WRITING SUBJECTS for 12th IPO
<1st Prize Essay>
The will to truth requires critique -let us define our task in this way- the value of truth must for once,
by way of experiment, be called into question¡¦
by Leopold Hess (Poland)
Well, that is a controversial statement, sending a shiver down our spine, isn't it? Instinctively we reject it, as it shakes the fundaments of our culture. How can one call in question the value of truth, or maybe rather Truth (this word was always treated like a sacred one and it feels like a blasphemy to start it with a small letter)? How can one criticize the will to truth? And nevertheless, that is just what Nietzsche did. Was he right?
Almost three millenniums of European history shout: "No". Since the times of Tales, the search of truth has always been the inspiration of human thoughts and deeds, the motor of progress, the parent of philosophy and science. Indeed, we can't imagine our culture developing without it. For all of us, especially for philosophers, the truth was always the most important. As Aristotle said: amicus Plato, sed magna amica veritas. And it means not only that he dared to criticize Plato's philosophy, but also that probably, if it was necessary, he would sacrifice his friend in the name of Truth. And we would understand it.
But still, there are arguments against the truth[1], even if it needs some courage to admit it. The problem with truth is that, if it is to be real, it has to be one and only, absolute Truth. And absolutes hate rivalry. We know it well from our history - the teacher of life, as Cicero said. Europe remembers the burning pyres of John Hus, Giordano Bruno and thousands and thousands of others - the effects of one and only truth of the Church - but still many people were able to believe in one and only truth of Marx or Hitler - and once again masses of victims burned in fire or froze to death in the snows of Siberia. And even today millions starve, so close to Seoul, in the name of truth.
Let's assume these are but tragic accidents. Nevertheless truth is often, as Foucault would say, a mean of power and slavery. It is a source of political and cultural discrimination of ethnic, religious, sexual or any other minorities - even in the so-called liberal democracies. This may sound very leftist, but, unfortunately, it is not an exaggeration. If we believe, as we often do, there is only one true and proper way of life, tolerance and freedom become hollow sounds.
The truth or the will of truth can also be a source of more subtle, 'inner' slavery. Our minds are often bound by opinions, customs etc. which are 'obviously true'. And even if we realize it, we are sometimes not able to think in other way. This is a slavery much worse than a political one.
"But, one might say, truth is a mean of power and slavery, only if we assume that we can know it for sure. And usually we just search the truth, not have it. This gives a field for criticism, freedom and tolerance." You're right, of course, but actually very few people can admit that they don't know the truth for sure and they're still searching (they are sometimes called philosophers¡¦). Most of normal, reasonable people are absolutely sure of what they know and believe. And there's also a bigger problem. If we can only search truth and not have it or know it, how can we ever find it? Isn't the search futile? Aren't we just chasing shadows? Isn't that terribly frustrating? Oh, yes, it is. And in our search of ever-running truth don't we lose something; don't we forget about our lives? Of course, I don't want to say we should just 'cultivate our own garden', like Voltaire wrote in Le Candide. But maybe we should rather search a good life than truth. One could say (e.g. Aristotle) there is no good life without the search for truth. And there is no culture and civilization. But aren't the culture and civilization just sources of suffering and pain, as Rousseau or Freud wrote?
So it seems there might be a conflict between the truth and good life (whatever this might mean)[2]. However the search of truth was always the essence of philosophy. But maybe that was wrong. Maybe we should have replaced metaphysics[3] with ethics (understood very widely as the whole of reflection over our lives) on the throne of "the prime philosophy".[4] Maybe we could live better lives if we considered truth as nothing but a pragmatic instrument. In fact there is quite a lot of philosophers who think like that (e.g. R. Rorty), mainly thanks to Nietzsche (and American pragmatists like James, Dewey or Santayana).
Why would that live without truth and 'will to truth' be better? First of all it would be free. Free of the boundaries of common truths, free of totalitarism and discrimination. Free for tolerance, individual opinions and faith, free for art. Also it could be better, since we would turn all our intellectual effort, frustrated in the vain search of truth, to problems of ethics and our own existence. Maybe we could get closer to Nietzsche's ideal of Superhuman or any other ideal of mankind.
