Proceedings of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy

This speech analyzes the constitutive relationship between liberty and domination. In it freedom is intended as opposition to power through the concept of liberation. But many forms of power, in spite of fighting liberty, try to present themselves as liberators or as a guarantor of liberty itself. In this way the concept of freedom becomes first with Christianity and then with modernity an instrument for a sophisticated technology of power that has the opposite function. This individualistic notion of liberty is criticized also from an epistemological point of view (complexity theory, chaos theory), and from a multicultural point of view by a brief comparison with holistic Sino-Japanese concept of spontaneity. Complexity theory shows that the subject is always connected to a system in his decision making process. Chaos theory shows that what seems spontaneous is an unpredictable interaction of causes. Finally Sino-Japanese culture has not a traditional concept of freedom, because it focuses the spontaneity of Dao or nature that is conceived as whole necessary for the comprehension of the individuals’ life. The aim of this text is to give just some hints for a “mise en question” of the concept of liberty related to recent problems such as globalization, environmental problems and crisis of modern political systems.

Following the design of the author, reforms of the UN would consist of four rules. The first rule: Payments from the global community should correspond with the services provided by the UN. - For this purpose it is necessary to develop a system of compensation in which payment would be made only for the completion of a concrete service. Such a system would in effect serve as a continuous audit and guarantor of quality service at all times visible to the entire public. The second rule: Servantura not dictatorship - The author has created a word "servantura" and has given it the following meaning: the performance of administrative service, guided by (1) ethical conduct, (2) democratic norms, (3) the newest scientific knowledge, (5) safe technology, (6) justice, (7) equality of people and (8) the priority of human life. On an idea of the author, servantura is a global managerial philosophy with a system of global service in which each decision should be in accordance with the wishes and the will of the entire global community, not of a separate group of nations, or a single nation, or person. The third rule: Noncommercial services. Commercialization of the UN should be considered a crime. Further commercial use of the UN should be stopped, as it will lead to aglobal catastrophe. The fourth rule: Without enemies or competitors, Full transparency and a strict prohibition of secrecy and privacy in the UN must be established. i.e. openness, publicity and a strict international prohibition on any secret structures or secret activities within the UN.

The purpose of the article is to show the great potential of human ability in social development and to reveal the personality conditions for the development of mankind. The categorical arrangement of global responsibility is given relating to the individual personality and to civilization. The creation of social conditions addresses the vital importance for the individual development of global responsibility. The theoretical base of the research includes numerous works on fundamental problems in the field of social philosophy, philosophy of law, individual and social psychology, theory of personality, culture research, and worksabout civilization. The historical and socio-philosophical approaches are used to reveal the regulation of development of global responsibility on the individual level and the level of civilization. Phenomenological and axiological methods are used to study the activity aspect of global responsibility.

I shall develop and defend a view of the reparation (e.g., rights to compensation) and enforcement rights (i.e., rights to use force) that individuals have in response to rights-transgressions. The general nature of the account is intermediate to two well-developed alternatives. Pure responsibility accounts hold that reparation and enforcement rights hold only to the extent that the transgressor is culpable, or in some way responsible, for the transgression or resulting harm. Strict liability accounts hold that reparation and enforcement rights hold merely in virtue of the transgression and independently of the agent’s culpability orresponsibility. I shall defend an account according to which: (1) in agreement with pure responsibility accounts, there are reparation rights against a transgressor only to the extent that the transgressor is responsible for transgression-harm (i.e., harm from a transgression), and (2) in agreement with strict liability accounts, there are enforcement rights even against innocent transgressors—although, in agreement with pure responsibility accounts, the extent of the enforcement rights depends in general on the extent to which the transgressor is responsible for the harm and for acting wrongfully. The central feature of the proposed account is that reparation and enforcement rights in a particular context are sensitive to the extent to which their implementation will reduce (in a way specified below) direct transgression-harm.

