Specific character of globalization can be understood only in connection with deep crisis of the nation-state and thus with sovereignty. The sovereignty organically includes territory. During globalization territory factor is not anymore the key principle of social and cultural life. Such phenomenon as Islamic fundamentalism (Islamism) fits quite well the structure of the theory of globalization in postmodernist interpretation. For Islamism as a subject of the world order the determining identity (as sets of the ontological aims determining its outlook and purposes of political activity), i.e. determining, basic, fundamental to self-determination and activities is a creation of the Islamic world order, the world of Caliphate. Thus the Islamic fundamentalism focuses on universal nature of its identity. This activity ignores norms of international law and denies its key positions, such as state sovereignty, territorial integrity, firmness of borders, etc. Tolerance is an integral feature of the sovereignty. Weakening of sovereignty in conditions of globalization causes danger of strengthening of intolerance. Recognition of uniqueness, peculiarity and other civilization identity is a key to peaceful settlement of problems in conditions of the new global order as well as to establishment of philosophy of tolerance.

Although the accelerated globalization of recent decades has flourished in tandem with a notable growth of liberal democracy in many states where it was previously absent, it would be hard to say that the prevailed processes of neo-liberal globalization foster development of global democracy and the rule of law. On the contrary, globalization has undercut traditional liberal democracy and created the need for supplementary democratic mechanisms. In fact, neo-liberalism i.e.libertarianism, which has generally prevailed as the authoritative policy framework in contemporary globalization, does not have much in common with the ideal of liberal democracy of well-ordered society. The serious problem in the relationship between democracy and globalization is, however, related to differences among the global cultures and/or civilizations. Democratic rule of law and the problem of human rights are unquestionable values of the Western civilization. Do they have the same significance in each culture/civilization, in every part of the globalized world? Democratic control of globalization can be completed only through a sort of global governance, but who can realize it in our divided world?

This paper argues that the possibility of global justice is premised on the solutions of three-fold interrelated problems: (1) problem of heterogeneity, (2) problem of inequality, (3) problem of realpolitik. The problem of heterogeneity questions the assumed globality equated as universality or commonality underpinning global justice in lieu of the empirical human diversity and plurality that cannot be assumed away by the desirability of the normativity of global justice. The problem of inequality highlights the ineradicability of global inequality as a pervasive fact of international life. It also criticizes the fairness argument that tries to make do with the ineradicable inequalities as long as they work towards the least advantaged members of global society mainly by rendering such an attempt as futile considering the inapplicability of principles of justice, Rawls's difference principle for example, in the global context; the unwillingness of powerful states to relinquish their hierarchical positions in the global political structure that benefit them; and the difficulty of not knowing what in/equality would mean for the least well-off when the fairness argument is granted. The problem of realpolitik makes the subordination of realpolitik (power and interest) to idealpolitik (justice)unwarranted given that the global realities point to the converse of subordination, especially the realities of the hierarchical structure of global politics and its concomitant unequal power relations.

Korea Wave means the vigorous drive toward Korean mass culture among the young generation of East Asian countries. The Korea Wave has had great socio-cultural and economic effects on China and East Asian countries and even made a new word 'Hawhanzoo (哈韓族)' which mean the Korea Wave fan. The most important characteristic of the Korea Wave is that the followers are the young generation of the upper classes of those regions who are apt to learn and use the Internet and the culture of the Information Age. This means that the future leaders of the East Asia countries are sympathizing with the characteristics of modern Korean culture and its vision. They are absorbing positively the Korea Wave as their spiritual foundation upon which their world views and valuejudgments are conglomerated. In this article I'd like to consider new possibilities in the Korea Wave which pave roads to a cultural community around East Asia in the age of information. Therefore, I will analyze three dimensions of Korea Wave which are material, symbolic and experiential dimensions.