"But, one could say again, without the search of truth, the science is impossible, so the progress and development is impossible." Is it really? Do the modern scientists search the truth or rather the ways of solving problems and satisfying our needs? But let's assume there is no progress without the ideal of truth. Do we really need the progress? Do we need better technologies and machines etc.? Weren't our ancestors happy without computers and cars and without the theory of relativity? Don't get me wrong, I do not think there were more happy than we are, I'm not a hippie, but I think we should not assume they were less happy. Indeed, conditio humana has very little to do with civilization. People from ancient times or from non-European cultures (who did not know our conception of progress or truth) lived in different cultural situations, different societies and political systems, but they were the same people. Of course, some aspects of the human condition do change, sometimes drastically[5]. But some things don't ever change. People always loved and hated, cried and laughed, they always asked the questions "how should I live", "what should I do". And I believe they didn't need, and we do not need in our times, computers and spacecraft, as well as the absolute truth of Christianity, communism or any other, to answer these questions. Thinking that all the people do need these is just another manifestation of the imperialism of truth.
So there are strong arguments against the truth. But there are also ones for it.. Firstly, we don't know if a man can lead a good life without searching for truth and knowledge. It is quite believable this is the actual best and most noble of human activities. And maybe the most natural. All the people, by nature, desire knowledge, says Aristotle. Secondly, the world still needs true ideas of justice and peace and freedom, and ways of achieving them. Thirdly, even if we treat truth as simply pragmatic, we still need it to solve our problems. We need true facts, opinions etc. for practical reasons. So we cannot refute the truth in general, but only redefine it.
Now, after all this, we can ask ourselves: can we or should we call in question the value of truth? But wait a moment - that's just what we did on these pages. After all, calling into question does not mean negation or refutation, just a revision and reconsideration. For many centuries philosophers reviewed and criticized many particular truths - the truths of common sense or religion, the truths of other philosophers. Nietzsche just said that it is time to call into question the very idea of truth. He crossed a certain border and opened a 'meta-level' of reflections on truth[6]. In fact, crossing the borders of thought is the real essence of philosophy.
We should all ask ourselves the question about the value of truth, but the answers have to be individual. Nietzsche rejected the will to truth, considering all truths to be in fact lies, metaphors used to falsify the reality. I wouldn't be so radical. The truth is certainly a value, but only as long as it is not given priority over life and freedom (in a very wide sense of this word). And I still would claim ethics and existential reflection to be more important than metaphysics or any other intellectual activity.
The 12th International Philosophy Olympiad Program
DISCUSSION SUBJECTS for May 21, 2004
"Technopia or Technopoly?"
- On the freedom of human spirit in the new epoch of technology
1. Bio Ethics
Stem cell research has become a popular method to cure formerly incurable illnesses, such as Alzheimer's Disease. Stem cells collected from embryos are valuable resources for doctors to operate on patients with such diseases. However, embryonic stem cells are procured from aborted fetuses. Many people see stem cell research as a dangerous development because it can encourage people to have more abortions, or profit from purposely aborted fetal tissue. What are your opinions on this? Do you think embryonic stem cell research is making the most out of an already dead, unwanted body to help others? Perhaps such a utilitarian stance could help the stem cell research thrive. On the other hand, do we have a right to grossly dehumanize one kind of human being (fetuses) to ensure the well-being of another kind (patients)?
2. The Problems of Technology and Art
With the advancement of technology, infringement of copyright and the protection of intellectual property became one of the most hottest issues debated all around the world. Before the technological advancement of the 20th century, mankind was not very much concerned with the concept of intellectual property, a concept too novel yet to be recognized as dire matter to be addressed. However, the eminence of internet acted as an impetus and brought on a whole new bunch of headache. Concerns over plagiarism, infringement of copyright, and ambiguous application of intellectual property started to become conspicuous in various aspects of society, and conflicts started to arise. In this debate, we would like to challenge the debaters to think about these following points of dispute.
-Material property can be transferred to another person. Do you think intellectual property can be transferred to another person? For example, do you think an author upon his death should have the right to leave as an inheritance to his heir the authorship of all his novels and all the financial profit that could possibly be earned from them? If yes, should generations after generations of that author be allowed to cherish all those rights, even hundreds of years after the death of their ancestor?
