INTER-CULTURAL DIALOGUE

(OVERVIEWING THE XXII WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOPHY)

Emily A. Tajsin

Kazan State University of Power Engineering

Tatarstan State University of Humanities and Education

Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia

Emily_Tajsin@inbox.ru

This was the first World Congress of Philosophy to be held NOT in the western country, but elsewhere, namely – in ASIA, in the forum's more than a century history. In the Cultural Center of Seoul National University nearly 2000 main philosophers of the world were welcomed. Thе latter estimation belongs to Ioanna Cuçuradi, President of the previous Congress. Some statistics:

-        Korea – 823 participants;

-        USA – 174

-        Russia – 166

-        Japan – 134

-        China – 126

-        India – 64

-        Germany – 53

FISP (Federation of International Societies of Philosophy) steering committee member Derrmot Moran stressed that it was important “for countries where academic philosophy is not so well established or secure. In that sense, it matters more to them than it does to philosophers in most western countries”. Judging by the list of participants, I don’t recon it is absolutely true. But there is the other side. President of the XXII World Congress and at that time President of FISP Peter Kemp underlined the following: «…The only power we have is the power of the word… “La parole est mon royaume”, The word is my kingdom, and I am not ashamed of it. Our strength… is in our capacity to speak rationally about everything, to consider the role of everything in the whole.

…Philosophical argumentation and reflection constitute a non-economical, non-technological and non-military power by the word that is capable of challenging the other powers exposing lies and illusions, and proposing a better world as dwelling for humanity». So, – communication was our claim.

Dialogue, yes; but was it effective and fruitful? Did the synthesis of cultures and civilizations really take place that summer? Is it possible at all? Did West strive to understand East? Did East enjoy western views?...

Peter Kemp: «Today we have several big problems we must resolve together. Therefore we must be cosmopolitans, and this is no more a romantic dream but a very concrete task. Let me only mention three concrete problems: the problem of global warming and environment in general, the problem of intercultural co-existence, and the problem of financial globalization.

No peaceful solutions to global problems can be carried out if we do not learn to behave peacefully by language, i.e. to use language as a peace instrument and not as weapon. We live with the problems in a technological conjuncture, but we cannot master this conjuncture if we cannot master our language.

Therefore we need philosophy, we need the power of the word. This need is the deepest drive we have».

Other plenary reports of the first day were dedicated to the following topics: East-West dialogue, Nature – Human dialogue, tolerance, peace, mutual understanding, respect, harmony, philosophizing, globalization, communication, cross-cultural relationship. President of Korean Organizing Committee, Myung-Hyun Lee underlined, for ex.: «We humans are now facing the great challenge of surviving on the planet Earth. We are failing to have a wholesome communication not only with Nature, but also with other humans due to the high barrier of cultural differences. As a result, we are facing the crisis that threatens the sustenance of civilization on the global level… We should grope for the new grammar of integrated thinking and open mind that will lead us into harmony with Nature and other humans enclosed by cultural barriers». President of Seoul National University, Jang-Moo Lee said in his speech that Seoul was an ideal place to unite western and eastern wisdom.

It was evident that the host country was doing its best for the Congress. One of the western participants, Julian Baggini, British well-known scholar and editor of “The Philosophers’ Magazine”, wrote later: “Consider that the Prime Minister, Seung-soo Han, turned up to give one of four congratulatory addresses at the opening ceremony; the Mayor of Seoul hosted the congress banquet; and the Korean media reported widely on it. Many westerners may think the world congress is no big deal, but for Korea, it mattered very much. …That partly reflects the civic-mindedness of Korean culture, but also a genuine belief in the inherent worth of the project”. Here come some first names of authorities.

·  President of Korean Organizing Committee, Myung-Hyun Lee

·  Prime Minister of Korea, Seung-soo Han

·  President of the National Academy of Sciences, Tae Kil Kim

·  President of Seoul National University, Jang-Moo Lee

·  Director-General of UNESCO, Koïchiro Matsuura

·  President of the Congress, Peter Kemp

·  President of Korean Philosophical Association, Dr. Lee Samuel

Baggini: «At the opening ceremony, pride and hope in philosophy were also on display. Myung-Hyun Lee looked to “open up a new way of thinking that helps to surmount today's crisis”; Prime Minister Han thought philosophy was important to fight terrorism and deal with environmental problems; while Jang-Moo Lee, president of Seoul National University, said that “we expect philosophy to teach us not only ways of adapting ourselves to the vicissitudes of the human condition but also the direction in which to steer the human destiny”.

For someone from the Anglophone world, hearing such lofty ambitions for philosophy is quite startling, but a week at the world congress suggests that transatlantic modesty about philosophy's scope and power is the global exception, not the norm. Elsewhere, it seems that people still look to philosophy to provide leadership and guidance, both intellectual and moral». 

Julian Baggini (with Antonio Macaro) put the main question in their «Seoul Searching» as follows: «What of the congress as a whole, the story behind British indifference to the event?.. The scale may be different, but in a way, the world congress follows the 1988 Olympics and 2002 soccer World Cup as examples of Korea's desire to show the globe it is a modern, open and dynamic country. All this reflected the sense of future-facing optimism and affirmation that seems to infuse South Korea. …It was as though we were being welcomed to South Korea first, and the congress second». (Well, it’s quite OK with me. But the fact remains true:  the West feels rather skeptical about it. The East feels the West being rather skeptical. The best of the West strive to gain consensus…)

Baggini: «…you really do need as many of the best people in the field there as possible… sharing knowledge and understanding works more efficiently if those sharing are influential people in strong departments. These are the people who might follow up the congress with invitations to international colleagues to attend conferences, contribute to journals, or come to their departments on sabbaticals».

