There is a direct relationship between epistemology and one's attitude toward those with whom one disagrees. Those who think that the truth is difficult to ascertain can be expected, other things equal, to tend to tolerate (in the sense of sympathizing with) those with whom they disagree, as the blameless victims of an opaque reality. Those who think that the truth is easy to ascertain can be expected, other things equal, to tend to be intolerant (in the sense of being (...) unsympathetic) toward those with whom they disagree, who perversely refuse to acknowledge what should be clear to any well-intentioned inquirer. However, these tendencies toward tolerant or intolerant attitudes can be offset by other factors; and they do not, in any case, necessarily dictate whether one will favor tolerant or intolerant policies regarding those toward whom one feels tolerant or intolerant. The complex relationship between epistemology, tolerant or intolerant attitudes, and tolerant or intolerant policies is evident in the thought of prominent early-modern Protestant theologians who, under the pressure of rampant and violent religious disagreement, theorized tolerance. (shrink)

Many different views on the problem of “war” and “peace” were substantively explored for several millennia. From our point of view, the theoretical and empirical basis of “war” and “peace” was made up principally from research in three areas: Religion, ethics, philosophy and psychology, as comprehension of the normative-evaluative categories of good and evil; Philosophy, political science, sociology and jurisprudence, in the theories of international relations; History, fiction as well as documentary, memoir, reference, technical literature on the subject of “war” (...) and “peace.” For such a significant amount of time, there was a wealth of factual and theoretical material accumulated in each of the three areas of research, which highlights the problem of “war” and “peace” in all variety of its meanings. To understand the scope of coverage and a range of research on the problem of “war” and “peace,” as well as the level of achievements in this field, let us briefly examine the history of “war” and “peace” in each of these three areas, proposed by us. (shrink)

Tianxia and renlei mingyun gongtongti are two Chinese concepts that are of significance for reflecting on ‘China and Global Development.’ Both present a revival of cosmopolitanism in China, while accompanied by a calling for Chinese rejuvenation. In defining cosmopolitanism in terms of two intrinsic conditions – common community and universal equality – I argue that cosmopolitanism rooted in the Chinese philosophical tradition may provide a distinct solution to the equality condition from the Western liberal-individualist ones. I propose the notion of (...) Confucian relational equality. There is indeed ‘inequality’ for the roles in a relation, in the sense that obligations and norms of conduct are defined differently and accomplished co-dependently. However, ideally, all full-fledged person-ings (understood as life stories in a society in a given historical period) are constituted by a dynamic and unfolding manifold of always specific relations concretized by various social roles, and usually do bear a comparable amount of functionally equivalent primary roles. As roles co-emerge among person-ings, relational equality is only possible when roles are continuously generated and sustained by transmission, which entails that community with a history, rather than an abstract and ontological individual, is a prerequisite. (shrink)