This paper addresses the current revival of Confucianism in China. It analyzes its political issues and outcomes, underlines the possible defects in Confucianism as a theory of politics, i.e., as a science and art of government and a public ethics. It looks back to the dialectical relationship between Confucius and Mencius and shows how the presence of Confucianist elements in 20th-century politics contributed to shape the public and political sphere in contemporary China. The strains between revolutionary and reformist orientations through the last century are still at work in current social movements and reflected in political debates.

In opposition to the absolutist ethics of non-violence, the author argues that in response to aggression and violence one has to use every means possible to prevent them. To resist violence is a moral duty of the individual. It would be desirable for violence to be prevented by strength of mind, but if strength of mind is not enough or the aggressor is insensitive to intellectual, spiritual and psychological impacts, one has to employ by accretion all necessary means. Ethics is called upon to set limits to the employment of the means of countering violence.

Ian Hacking sets out a parallel between Michel Foucault's thought and that of Giulio Preti based on the debate between them that took place in 1971. This is the speech given at the award of the ‘Giulio Preti’ Prize in November 2008.

The scholarship of Confucianism in China is in the process of restoration. Its historical missions are two-fold. It should preserve Chinese national characters and promote China's modernization. These objectives are partly in conflict with each other. To realize the former objective, it is necessary to stress a historical continuity and consistency, to re-examine and justify the preservation of classical Confucian ideas and values in order to provide spiritual support for Chinese cultural identity and social cohesion. As to the latter objective, it is necessary to reinterpret some part of the classical ideas and values and link them with the modern values such as liberty, justice and democracy. This essay analyzes the position of three Confucianist scholars, Jiang Qing, Chen Ming and Kang Xiaoguang, to show the different balances between conservatism and reformers when their writings confront the challenges of modernization and globalization.

Slogans have always been highly popular in China. They are extensively used in politics, as a typical form of public behavior. They are the most convenient and practical means of mobilizing people. Many political slogans or posters are still fresh in the memories of those who experienced the years of war or revolution in China. The most familiar slogans for people these days are those of the Communist Party of China, which exerted an enormous influence on people's lives.

The English word ‘slogan’ has two corresponding meanings in Chinese: ‘slogan’ and ‘poster’. Slogans are designed to be chanted, exclaimed or shouted by people in public, thus appealing to people's sense of hearing. Posters are designed to be written, and hence appeal to people's sense of vision. This paper explores political slogans from the viewpoint of logics. It analyzes their stipulative structure and the implicit presuppositions they contain. It argues that, from a formal point of view, effective slogans should be free from logical fallacy, easy to remember, and rationally demonstrable.

This paper presents some perspectives in contemporary epistemology, relating in particular to the links between contextualism and interdisciplinary approaches. The author considers the role played by different theories of context in the frame of a social epistemology.

The author discusses the evolution of Heidegger's conception of science and brings out its limits as well as its possible developments. An eminent representative of contemporary thinking in the theory of knowledge, Paolo Parrini stands in a line of critical realism in the Kantian neopositivist tradition. This paper returns to and develops the lectio delivered at the award of the ‘Giulio Preti’ Prize in November 2008.

The relationship between community and individual is the key issue in contemporary political philosophy and ethics. The concept of self seems very important for individualism, communitarianism and feminism when they respond to relationships, particularly when we have to situate selfhood in the conditions of modernity. Consequently, this paper can be divided into seven parts. First it introduces the debate about the concept of the self between individualism and communitarianism. Second, it discusses the feminist critique of this issue and analyses the feminist concept of self, and then addresses modernity as the condition of women. Next it attempts to analyze how women situate themselves in the conditions of modernity. Then it discusses how Chinese women are reshaping their selfhood under the conditions of modernity, and finally draws some brief conclusions claiming that neither communitarian nor individualist self is adequate in contemporary society. Chinese women, it is argued, are expected to reshape their own selfhood resting on the positive side of Confucian ethics and a feminist concept of self.

