Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy

Value thinking, such as ethics and politics, has always been the main theme of traditional Chinese philosophy. Two major approaches for capturing the gist of value were formed in as early as pre-Qin dynasty: the “attribute view” of the Confucius school, and the “relation view” of the Daoist school. The persistent pursuit and the rich intellectual heritage cultivated throughout the long history has become the ground from which Chinese value philosophy rise two-thousand years later, and it is also the theoretical gene for its theoretical characters. During the last 30 years, enlighten by the Western philosophy dialogues, especially those between empiricism and pragmatism, contemporary Chinese value study started to address more universal and public issues, to further develop the theory of value relationship and subjective thinking on the basis of new practical experience and rational critiques, and to try to find a new way of thinking which can better fit in with contemporary context.

There are some conclusions which are very confusing and needed to be clarified in present comparison on Chinese and western views of harmony. The paper intends to discuss three popular and typical statements, namely, “Only individualism is promoted in western ethics”, “Virtue is promoted only in Chinese ethics” and “China has no law of western style in some sense” and tries to clarify some misguiding conclusions on the comparison between Western and Chinese views of harmony from the perspective of axiology.

The slogan ‘to the victor belong the spoils’ which, at one point, defined government policy under President Jackson of America in the 1800s is a rather unique but significant philosophical framework to inform our reflections on the question of human dignity, ethics and politics in postcolonial Africa. The spoils system also shares a long history in traditional Africa. Having defeated a rival tribe, the victor looted grain, livestock and even women as spoils of war. It was through brutal acts of colonial conquest and usurpation of territory from the indigenous peoples that the ideology of spoils almost became part of the modus operandi in modern Africa. While these historical facts are crucial, the aim in this work is not to retrace the origins of the spoils ideology but to project in philosophical terms the ways in which the modern and postcolonial state in Africa has perpetuated this practice in new forms and guises inimical to the welfare of its people. The predatory elite in Africa view power as entitlement to spoils of government. It is for this reason that the work concludes by examining how African morality can be used to fight the mentality of spoils, foster servant leadership, and create conditions for a new humanity to emerge.

This paper explores the virtue of integrity and certain paradoxes and problems with its assertion. It examines the social and pragmatic dimensions of integrity, especially as regards the norms of self-ascription. These generate a dangerous dialectic of perception and reality, and set up an illusory half-way house between inner possession and social attribution. The temptations to self-deception and impression management are inherent in any attempt at self-evaluation. This essay attempts to negotiate these conflicting tensions by advocating silence regarding one’s own integrity, not just instrumentally but as an intrinsic requirement of authentic integrity.

Nowadays, the process of globalization is speeding up, the interaction and collision of value among people in different areas of the world is getting more and more frequent, and serious. Philosophers are responsible to help people to get scientific and comprehensive understanding of the issue of value. All the theories, conceptions concerning the issue of value could be sorted out as three viewpoints: realism or monism, relativism or pluralism, skepticism or nihilism. Nihilist view is obviously nonsense. The relative view is not rational but it perplexes many people sometimes, it usually defends itself by some strategies. My paper aims to refute all the strategies of their defense and to expose their fallacies. It follows that only the realist view on value which considers only the humanitarian and all what is based on humanitarian could be the criterions of judging what is right or wrong, what is good or evil, what is beauty or ugly. Only with this universal and objective criterion, we could find the right way of the progress of human history.

According to the teachings of ancient philosophers, a wise person does not always know everything. On the other hand, knowledge by itself does not make a person wise (Heraclitus). Wisdom is part of the process of cognition to the extent that the latter determines practical activity of a person and, first of all, his or her moral behaviour. As Aristotle pointed out, wisdom is knowledge of the Good. Ancient thinkers ascribed the property of wisdom to experiential knowledge and perceived wisdom in various kinds of art and trade, in state government. The subsequent history of philosophical thought shows, that wisdom itself contains, yet another dialectical contradiction – a contradiction between cognitive and axiological principles. Wisdom is the fruit of the knowledge of life, but knowledge in its axiological aspect, experiential understanding of values in their vitality. Wise knowledge is not simply a possession of information, but knowledge – often intuitive – of the value of information. Wisdom is an intuition of reason, a synthesis of rational and intuitive comprehension of values. Philosophy as love of wisdom – like wisdom itself – presupposes attention both to cognitive and to value-oriented human activity.

Since Husserl raised the mysterious concept of life world in his later philosophy, there has been a great change in western philosophy in the 20th century. It not only causes the philosophical change in theoretic content and trend which leads to existentialism, neo-pragmatism, but also brings about the radical transformation in understanding on philosophy itself. Hence, the touch between philosophy and life, and the basis of philosophy in life world is getting clear more and more. This change gives us a new angel in thinking about the difference and intercourse between Chinese philosophy and western philosophy. There might be some fresh elements in contemporary philosophical research if we can put Chinese philosophy and western philosophy together from the aspects of life modes, life ideals and the reflective ways in them.