International law grants to legitimate combatants the right to kill enemy soldiers both in wars of aggression and defensive wars. A main argument in support of this “combatant’s privilege” is Michael Walzer’s doctrine of the “moral equality of soldiers.” The doctrine argues that soldiers fighting in wars of aggression and defensive wars have the same moral status because they both typically believe that justice is on their side, and their moral choices are equally severely restricted by the overwhelming coercive powers of the state, including propaganda, conscription, and harsh penalties for the refusal to fight. Recently, this doctrine has been convincingly refuted, at least with regard to aggressor soldiers who are part of professional volunteer armies in democratic societies. However, Walzer’s critics have not challenged combatant’s privilege, primarily for a variety of pragmatic reasons. This paper examines these reasons, finds them not decisive, and articulates a modest proposal for denying, under some conditions, combatant’s privilege to aggressor soldiers, making their very participation in a war of aggression a war crime. It is concluded that unrestricted combatant’s privilege is in tension with the aim of the United Nations “to save succeeding generationsfrom the scourge of war.”

Throughout the 1990-ies Nussbaum, in collaboration with others, has elaborated and argued for a list of human capabilities which specifies necessary conditions of human flourishing. The capabilities approach has been enormously influential in putting issues of global development and justice, and especially justice for women, on the philosophical and political agenda. Moreover, many international agencies and institutions, including the United Nations Development Program, have started to make use of this approach. Despite of its obvious good intentions the approach deserves more serious critical attention from philosophers than it has received until now. In my paper I take up some fundamental problems with Nussbaum’s philosophical framework. I will argue that Nussbaum’s conception of human nature is still (implicitly) Cartesian and, more in particular, that her conception of reason is outdated. It raises problems with respect to the question of universal values, the possibility of which Nussbaum defends by reference to the faculty of reason.

Within the scope of multifactor approach, the ways and peculiarities of nonlinear paradigm formation and its establishment, as well as, multidimensional nature and essence of things in a single research field of the interdisciplinary science that is directly based on the perception of multidimensional integrity of the real world were significantly reconsidered. The idea of multifactorness is deployed as the scientific and logical basis for the methodology of scientific and philosophical research. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the contemporary level of understanding the notional diversity of "multidimensionality" concentrates within the conceptual structures of nonlinear thinking style considering the principle of oriental world-perception and world-understanding.

The focus of the following paper is the phenomenon of the collective agent; what constitutes the appearance of a collective agent? I begin by investigating one simple argument for the existence of collective agents. Two critical issues emerge: does it make sense to hold a collective agent blameworthy, and, what is the motivation for doing so, one way or the other? I then dissolve these issues with a distinction, that between blameworthiness and responsibility. In light of this distinction, there appears to be no use for the introduction of collectives as agents in their own right, outside of expedience of reference and deference of blame.

The statement “Building the socialist harmonious society” contains the recognition and understanding of the conflicts of values in the contemporary society. The connotation of socialist harmonious society contains its own dominant values: In the relations of person-to-person, it requires democracy to guarantee the achievement of freedom and rule of law to ensure social fairness and justice. In the relationship of human and nature, it demands harmony between man and nature and the coordinated and sustainable development of economy, society and ecology. Putting-people-first is the essential principle. The construction of contemporary values is a basic approach of building the socialist harmonious society.

In order to compare the distributive principle between Marx and Rawls on justice, we have to definite the concept of distributive justice, injustice and beyond justice. By Marx the theoretical concept of distributive justice is something like distribution according to contribution, that is what you earn correspondence to what you have done, principally it is also could be accepted by Rawls, but as soon as we actualities this principle from theory to reality, it is distorted, on the sense of Marx, by the actual capitalism social structure. Related to the principle of justice I regard the principle of beyond justice as distribution regardless what youhave done, under the situation of capitalism, it means to adjust distribution by the way of taxation and etc, which is defended by Rawls with justice as fairness, under the situation of supposed communism, it means distribution according to one’s needs. The principle of distributive injustice could be understood as economic exploitation with Marx’ labor theory of value, but it first comes from Hegel’s theory of labor alienation. With this understanding of the principle of distributive justice, injustice and beyond justice, we try to analysis distributive principle from theory to reality between Karl Marx and John Rawls.

The similarities between the concept of cosmopolitanism and the concept of the world-state are, in some regards, fairly intuitive. At the very least, the theme of universalism is often seen as common to both. The precise form of a universalized ethical or political order, however, is not expressly conceptually determined by either cosmopolitanism or the world-state; both are susceptible to pluralist interpretations. Further, we cannot assume that an ethical concern will either motivate the creation of, or become a central policy issue to, a world-state, in the way that a concern for moral universalism—sometimes referred to as ‘moral minimalism’—is inseparable from the cosmopolitan project more generally. Nor does cosmopolitanism have a necessary political component in the manner in which the world-state does. Nevertheless, we may assume that any form of global government should have some minimal degree of responsibility and concern for the welfare of all world-citizens. This paper considers Michael Walzer’s analysis of moral minimalism, and posits that this concept could form a common normativebasis for both moral cosmopolitanism and the reform of existing institutions of global governance, as well as having possible applications for the drafting of just policies for a potential world-state.

