The value of individualism lies in its promotingthe possibility of selfrealisation: the idea, very roughly, that people should maximize their abilities and potentialities, thus becoming all they can be. You do this through the choices you make and your willingness to learn from those choices. However, it can’t be that any choice counts as self-realisation. If absolutely anything you do counts as self-realisation, then the idea of self-realisation is vacuous.

The overall nature of a world congress is a combination of the perennial features of its structure and the particular character given by its host. This was the first congress to be heldin Asia in the gathering’s 108 year history, and in the grand auditorium of Seoul National University, it was as though we were being welcomed to South Korea first, and the congress second.

One often forgets that the economical, technological and military powers do not possess the monopoly of power in the world. Philosophical argumentation and reflection constitute a non-economic, 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 a dwelling for humanity.

The radical view, the view we’re kind of pushing, is that the iPhone can be seen literally as a part of my mind. I actually remember things: in virtue of this information being in the iPhone, it is part of my memory. The iPhone isn’t just a tool for my cognition, it’s part of my cognition.

It’s quite unlike anything else. One just gets the sense of a breadth and variety of philosophy that’s going on. I’m making a point of going on the whole to sessions in areas which aren’t close to my specialised scholarly interests and hearing people from countries I don’t normally encounter. One could stick to mainstream Anglo-American analytic philosophy – there’s enough of that going on here – but why come all this way for that?

How you can respect a culture with blood feuds? A culture with polygamy? It’s not possible. You can be rightly against something or wrongly against it, but if you are against something, you cannot respect it. If you say that you respect it, it would be hypocritical.

There’s not only indifference, there’s actually a huge sense of sneering superiority. The need for intercultural understanding and global dialogue between different philosophical traditions and philosophical countries is so important. It’s just crazy to think that in your own monoglot culture you’ve got all the essential tools that you need to do philosophy.

Most linguists think that there are infinitely many sentences, that languages are productive and systematic. Maybe the most remarkable achievement of our lives is that we learn this thing with infinite power. But the whole thing hangs on those sentences being built up out of their components, which are words. So it’s not even clear what one of the more striking theses in the development of linguistics over the last half century signifies or means without an account of the atoms, so to speak, out of which we build these things.

One does not need to hold that western philosophy, or some subset of it, is superior to other kinds in order to worry about whether different strands of philosophy can meaningfully engage in dialogue together. Nor do these worries necessarily entail any arrogance. We can always learn form others, but that does not mean we should not prioritise some encounters over others.

I’m one of the biggest enemies of analytical philosophy there are. I think it’s a complete waste of time. I think it’s even a contradiction in terms to imagine that there can be a real philosophy which answers to basic universal human questions and values, which is not historically based. It’s an idea that doesn’t make sense, even if some people hold it.

It was only after the liberation in 1945 that we started to reflect and revive again our traditional philosophy. But for a long time it was neglected. Many of our universities did not teach oriental philosophy or Korean philosophy at all. We learned Heiddegger, Nietzsche, Hegel, Kant.

A central group of questions are questions of an evaluative nature having to do with beliefs. What I want to say is, what we should focus on is; what are good ways of organising social practices and social institutions that are good from the point of view of what people believe, and help them get true beliefs or be informed, and then avoid making mistakes.

The whole purpose of the UN is to bring nations together. In an era of globalisation and short term economic goals and values, we need to go back to reflect on the purposes of UNESCO as a place for foresight, a laboratory of ideas, exploring people’s identity and helping shape this. And I also hope that we can introduce these ideas backto the mainstream European and North American traditions, which tend to dominate, so that people can see there are different traditions and cultures and there’s not only one way to see the world.