This is a comparative study on the 20th's century's Western philosophy Hannah Arendt(1906-1975) and the 16th century's Eastern Confucian thinker Wang Yang-ming(1472-1529). Wang-ming was a Neoconfucian thinker of the 16th century China. In his time, Chinese intellectual world was dominated by Neoconfucian Ch’eng-Chu School which laid much stress on scholastic work of learning. Yang-ming saw a huge obstacle of intellectualism in Ch’eng-Chu school’s theoretical scholasticism that emphasized overly book-learning to be required on the way to become a genuine person. He recognized this kind of rigidintellectualism as the true reason for the dichotomy in his time between knowledge and action, between learning and life, and between selfcultivation and social practice. According to his view, the dichotomy brought about serious political corruption and oppressed human creativity up to the point of total institutionalization of “truth”. Hannah Arendtwas sickened under the severe totalitarianism of the 20th century, especially as a Jew under the German Nazism. She undertook an extensive analysis of how Western civilization generated totalitarian imperialism, fascism, and communism, going through the modern times, all of which made human beings’ language and action superfluous, erupted, and destroyed. Through these experiences, she became disgusted with traditional Western hierarchy of thinking and doing, philosophy and politics, theory and practice, in short, vita contemplativa and vita activa. Although they both lived far away from each other in space and time and used completely different languages, they both, in my view, shared many common problems and concerns, not only in the contents of their thoughts but also in the way and form of construction of thoughts. To the similar extent that people were warned and judged by both thinkers respectively in their times of the totalitarianism of making human beings superfluous and puppet-like, we human beings in the 21st century are considered to be threatened by the totalitarian nullification caused by modern utilitarianism, automation, consumerism, etc. These principles are practiced limitlessly and boundlessly, so that our whole lives of politics, culture, and education are now suffering from that threat. It is my conviction that we can acquire some guide and wisdom from the twothinkers of East and West, because they discovered possible solutions of how to restore and revive human beings’ capacities of thinking and judging, and how to bring action and doing.

German idealist philosopher J. G. Fichte (1762‐1814), as an heir to Kant, sought to uniformity of reason in his own philosophical system Wissenschaftslehre. However, the political implications of his philosophy have dual aspects. The first is his own political theory presented in accordance with his philosophical principles. The second is a set of political influences concerning his practical position together with his philosophy. By and large it has been the second aspect that Fichte’s nationalistic perspectives were interpreted upon. So the political implications of his philosophy have been frequently reduced as a prophet of ethnic German nationalism and Nazism. But we need to distinguish his systematic theory from the influences resulted from his practical attitudes. Because he proposed an alternative idea of nationalism built on the basis of his philosophical principles. In reference to ‘nationality’, what Fichte has in mind was the activeness of man and the universality of the structure which operates while he or she is acting. For Fichte, activeness of consciousness and life are the one thing. With this presupposition, ‘nationality’ is conceptualized as the phase of commonness and reciprocity that comes into being among the self-forming conscious beings. Therefore his idea of ‘nationality’ couldn’t be grasped all in primordial dimension such as in ethnic nationalism. The original and fundamental base of nationality is man’s acting power working constantly toward perfection of man himself.

Democracy as one of the forms of a governance and political process is at the same time a political value. The value’s aspects of democracy are closely connected with the character of democratic political regime, democratic process and democratic political culture of society. in the structure of democratic values one may roughly point out horizontal facet of them and vertical one. Horizontal values include following values: general social domain; the sphere of political institutions; the aspects of political process and procedures; cultural sphere. As a rule, these values are out of doubt, though this fact doesn’t preclude there critic from various opponents of democracy. On the contrary, it’s a hierarchy of democratic values, which is the vertical facet of them is the point at scientific andpolitical debates. This fact also causes various approaches to democracy. The problems of democratic values inseparably linked with the questions about there universal character. Under an analysis of the universal character of democratic values it’s necessary to take into account its socioantropological aspect. The point is about developing essence of the human being under the impact of diverse internal and external factors.

