding down the rich human resources of the sub-continent and a development-oriented ideology had to convert this moral society into a legal society: An unlegislated, unlegislatable society is condemned to be unstable andcollapsible; in its place a stable, legislatable society had to be created. With this felt-need Dr. Ambedkar came into the Indian political arena and gave a modernist rethinking to the outmoded Indian social structure: His hallmark was think to change.

Leo Strauss has generally been regarded as an historian of ideas, albeit a very unusual one. He wrote many very momentous commentaries on the major figures in the history of political thought; yet Strauss’ main intellectual quest was to take himself back in the history, to classical antiquity and to the fountainhead of political philosophy, Plato. In this paper, however, I am mostly interested in the philosophical nature of Strauss’s basic dissatisfaction with modernity and with the adequacy of his criticisms. I shall focus attention on his well-known book On Tyranny, his claim that the politics in the modern age is inescapably defined by a tyrannical rule and his criticisms that the contemporary political science is unable to diagnose the symptoms of this present-day disease, and finally his attempt to revive political philosophy in its original sense. In addressing these issues, this paper raises a fundamental criticism: Strauss’s approach jeopardizes political philosophy-i.e. his very inquiry-by ultimately putting philosophy against politics, and politics against philosophy. I will begin with a few remarks about what Strauss understood as the problem of modernity. Then I will introduce the question of tyranny which stands as the key notion for grasping not only Strauss’s criticism of contemporary politics but also as the treatment for it. Finally, the discussion of On Tyranny, I hope, will shed light on Strauss’s conception of political philosophy and will open the stage for a critical discussion of his views.

The aim of this paper is to analyze what kind of understanding of justice prevails at the beginning of the 21st century. I will shortly show the evolution of justice, concerning on the ancient and Enlightenment understandings of this concept. I shall attempt to justify the thesis that in the contemporary world the factors that play the most important part in the evaluation of justice are aesthetic ones. The essence of the aesthetic evaluation I will describe by refer to the Kant’s “Critique of Judgment” where he analyses the specific character of the judgments of beauty. I will try to show that the characteristics which Kant ascribed to beauty havebeen transferred by modern philosophy to moral judgments and categories – specially to the judgment concerning justice. Finally I will focus on the contemporary dispute concerning economic human rights – this is a good concrete example for my thesis that today our understanding of justice (or better “social justice”) is based on the aesthetics arguments.

We can define all political theories pertinent in contemporary modern societies using a model based on only two variables. The first variable can be characterized as a spectrum between economic right and left wing theories. The spectrum can be easily defined by a strictly economic tradeoff of the desired level of taxation juxtaposed to the desired level of social services. The second variable can be defined as a distinction between liberal-individualisticand communitarian conception of persons.This leads to four positions, the four pillars of contemporary political philosophy: left wing liberalism (popular liberalism), right win liberalism (popular libertarianism), left wing communitarianism (popular socialist communitarianism) and right wing communitarianism (thetraditionalist stripe of conservatism). The problem is that the last of those positions has not been well presented in philosophical literature.

Is it possible to explicate tolerant principles in the philosophy-political discourse of Kant? It seems the answer to this question is positive. And it is the philosophical project of Kant “Perpetual Peace”, which is the most representative in this respect, for it is based on the principles of tolerance. This project is included in ethic-legal (liberal) system and is connected with such notions as civil society, legal state, duty, moral law. Tolerance exists, on the one hand, as a result of moral effort and choice, and on the other, as legal obligation. In Kantian conception tolerance appears as a multi-aspect phenomenon: firstly, as a natural deposit of the human race, developing as a result of the influence of antagonistic nature of the human society; secondly, as a demand of the moral law; thirdly, as a means of peace attaining; fourthly, as a principle of peaceful state, a universal civic alliance and eternal peace. The dynamic development of the world society, the acceleration of processes of globalization and intercultural communication dictate new strategies of the world development, make the problem of political responsibility the topic of today. According to Kant’s logic, it is necessary to be tolerant in the modern world.