The paper tackles long-standing problem of human behavior motivation and its dependence on the choice between principles and profit, moral values and economics values. This dispute touches upon the question about the criteria of morality. It is affirmed that the promotion of values and its substantial effect upon economic/social development is impossible without conciliation between utilitarian motives and moral values. Challenges of social life and practical answers to them surpass many ethical theories, and make to comprehend methodological differences between contemporary social [professional] ethics and traditional [individual] ethics. It presupposes acute necessity of paradigmatic approach to ethics, drawing a distinction between metaphysical and positivistic interpretations of moral values The solution of this issue is of great importance under the circumstances when ethics becomes an integral part of modern management (as value management). The moral values proved to be more realized as practical values, which entails sound economic, politic and social consequences. In modern epoch we can observe the processes of rational ethics promotion in all fields of life. Ethics turns from a theory to practice, from philosophy to management, which in turn requires new approaches to values promotion.

Studying on the values only by the epistemological way of thinking, is a serious problem in the previous research on philosophy of value. The recognition and values are quite different in nature, therefore, we should not research the values by the epistemological way of thinking. Conversely, we ought to establish “the way of relational thinking”, in the studying the whole relationship of human being and different kinds of relationships. In reality, the relationship of human being is social and cultural. Hence, we ought to research and deal with the contradiction between “ought to be” and “to be” in the world of human being’s values, by the social way of thinking. The nature of human being’s life is the foundation and criterion of the value of “ought to be”.

Facing the development of pluralistic cultures and the conflict of different civilizations, we should examine political theory frameworks, particularly those concerning the construction of world order. In the dilemma “tolerance or hospitality,” tolerance has been targeted. Jacques Derrida deconstructs this concept and supports Immanuel Kant’s notion of hospitality rather than the tolerance. However, Jürgen Habermas advocates for reconstruction of the concept of tolerance, although he does note its limits. We should regard hospitality as the fundamental spirit of international relations and take the notion of “seeking sameness and respecting diversity” as a principle for handling relations between different cultures.

The definition of value is usually focused on “being”, that is, it seeks the predicate of value. In this paper we interpret a value as the product and manifestation and its effects as the dynamic subject-object relationship. A key to understand value, according to our interpretation, needs to be disconnected from the notion of being. Hence, the value philosophy in China – “the relation theory” – needs to be deepened and further concretized.

A cultural and philosophical approach in understanding human history involves identifying its personal aspects. Looking at the history of philosophy, it is not a clearly defined monologue, in pursuit of a common goal, but a complex dialogical process that includes and mutual influence and mutual repulsion, the process is an alternative to its core, and contains unrealized opportunities in history, re-creating the diversity of the movement of philosophical thought, pluralism of ideas and theories. One of the main ways to implement such an approach to the history of philosophy is to analyze it in the context of the culture, the study of the history of philosophy as a philosophy of culture.

Modern society sees obvious reinforcement of legal component in general mechanism of social regulation of relations between people. Objective significance of law supposes powerful value – subjective securing particularly the moral one. In reality minimization of morality in crisis takes place, which tries to compensate its forces through increase of quantity of laws and development of law – enforcement agencies. Deficit of the spirit and conscience causes their artificial substitutes, which worsen the situation. Daily need of society in improvement of law and legal expanse can be satisfied as a result of forming new image of interrelations between people and social groups in public awareness as a result of reinforcement of moral principles. But ability to select moral and spiritual values, particularly intense processes of their understanding, revaluation and implementation sup-poses deliberate freedom of subjects of social activity. These are representatives of scientific and educational community including lawyers, possessing high moral and professional qualities. In consideration of importance of preservation of civilizing achievements, which are examined in the context of cultural development, it is necessary to affirm the priority of high ethics. It is infallible foundation towards legal dimension of the principle of freedom of worship, secures gen-eral neutral field, on which ideological and politico-legal dialogue is possible among the civilizations and between them.

Axiology as a sphere of value orientation and preferences is a base of every culture. The analysis of poems of Homer gives an opportuni-ty to explicate the value base of archaic Mediterranean culture. Values such as honor, glory, devotion, self-sacrifice, friendship, mutual help, hospitality, justice-equality and justice-retribution are on the positive pole of this culture. Anger, insult, deception, greed, cowardice, audacity, desecration of the ene-my’s body are on the negative pole. Positive values are fixed in the sanctioned “standards” of social behavior. In this paper is investigated the base of selec-tion of behavior’s way of an epic hero. The preference for a particular action is determined by the fate or the will of the gods, or the traditional moral stan-dards, or considerations of good.