Carl Schmitt’s Roman Catholicism and Political Form (1923) features a term, the importance of which political philosophy is yet to fathom. This notion is complexio oppositorum, describing Catholicism as “a complex of opposites”. Upon theorizing the complex as a non-dialectical, non-synthetical unity, I will graft its structure onto the concept of culture and its recent political incarnation, multiculturalism. I will argue that in order to remain a viable political concept, multiculturalism has to preserve an antagonistic composition, which will allow for 1) a concretion of the Schmittian understanding of culture as a plurality and 2) a non-consensusbased process of negotiating cultural co-existence.

The inequality as a social problem was in focus of attention of social philosophers since the early years of modern history when a person has ceased to perceive the social hierarchy as pre-established one and has understood the opportunity of its re-determination. Investigators studied in detail different aspects of the problem but their discussions were centered on the question about foundation of inequality. I argue that if we allow the possibility of change of the social positions as the main characteristic of contemporary society the primary attention should be directed on what criteria this or that society is ranged of its members andhow is it possible for a person or for a group/community to change its own position. The object of my paper is to drawn the possible strategies of work on inequality and to explore of what might be used to overcome of inequality. I consider it is possible to distinguish three groups of strategies in use to work through a problem of inequality: (1) The strategies of overcoming of inequality; (2) The strategies of maintenance of inequality; (3) The strategies of justification of inequality. These strategies will examine about how they could be applied and what outcomes it would be followed with. Special attention will give to the ideas formulated by P. Bourdien, F. Fukuyama, F. Parkin of those ways thanks to which equality/inequality are balanced. In conclusion I raise the question of the overcoming of inequality in light of the stable development of human society.

The inequality as a social problem was in focus of attention of social philosophers since the early years of modern history when a person has ceased to perceive the social hierarchy as pre-established one and has understood the opportunity of its re-determination. Investigators studied in detail different aspects of the problem but their discussions were centered on the question about foundation of inequality. I argue that if we allow the possibility of change of the social positions as the main characteristic of contemporary society the primary attention should be directed on what criteria this or that society is ranged of its members and how is it possible for a person or a group/community to change its own position. The object of my paper is to drown the possible strategies of work on inequality and to explore of what might be used to overcome of inequality. I consider it is possible to distinguish three groups of strategies in use to work through a problem of inequality: (1) The strategies of overcoming of inequality; (2) The strategies of maintenance of inequality; (3) The strategies of justification of inequality. These strategies are examined about how they could be applied and what outcomes of them would be followed with. Special attention is given to the ideas formulatedby P. Bourdien, F. Fukuyama, F. Parkin of those ways thanks to which equality/inequality are balanced. In conclusion I raise the question of the overcoming of inequality in light of the stable development of human society.

The plank of the dependency theory is that unless there is a transition to socialism and a complete break with the metropolitan countries, the peripheral status of the dependent countries would continue. After the Second World War with the emergence of many new nations, as a consequence of decolonization, the question of development assumed paramount importance for these countries. Raul Prebisch (1950) understood the nineteenth century paradigm of free trade as inoperative and disadvantageous to the raw materials exporting countries. The spectacular success of the Newly Industrialized countries‐ Hong Kong,Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan by integrating with the developed nations, have achieved a higher standard of living and negated the basic assumptions of the dependency theory.

In most countries, failed criminal attempts are punished less severely than those that succeed. Many philosophers, including myself, have argued that differential punishment can be justified. However, in a recent paper, Hanna raises objections to defenses of differential punishments, claiming that such policy goes against our “desert intuitions” and also cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds. I argue in this paper that Hanna’s desert-based and utilitarian objections can be undermined. Further, they are valid only within moral theories that take the agent to be an independent self, whose responsibility rests on his or her intentions and deliberations alone. However, differential punishment can be justified in a different kind of moral theory, in which there are good reasons to giveluck a role to play.