This paper is an interpretation of the thought of the twentieth century Korean religious thinker, Yoo Yŏng-mo (柳永模, 1890-1981), a pioneer figure who sought to re-conceptualise a Christian understanding of the Ultimate Reality in the light of a positive openness to the plurality of Korean religions. Yoo Yŏng-mo considered that it was possible to present an overall picture of harmony and complementarity between the three traditions of Korea and Christianity, and this is endorsed by the present thesis. This essay is aimed at providing a religious rationale for inter-faith dialogue. Using the principles of ‘Change’ (易, i) and ‘Yin-ying’ (陰陽)dominated in Chinese Classics and East Asian way of thinking, this paper lays out a methodology for envisaging harmony and mutual complementarity between traditions. The effect of some central concepts from within Confucian, Buddhist and Taioist tradition on the Christian thought of Yoo Yŏng-mo is then analysed and examined. In this respect, this paper argues that the Ultimate Reality based on the principle of harmony and mutual complementarity is not only both personal and impersonal as well as both transcendent and imminent, but also neither personal nor impersonal as well as neither transcendent nor imminent. Essentially, therefore, this essay accepts that Yoo Yŏng-mo’s equating of the Christian idea of God with the ‘Great Ultimate’ (太極) in Confucianism, with ‘Nothingness’ (無) in Buddhism and with the ‘One’ or Tao (道) in the thought of Lao-Chuang (老莊思想) of Taoism is a legitimate equivalence to make and that this does indeed pave the way for a potentially fruitful dialogue between Korea’s main religions. The drawing together of the Great Ultimate, Absolute Nothingness, the One Absolute from the Tao and the traditional personal God of Christianity gives the discussion an entirely new direction which has become a challenge for traditional orthodoxChristian theology and also for a pluralistic religious society.

During the second half of the XX century drug addiction ceased to be only the epiphenomenon of crime, prostitution and a number of other social-relations deviation, and became a constant value of post-industrial society and at the end of XX century turned into a global problem of mankind. A new form of mass neurosis shows that drug dependence is nowadays socially conditioned mental degeneration, caused by activation of unconscious collective archetypes that are experienced depending on the corresponding situation. The identification of the sacred plant soma/haoma with the marihuana enables us to not only to make clear the light and the dark sides of this archetype, but also to figure out that the reduction of the drug addiction problem, to the acceptable for the society level, is possible only if a man will be able to satisfy his “life-asserting, vital needs”, if he will be able to regain the true meaning of life.

With the development of globalization and its inner-contradictions exposing gradually, a new anti-globalization movement has sprung up Since 1990s. It is also a kind of new globalization. In fact, contemporary globalization is controlled by capitalism. During the course, capitalist contradictions and crisis also globalize. Anti-globalization exposes the new crisis of contemporary capitalism The substance of contemporary antiglobalization is to opposite capitalism and its crisis. It is not a mature movement now, but it is significant to correct the developing direction of contemporary globalization.

The paper suggests an explanation of the failure of liberal reforms in Russia in 1990th using a specific concept of social space. A society can be interpreted as ‘rings in the water’ system with an individual as the center and more distant social groups as ‘rings’. The key factor in such system would be an individual’s ability to translate his/her will through the ‘rings’. Russian social space is characterized by a sharp discrepancy between high standards for personal spiritual and moral growth and low ethical standards of real social life. What is strictly forbidden inside the personal social circle (the ‘ring’ of relatives and close friends) is easilycondoned outside of it. External ‘rings’ of social space are more like ‘dangerous and irrational wild nature’ than cultural territory. This discrepancy (constant for Russian history for at least last 500-600 years) puts all kinds of barriers for active social interaction. The failure of liberal reforms in Russia shouldn’t be interpreted as the failure of liberal ideas, but as the failure of an attempt to apply them to the territory mentally and socially absolutely alien to them.