Jang-Moo Lee: «Diverse regions of the world that have been isolated throughout human history are now beginning to merge into one large global village. We must not forget that the encounter of different cultures is a mixed blessing. It can enrich human spirit by producing new forms of life, ideas, arts, literature and science. At the same time, however, it can produce various forms of violence, which we are in fact witnessing along the borders of disparate cultures…»

Kemp: «As members of this humanity, as citizens of the world, we must recognize that humiliation of others might be the most brutal violence we can practice without directly killing. Economic exploitation of a big part of the world population by a smaller, richer part is a big problem, but not the greatest problem; the greatest problem is the lack of mutual recognition between peoples from different cultures, different language, different history, different race, different religion. It would cost us Europeans and Americans nothing in money or capital to give this recognition. Nevertheless it seems to be much more difficult for us to practice than any renounce of material goods. It demands a humility we do not possess».  Or – do we?

Baggini: «Hardly anyone comes unless they themselves are giving a paper, and getting one accepted isn't difficult. 1,278 gave papers accepted from open submissions, where the rejection rate was very low. As can be imagined, the quality of papers in these sessions varied enormously, as did the attendance… There were three endowed lectures, but whatever their merits, it cannot be said that they were all given by people of the stature one would hope for a quinquennial show-piece conference. The same was also true of the panels for the four plenary sessions…

Derrmot Moran: «In order to give the emerging countries genuine access to the international philosophical community, which is something many explicitly say they want, you have to make sure that the community is properly represented. Otherwise there is the worry that people are given the illusion of membership in the global philosophical community, when the reality is that many of its key members aren't even there».

Was there any eastern reaction to western “humility we do not possess”?

Baggini: «…there was often a curious asymmetry at the congress when it came to the respect shown for other traditions. European and American philosophers would never be heard questioning the inherent value of eastern and African philosophical traditions, but it was not at all unusual to hear western philosophy being blamed for all the ills of the world.

Such sentiments were often heard. “Western logic” was a regular whipping boy, blamed for imposing an excessively rigid, polarising way of thinking on philosophy. An Algerian in one session went so far as to get up and say that the Asian countries should stand together with the Africans and South Americans to reject western philosophers, who had destroyed their philosophies, cultures and religions».

Myung-Hyun Lee announced that the Korean Philosophical Association had endowed a lecture for future conferences to facilitate East-West understanding. It may be needed. I, for one, think that all cultures and civilizations have to get reed of both inferiority and superiority complex. For instance, Ernie LePore «…went to a session of the East Asian Countries Philosophical Associations. “You weren’t there,” he told <Julian> confidently. “You know how I know you weren’t there?  Because I was the only Westerner in the room. There were a couple of hundred philosophers and they were predominantly from Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and China. There were eight presentations, and they were aggressively anti-Western. It was really fascinating sitting there, them basically saying, don’t you characters tell us how to do philosophy. We’ve been doing that for too long.”».

Was the impression entirely wrong? No doubt there was something right about it. Consider, for example, the abstract from the senior Korean philosopher Tae Kil Kim’s speech: «It is sometimes helpful to study theories of philosophers, western and eastern, of all ages have left. But we don’t need to make every effort to understand their difficult theories. It is possible “to think deeper, openly and right with the help of logic” <which he calls philosophizing> without any knowledge of complicated theories of professional philosophers». Is this “wisdom necessary for thoughtful and happier life”…? Well, it’s a question in itself. But, sure enough, it wasn’t in the least anti-Western wisdom.

Baggini: «Anti-western sentiments did not dominate, however. Indeed, western philosophy was clearly of great interest around the world, especially that in the European phenomenological tradition. …some of the most attractive draws were there at the invitation of the Korean Philosophical Association. The likes David Chalmers, Alvin Goldman, Jonathan Israel and Tim Scanlon graced these sessions and elevated the level of the whole conference».

Change often depends on key individuals driving it. Peter Kemp began by arguing that “nevertheless there are today many signs of the vivacity of philosophy, and philosophical thinking still plays an enormous role in the world”. Today’s President of FISP William McBride (USA) concluded by saying that “we have become irrevocably more global”. While Philosophical Train following up the Congress was on the run through Russia, Tomas Mariano Calvo Martinez (Spain) underlined that «there is crucial necessity in rational dialogue today. It should go on between countries, states, and nations. BUT: as we know from ancient Greek philosophers, А) we should reach agreements without violence; B) dialogue must go on without cheating each other; C) rational agreements cannot be made in short time (Triton). Besides, it demands several conditions, from philosophical point of view: “episteme”, or knowledge (all relevant information should be presented in it); good will to have some positive result with no egoism; freedom to speak (Gorgeous)».

To all this I agree with all my mind and heart, taking into consideration one amendment from Peter Kemp’s speech: «There is a much more fundamental human right than the right of freedom of speech, and this is the right of freedom of thought. This freedom of thought was claimed by Voltaire in his Philosophical Dictionary from 1764 and many other European philosophers in the age of Enlightenment. The right to this freedom can be considered as absolute, if by thought is meant an inner conviction or a faith that does not include violence against others. Thus there is an absolute freedom of thought, but not an absolute freedom of expression of thought».

These features should indeed be taken as conditions of rational dialogue of civilizations and cultures nowadays.

And the main philosophical aphorism of the Congress runs as follows: West knows how to earn money for living; East knows how to live.

Thank you. Emily Tajsin.