John Dewey’s stay in Tokyo in early 1919 coincided with the height of the social movement calling for parliamentary democracy in Japan. His lectures at Tokyo Imperial University offered a new way of viewing the world and human actions that emphasizes the importance of communication and the growth of democratic personality. Those who expected to hear from him something else were disillusioned. But the disillusionment was mutual. Dewey was disillusioned by the Japanese intellectuals whose affection for European philosophy led them to an uncritical acceptance of the emperor system and Japan’s imperialism abroad. His criticism toward the Japanese intellectuals grew severe as he saw the Japanese aggression while he was on the continent. Dewey’s lecture on democracy left some impact on a few of intellectuals who modified their view of person’s actions that was eventually to be crashed when Japan fell into the all-out war-making.

Biopolitics, originally interpreted as the subfield of political science focusing on biological (evolutionary) factors involved in political behavior, has faced conceptual and organizational differences during the forty-year period of its development. It has recently been redefined as the totality of all applications of biology to social and political concepts, problems and practical issues and concerns. In these new terms, biopolitics represents a promising interdisciplinary area of research, whose potential with respect to political philosophy and political science is exemplified by its application to the following issues: (i) Collective violence (war, terrorism, etc.); (ii) Ethnocentrism; (iii) Hierarchies and networks: and (iv) Neurochemical factors of social behavior. The prerequisite for the successof biopolitics is its collaboration with the humanities and social sciences in investigating the multi-level “Homo politicus”.

The purpose of this essay is to identify the characters of Ham's philosophy that have been formed through the historical process of the encounter between the Eastern and Western civilizations. Views of the academics on Ham have been divided in two; those who regard Ham as a philosopher characterizing oriental Korean cultural thought, and those who see him with the characteristics of Christianity and Western modern cultural thought. In this essay I will show that Ham formed an integrated thought which interweaves the Eastern and Western cultures and minds through accepting the Western Christian modern mind but with theoriental identity of Korean culture. Also, I will clarify the characteristics of Korean modern history as a process of the encounter between the Eastern and Western civilizations. I then discuss the way the basic elements of the Eastern and Western cultural thoughts were accepted and integrated in Ham's thoughts, in line with Korean modern history. This essay also reveals that Logos in Western Greek philosophy, the Word in Christianity (“agape”, love), Tao in Eastern Asia, and Han (Great one) of the Han people (Koreans) were the core concepts and principles of Ham’s philosophy. His main statement, “Thinking people will survive” can be confirmed by the Logos; his core concepts “will” and “love” in the Word; his organic oneness of thought that unifies process and purpose, and the comparative and the absolute, in the Tao (Way); and his integrated philosophy that covers the Eastern and Western, the old and the new, the material and the spiritual,and the individual and the group, in Han.

A Skeptical View of the Liberal Peace reflects on the place of democracy in the global community. The article pays particular attention to the widespread assumption that there is an inherent relationship between democracy and peace, and that peace most assuredly is derived from democracy itself. I find these assertions to be highly questionable and overstated. Reflection on the philosophy which underpins these claims can only be helpful for international relations. In particular, given the United States’ apparent imperialistic urge to force democracies on other nations as Iraq, the article seems especially timely.

Different conceptions of social philosophy were divided and polarized in different variants: from biological reductionism (the attempt to explain social phenomena in terms of biology) to sociocentrism. The approach V. A. Vazulin’s conception of “The Logic of History” makes it possible to concretize the dialectic of the natural (including the biological) and the social. The creative development of the method of scientific investigation made it possible to reveal the inner systematic interconnection of laws and categories of social theory which reflect the structure of developed society; it also made it possible to outline thetheoretical periodization of human history (the objective laws of its “ascent” from the very beginning, emergence, formation, to maturity) through a prism of interconnections of natural and social factors. The conception of “The Logic of History” opens a stage in the successive dialectical development of social philosophy by sublating historical materialism and the formation approach. The structure of society as a whole is a multi‐level, hierarchical and subordinated system, the organic whole of interconnected elements, relations and processes. The historical process is regarded as a gradual transformation of the natural (including the biological) by the social, i.e., as a social “sublation” of the latter by the former. The stages in the process of development are analyzed here: as theunity of the natural (including the biological) and the social; as a process of emergence of the social from the natural; as the transformation of thenatural by the social.