This paper analyzes why philosophy of religion can surprisingly be considered a rather new field in Russian philosophy. While religion has played a major role in modern Russian culture, the philosophy of religion is still searching a precise definition of its object and domain. Initially, Russian philosophies of religion were inspired by Western influential works, whereas philosophy of religion is barely considered as distinct from theology. As such, philosophy of religion presents a double origin: in a wide sense, it coincides with philosophy, while in a more specific sense its origins are to be found in the modern era. From this point of view, Spinoza is seen as a seminal author for this field of work. This conception is analyzed and used to draw some perspective for the development of philosophy of religion in Russia.

Basing herself on Indian and Chinese traditions, the author provides arguments in favour of revising the customary understanding of philosophy per se. The nonexistence of uniformity in the methods of cognition cannot be taken as evidence for the phenomenon of ‘philosophy’ missing outside the Western world. In the East, one can witness fidelity to the broad interpretation of ‘philosophy’, etymologically much nearer to this concept, presuming, along with rationality, the authority of other sources of knowledge. Philosophy came into the world not once but a number of times and in various places. From the outset it bore out, along with common generic traits, its specific ‘patrimonial’ characteristics; in other words, those revealing its own culture. In its turn, each culture is built up around a certain ‘frame’ made up of universal conceptual constituents. The history of philosophy would remain incomplete and one-sided (with a ‘Western bias’) until it ignores the fundamental universals of other cultures. Even the universals and values recognized as common to all mankind are frequently imbued with basically different substance depending on a context of relevant culture. The reappraisal of the history of philosophy should make the teaching system of philosophy multicultural.

This paper presents a review of the main trends of contemporary political philosophy in China. First, it provides a general picture of the presence of contemporary western political philosophy in China. It shows how the different political positions (New Left, liberalist, conservative) relate to the different stances adopted before Western authors, and focuses in particular on the reception of Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss in China's academic and cultural circles. Second, it provides an account of what might be contemporary Chinese political philosophers’ unique contributions to political theory. It pays particular attention to two Chinese scholars, Gan Yang and Zhao Tingyang. While both of them specialize in western philosophy, they neither echo western political philosophy nor repeat traditional Chinese political thought, but, rather, commit themselves to a transformation of Chinese tradition thought, in order to figure out some original and debatable theories. By focusing on analyzing these philosophers’ ideas and influences, the author hopes to answer two distinct but interrelated questions: how and why are they are so fashionable or popular, and whose thought might retain some pertinence in the context and issues of Chinese political tradition and the existing political practices.

Since the early nineties, the term ‘civilization’ has undergone remarkable transformations and has assumed political and ideological functions it has not been fit for as a linchpin of the more than two-centuries-old academic discourse on ‘civilizations’. These transformations materialized in the political-ideological formations known as the ‘clash of civilizations’ and the ‘dialogue among civilizations’ which comprise a ‘civilizational discourse’ in many respects alternative to the academic one. This essay intends, firstly, to uncover the structural and thematic differences between the academic ‘civilizational discourse’ and its trendy alternative. Secondly, the essay aspires to demonstrate how complementary, at their methodological and ideological bases, the ‘clash of civilizations’ and the ‘dialogue among civilizations’ are, despite their highly-publicized antagonism. Thirdly, the article aims to highlight the actual political processes underway in our world which manifest themselves through and make use of the alternative ‘civilizational discourse’ as part of their modus operandi. The essay ties these processes with the global triumph of capitalism at the closure of the 20th century, and with the rise of the projects of authoritarian hegemony.

This paper sketches the ambitious outlines of an assessment of the place of Russian philosophy in philosophical history ‘at large’, i.e. on a global and world-historical scale. At the same time, it indicates, rather modestly, a number of elements and aspects of such a project. A retrospective reflection and reconstruction is not only a recurrent phenomenon in philosophical culture (which, the author assumes, has become global), it also is, by virtue of its being a philosophical reflection, one among many possible perspectives. The central claim of the paper is that the key to an assessment of the world-historical place of Russian philosophy is to be found in the Soviet period, not only because it was, through its isolation policy and its subordination of philosophy to political and ideological goals, a determining factor for a large part of the 20th century, but also, and more importantly, because it has systematically distorted the perception of Russia's philosophical history, including of the Soviet episode itself. The very undoing of these distortions, however, risks becoming a distortion because of, on the one hand, a demonization of the Soviet factor and, on the other hand, a disregard for its philosophical and meta-philosophical relevance.