La influencia del modelo hobbesiano y en especial de la idea de la guerra en el desarrollo del pensamiento político moderno de los siglos XVII y XVIII, ha sido ampliamente documentada por diversos intérpretes. Sin embargo, esta influencia no ha sido suficientemente destacada a propósito de la continuidad que ha tenido en el pensamiento político contemporáneo. Con el presente texto, presentamos algunas líneas de interpretación a través de las cuales es posible observar la presencia de la idea hobbesiana de la guerra en doctrinas políticas distintas e incluso antagónicas, a saber, el liberalismo jurídico de Ennmanuel Kant, el decisionismo de Carl Schmitt y el neomarxismo de Antonio Negri.

El objetivo de esta presentación es establecer una relación entre el ciclo de la labor, conceptualizado por Arendt en La condición humana, y el campo de concentración. Se parte de la clara alusión de Arendt, en donde argumenta que lo que se busca en el campo de concentración, es la construcción de un animal que sólo tenga la “libertad” de “reproducir su especie”. Dichas características están insertas en el animal laborans que también pareciera ser la cifra del homo sacer de Giorgio Agamben. Esa institución del derecho romano arcaico, según los desarrollos de Agamben, permite entender al interno del campo de concentración. El animal laborans se puede encontrar en las prácticas que se desarrollan en el campo. La labor y el consumo forman parte fundamental de una estrategia de supervivencia y modulan, en forma definitiva, la diferencia entre el futuro sobreviviente y el musulmán. Vida y muerte son moduladas por lalabor y por el consumo. El ciclo de la labor crea sujetos, crea posibilidades. Esas estrategias, a través de la labor y del consumo, permiten visualizar que la supervivencia puede ser leída con la grilla de inteligibilidad del homo oeconomicus, es decir, un sujeto de interés empresario de sí mismo, que se gobierna a sí mismo como una posesión, y que, por ende, puede ser entendido como un sujeto gobernable. El sobreviviente hace un trabajo sobre sí mismo para poder sobrevivir, educarse para subsisitir y no caer en la selección. El homo oeconomicus del neoliberalismo puede permitirnos entender la vida dentro del campo y, por ende, puede ser la cifra del homo sacer a través de su condición del animal laborans.

Esta ponencia pretende hacer explícita la particular relación que Michel Foucault y Giorgio Agamben postulan entre la vida y el poder como una relación de imbricación por la cual el poder siempre ha dado forma a la vida, en el sentido de lo viviente, apresándola bajo modalizaciones específicas y, por esta vía, propone asimismo una hermenéutica de las formas contemporáneas del sujeto a partir de la relación señalada. A tal fin, se revisará la forma particular en que la vida en tanto zōē o simple vida biológica o animal, se ha imbricado con el poder en Occidente y en particular en la modernidad, para producir determinadas formas humanas en las que la vida en términos de bios o vida calificada por la cultura y la polis, ha quedado, en forma contraria a las declaraciones de principios explícitos de la arquitectura metafísicopolítica, neutralizada. Para ello, se examinarán en especial, los desarrollos de Michel Foucault y de Giorgio Agamben en torno del biopoder y la biopolítica, la nuda vida y las figuras del homo sacer y el estado de excepción y el paradigma de la teología económica.

There is no fairness in the world. Inequality can be observed in all spheres of human activities and in all parts of the world. This leads to the world-wide gross injustice. The main dilemma of survival is: either social fairness to people or the end of human history. The patience of people in hardship is exhausted. Social and interstate contradictions are being sharpened, and they add fuel to the flames of international tension. The world is on its way to endless terror. Even “Golden Billion” is not quiet any longer. Fierce confrontation between the rich and the poor, the outlaws and the citizens takes nowadays place in Europe and the United States. As we can see the struggle will stop at nothing. It will spread with its unprecedented bitterness and moral bifurcation in people, the alarming symptoms of which are already being manifested. The mankind is moving towards the “all-in war’ state, the state of being at war on everything and everyone. Equality – it is Chimera. But what should we do, how should we act in order not to make equality a Pandora’s box, fueling global tension and giving a birth to revolutions and wars? What is there to be done with man’s strive for being at least not worse than the others? The solution of this problem is to open equal chances to all members of human society, to give them real and objective opportunities which form the basis of social justice. Sooner or later the mankind will come to cooperation via solving global environmental problems, and leveling all nations’ welfare on the basis of world wealth co-ownership.