A modern stage of globalization is a historical and logical continuation of “an economical social formation” (K.G. Marx), a civilization (L.G. Morgan). The analysis of this globalization in philosophy and social sciences has an extremely contradictory character which is law-governed in the modern society. Modern globalization has been showing itself as a qualitatively new historical process since 1991. Judging from the positions of the dialectical materialistic theory of history (K.G. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin and others) it by its essence has got a postneoimperialistic, antagonistic character. It’s main features, attributes has been revealed. It doesn’t solve any sharp global problems, but only aggravated and intensifies them. This globalization has greatly increased, made inhuman the process of “cosmopolitization” which developed during the whole existence of capitalism and imperialism. A total degradation and dehumanization of a social person have been taking place, interstate and civil burst into flames, mass disturbances arise, hundreds thousands of people die, genocide and depopulation of some peoples on the planet become “normal” including the countries of the UIS. Destructive process of modern globalization with the USA as the main “player” together with corresponding international institutions (WTO, ICF, World bank, NATO and other), TNC have been resisted in a definite way by antiglobalizing andalterglobalizing movement in many countries on the planet.

The so-called “war on terror” launched by the United States following 9/11 is only the latest in an ongoing strategy of responding to conflict around the world with military violence and armed force. These interventions appear to be premised on a belief that there is no alternative to using violence and armed force to resolve conflicts because human beings have fixed and unchanging identities which are either “with us or against us,” “friends or enemies,” “good or evil.” In contrast, despite the pervasiveness of violent conflict, suffering and human rights violations in their homelands, it is striking to note how a number of prominent Buddhist political and spiritual leaders remain optimistic about the possibilities of positive peace in the world. In exploring the reasons for these differences, I will focus on the views of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the spiritual and political leader of the government of Tibet in exile and the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize as well as the congressional gold medal, as well as those of two other Buddhist leaders: Daw Aung Sang Suu Kyi, the democratically elected leader of Burma who has been held under house arrest by the ruling military junta for several years since her election in 1989, and the Vietnamese Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh, who has worked for peace in his country since the start of the Vietnam War. As I will show, their views reflect starkly different assumptions about human beings, “enemies” in particular, that provide a more constructive framework for resolving conflict situations than those evident in the seemingly automatic resort to armed violence employed by US leaders.

In my 1990 work – Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice – I argued for four modifications of Rawls’s principles of social justice and rendered a modified version of his theory in four principles, the first of which is the Basic Rights Principle demanding the protection of people’s security and subsistence rights. In both his Political Liberalism (1993) and Justice as Fairness (2001) Rawls explicitly refers to my version of his theory, clearly accepting three of my four proposed modifications but rejecting the fourth ‐‐ the demand for social and economic (in addition to political) democracy – on grounds that it automatically justifies socialism as opposed to capitalism. I argue, contrary to Rawls, that it is not true that this demand automatically picks (democratic) socialism as the preferablesocioeconomic/political system and that a Social and Economic Democracy Principle demanding workplace and neighborhood democracy is officially neutral between these two systems … although plausible empirical assumptions may, indeed, favor the former. I then significantly elaborate my second version of Rawls’s theory of social justice which is composed of the following principles arranged in a very strong order of priority (if not quite a lexical order): (1) Basic Rights Principle, (2) Equal Basic Liberties Principle, (3) Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle, (4) Modified Difference Principle, and (5) Social and Economic DemocracyPrinciple. I argue that this elaborated version of the theory – which I call “Justice as Fair Rights” – is better than either Rawls’s original theory or my previous versions of it.