1. Philosophy as a part of culture, having its history, also have traditions. The structure of any tradition includes four main elements: a) object of tradition – legacy, b) subject of tradition – its carrier, c) attitude to legacy, inherent in subject an induced by some values, d) function of legacy transmis-sion, performed by subject. 2. Objects of traditions in philosophy are: sets of problems and questions, sets of notions and categories used to think them, interpretation of notions and categories – their changing content, relevant to philosophy ‘list’ of activities for philosophers together with norms and patterns to perform them, and etc. Subjects of traditions are groups of people, who keep and transmit the above mentioned objects. 3. Values connect philosophy with cultural surroundings. They stay beyond traditions, but they are the key factor of influence at the latter. Values drive the interests of philosophers, attracting to an object of tradition or repudiating it. Subject of tradition relates values with some legacy in philosophy, that can be valued, devalued or re-valued. If tradition carrier is unaware of values that impel him to keep legacy, then we deal with unreflective irrational tradition. This kind of tradition play stabilizing role in philosophy, providing succession. Some part of reflective (realizing values) traditions do the same. The rest of them are transforming traditions, because their subject devalues this legacy and values (revalues) some other. Transforming traditions bring philosophy changes. Their time comes when society suffers a shift or replacement of values – during reformations and revolutions.

Философия ХХI века в новых сложных условиях глобализирующегося мира уже констатировала наметившиеся интер- и кросскультурные тенденции в своем развитии. Суть в том, что как в западной, так в восточной философских традициях, являющихся основаниями соответствующих культур и цивилизаций, а, значит, и соответствующих систем ценностей, типов мировоззрения, существует сложившееся тысячелетия назад концептуальное ядро, имеющее общий универсальный характер. С другой стороны, в жизни как Востока, так и Запада, в социально-культурной и политической практиках существуют и возникают острые проблемы, указывающие на внутренние противоречия, несовершенства и необходимость изменений и нового современного содержания каждой системы ценностей как Востока, так и Запада. Современная философия, философская компаративистика и социальная философия, вычленяя то общее, что имеется в духовных истоках разных культур и цивилизаций, и то частное, что и сегодня для них принципиально ценно, приоткрывает пути от конфликта к взаимопониманию, конструктивному диалогу, а в будущем и к гармоничному взаимодействию.

Воспроизведение человеческого достоинства является основополагающим условием и целью педагогической практики, рассматривается как идеализированная норма учительства. В статье реализуется нормативный подход, предложенный автором к исследованию и интерпретации феномена учительства и его воспроизводства в культуре. Учительство определяется как воспроизводство целостности ценностей знания и личности в другом. Как единицы нормативного анализа выделяются нормы идеальные и реальные, которые делятся на авторитетные, актуальные и предвосхищаемые. Описаны основные идеализированные нормы учительства: воспроизводство человеческого достоинства и воспроизводство жизни в учении. Описан ряд основных особенностей воспроизводства идеальных норм в нормах авторитетных, актуальных и предвосхищаемых.

Since World War II, social theory has generated two major critical analyses of science as a social phenomenon: that of the Frankfurt School, and of Science and Technology Studies. These academic efforts grew out of a broader movement in western societies, in the decades following the war, to reach a better accommodation between science and society, motivated by deep-seated popular anxieties about the challenges posed by the advance of science and technology. In this paper, I first examine the overlooked parallels between these two academic efforts, and go on to explain why they would in the end prove fruitless, indeed somewhat self-defeating. The explanation points to the instrumentalist and constructivist conception of science shared by the two schools which would eventually play into the hands of the “entrepreneurial university” and the commodification of science.

The principle of complementarity articulated Niels Bohr applied to atomic physics, has general philosophical significance, moreover, it helps to overcome the objectivity/subjectivity in the social sciences. In accordance with principle of complementarity social reality appears more vividly and stereoscopy. The principle of complementarity in social science is valuable, especially if we try to analyze the constant, institutionalized and changing social structure.

An emerging approach to research is gaining ground with the aim to produce usable knowledge, able to support adaptation decisions, provide straightforward estimates of uncertainty, and meet the needs of climate sensitive sectors. An approach that implies collaboration among researchers, stakeholders and outreach specialists, gathered to develop not only a scientific contribution, but to offer a renewed appreciation of the relationships between knowledge, nature and society. What are the epistemic features of this new approach to knowledge production? How can philosophy of science help to conceptualize these new trends of research practices now emerging and consolidating, a trend where social scientists are not only invited to participate but to play an essential role? This presentation distinguishes two main senses of the concept of co-production, both playing an important elucidative function in current philosophical accounts and revisions of the relationships between science and society, human and natural systems, triggered by these new trends. One focusing on the articulation of talents, perspectives and values needed to produce new types of knowledge, the other on the intertwined transformations of identities, institutions, languages and discourses that characterize the workings of science and technology within society.