This thesis reviews Haam Seok Heon‘s Ssial philosophy, the main philosophy about life in terms of women. The Ssial philosophy was created by Haam, who went through the turbulent times of Korea. So far, we have had papers that dealt with his philosophy under the political, historical and religious contexts, but there has been no paper focused on women. Actully, Haam confessed that it was his mother who structured the foundation of his philosophy. He also said that he learned from his mother about freedom, equality, and the basics of Ssial ideas. He developed his philosophy of life, Ssial, through the image of his mother who devoted her whole life to bring him up with love and willingly sacrificed her life for her beloved son. Haam regarded women as a link of all lives in history. He alsothought mothers, women in other words, have that power that gives birth, breeds lives and infuses new structure into eternal life; in addition, he stated that women have energy which pulls clear and new things out of filthy and dirty things. Through his image about women, Haam's Ssial philosophy extends itself as an ecological life movement. In this paper, Haam's philosophy about women is not reviewed and analyzed by the western point of view because Haam is not a man who spent his life in so-called the "times of women" in the western view. Since his philosophy emphasizes self‐reflective, independent life, freedom and equality, we might find out that there are some discrepancies between his philosophy and the lives of his mother and wife who had sacrificed their lives under the patriarchal social system. However, the meaning of Haam's independent life is totally different from the western concept of if. That is, his idea of independent life is closely related to sacrifice. In the current society under the influence of Neo‐liberalism, only competition and economic logic matter; however, Haam's philosophy, which states "Life is no different between you and I, and only love can save you and I as one existence" and cherishes every single life as oneorganism that connects all existing things - sky, earth, human beings, etc. - is of great importance for us to reconsider.

The main objective of Rawls’ Political Liberalism was to explain how a workable theory of justice can be established and sustained within a society that is marked by reasonable pluralism. In order to meet this end, Rawls introduces the following three concepts: political conception of justice, public reason, andoverlapping consensus. By relying on these three concepts, Rawls presents his two principles of justice as a two stage process. In the first stage, the two principles of justice are presented as a freestanding political conception justified solely by public reason. In the second stage, individuals engage in overlapping consensus which enables them to find additional supporting reasons for the political conception of justice from their own comprehensive doctrine. According to Rawls, even classical utilitarianism can support his two principles of justice by participating in overlapping consensus. However, Samuel Scheffler thinks that this is impossible. Scheffler’s argument relies on the fact that classical utilitarianism is decisively rejected by the initial contracting parties of the original position. Iargue that Scheffler misconceives the main purpose of the original position and that his argument doesn’t show that it is impossible for classical utilitarianism to participate in overlapping consensus.

Ontological issues are crucial and remarkable for International Relations scholars due to answering main questions of the dicipline as ‘what we observe in world politics’, ‘what’s going on’, ‘how states define who they are’ and ‘how states treat each other in interaction in terms of power and interests’. After Cold War debate on the end of the ideological clashes and the rise of the ‘clash of civilization’ have been begun and all the massacres that have taken place in recent years, like the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on the World Trade Center in NYC, have been linked to cases of identity. This paper presents social constructivism is as a way of study of IR that fits within Post Cold War International System on account of it focuses on ideas, identities and culture. Social theory argues that social structure and shared ideas and beliefs construct and transform the meaning of who is ally or enemy. Constructivist perspective embodies power and interest is important factors in international relations but their effects are a function of culturally constituted ideas. On the perspective of ‘social constructivism’ as the point of departure, the paper evaluates the great divisions among people arise from the enmities that are constructed by national identity politics rather than cultural differences.

The literature on multiculturalism currently splits parties into two camps : those favorable to the uniform treatment of cultural differences and those favorable to their differential treatment. Brian Barry, perhaps of the most influential present supporters of the first camp, has recently developed a severe criticism of the second approach. I intend in this paper to examine the scope and limits of Barry’s own uniform treatment approach. First, I will present the grounds Barry has for supporting it. Second, I will examine one of its most important difficulties, that of excluding the particular treatment of cultural differences on the grounds that they are a matter of choice.

We consider that the research conducted on the totalitarian phenomenon has still remained a challenge for political philosophy and social sciences, even though most of the totalitarian regimes are now a matter of the past. However, its consequences and the threat of its reinvigoration have remained as well. Under the circumstances, the theoretical instruments that make possible an effective euristic approach of the phenomenon are particularly important. Among these instruments, the totalitarian personality concept occupies a foreground place. What we advance is a new perspective upon this concept. We believe that thetotalitarian personality can be and must be regarded as a by-product of totalitarianism, not solely as one of its prerequisites. We can and we must give emphasis to the totalitarian imprint upon personality, upon the more or less profound transformations undergone by the personality of those who lived through the totalitarian experience.

The paper examines the current debates regarding human rights and international law. Two contrasting approaches are analyzed: One is represented by the neoconservative and neoliberal concepts, which justify forcibly “spreading democracy” through the unilateral intervention of a superpower, thus challenging the global rule of law. The other approach consists of strengthening international human rights law and cosmopolitan order. It is represented by the theorists of “discourse ethics” and “cosmopolitan democracy.” The paper analyses the internal relations and difference between the legislation of a particular democratic state and the universality of international law. It examines the tension between the plurality of democratic states and the universal principles of internationallaw, e.g. human rights, which direct us toward a cosmopolitan legal order. It further asserts that universally valid international law is above any positive law of any state, including a democratic state, and provides a regulative principle for external normative critique with regard to human rights. The paper examines important insights provided by discourse ethics theory. The transcendental-pragmatic principle of discourse ethics gives a moral foundation for human rights and thus for the law of a liberaldemocratic state as well as for international law. As Karl-Otto Apel notes, the idea of democracy is not identical to that of universally valid law, and the universal concept of law cannot be reduced to the legislative autonomy of any state. Jürgen Habermas argues for an “egalitarian universalism” and emphasizes the paramount role of international law as a medium for the advancement of human rights. The analysis shows that the universal concept of human rights cannot be adequately realized either by individual democratic states or by a “world republic” as a hegemonic superpower. Rather, its realization requires strengthened international law and institutions such as a properly reformed UN. The contemporary period is viewed as a transitional phase from an international to a cosmopolitan order.

Philosophical importance of the problems of the theory and practice of management is due to their role for society and each individual. Philosophy analyzes axiological, epistemic and methodological foundations of human activity in management processes. It forms a system of generalizing statements about the subject matter and methods of management, the place of management among other sciences and in the overall system of scientific knowledge, its cognitive and social role in the modern world. Management theory has been formed on the basis of knowledge which is both empirical and derived from achievements ofother specific sciences. We can also talk about a certain isomorphism between the methodological foundations of management theory and modern science. Management theory today includes the systemic approach, recognition of indeterminacy as an inherent attribute of managerial decisions, orientation towards studying the processes of communication, self-organization and adaptation to external environment. Management systems always include the person whose behavior is determined by values, needs, world outlook, will, and other personal characteristics. Management as a social phenomenon should be studiedwithin the context of national culture, traditions and mentality.

In his provocative definition of bullshit as “indifference to the truth”, Harry Frankfurt contentiously states that democracy is particularly prone to this deformity of discourse because of “the widespread conviction that it is the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy to have opinions about everything, or at least everything that pertains to the conduct of his country’s affairs.” I provide an exposition of this claim that Frankfurt does not himself give and I contend that he has identified an important problem with democratic deliberation. This is an argument about, not against, democracy and it is one which gives pause over the sanguine assumptions of much radical, “deliberative” democratic theory that this phenomenon will not be significantly present in an enhanced democracy. A suggestionabout the responsibilities of political philosophers in helping a democratic citizenry to tackle the problem is floated for future elaboration.