-Is the act of on-line trading of mp3's among internet users an unethical act or just a ridiculous outcry of record companies?
-The Merrian-Websters Dictionary defines art, "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects." As you can see from this, art has traditionally been regarded as art when it was something original and creative. With the advancement of technology, many "artists" began to create art through computer technology. Many have started to write songs with the help of song-writing softwares, many digital animations have been created, etc. One of the hottest debated area of this "new art" is parody internet poster one can easily see when surfing the net. Many people, with the help from programs such as Photoshop or Paintshop, have cut out some aspect from a picture ! and others from other pictures, then combined them to create a new picture, usually an absurd or ridiculously bizarre looking work. (For example, one of the most well-known parody poster is one that combined George Bush's head with the body of a monkey to create quite a bizarre picture.) Should these kind of work be also recognized as art? something original, because the creator did create this work assorting various parts from different sources? Or are these just a work of plagiarism and should be disregarded completely?
3. The Future of Human-Machine Relation
Ever since Copernican revolution, the human status in the universe was founded in human intelligence--they asserted human superiority over other entities with respect to the belief that the heavenly body goes round the earth. Several decades ago, the second epistemological revolution occurred with the emergence of computer. While some believe that not only human but also machine has intelligence, others shout for human superiority over machine. Whatever the situation is, it is certain that we are already living in the age of coevolution of human and computer; we are not able to manage our everyday life without computers. This situation leads us to think about the very nature of human mind and what computers should be to us in the near future.
Questions to Consider:
4. Cyber space and online culture
Information related technologies have been developed dramatically over few decades. Especially, Korea has been fortunate enough to be one of the countries where majority of its population have access to the "sea of the information." Moreover, it is interesting that a lot of Koreans not only have access to the online information, but also retain the power to use the tool; the formation of mass opinion by the means of internet. If it weren't for the online communities, Koreans would not have been able to profess and gather opinions about the illegal impeachment done on the president by congressmen on March twelfth. Online technologies made it possible for people to assert what they insisted the most: democracy. As shown, online culture has seriously and widely affected Korean society, and is destined to serve as the instrument that will provide authority to people all over the world.
Here are some questions we can think about:
5. Political and Economic Consequences of Distribution of Technology - What is the significance?
The humanity has achieved a great technological improvement in last three centuries. Despite such development, only a portion of humanity enjoys such progress; distribution of technology has not been an issue compared to development.
An interesting research condenses the Earth to a village with population of 100. In this hypothetical village, 80 people are living in an inadequate environment where basic necessities of life are not met. 70 people are illiterate; 50 are underfed; 1 has received university education, and only 1 person owns a computer. In this village, 6 people own 59 percent of the village's wealth. Expanding this village to a planet of 60 billion inhabitants, this society forms.
I would like to turn this panel's attention to international arena. Out of 200 nations, the majority is considered as "developing states" where the population enjoys less fruits of civilization - including technology. Furthermore, some states are classified as "least developed states" where the state's economy and life status deteriorates. Would distribution of technology solve this problem? If so, how should such distribution occur to satisfy the both extremes?
Questions to consider:
INVITATION
March 14, 2004
Dear [ the Contact Person ] :
It is a great honor for us to inform you that the XII International Philosophy Olympiad will be held in Seoul, Korea, from the 19th to 22nd day of May, 2004. The theme of IPO 2004 will be "Technopia or Technopoly?: On the freedom of human spirit in the new epoch of technology."
We would like to invite [ Country ] to participate in the XII IPO 2004 in Seoul. Each country may send a delegation which consists of two high school students, who are selected through your National Philosophy Olympiad, and one or two teachers who must take a responsibility for the philosophical activities of their students. We expect that [(1) the delegates of [Country] are [ students' & teachers' names ]. (2)[ IPO member] as the leader of [ Country's ] delegation and two delegation students will participate in Seoul IPO 2004. (3) [ new participants or pre-delegation case] the delegation will be created as soon as possible by means of your careful concern for the spirit of IPO.
Korean Organizing Committee will provide accommodation and meals of the official days of IPO 2004 and cover the cost for all activities in the official program of IPO 2004, while the participants from abroad will have to bear their own travel cost to Seoul, Korea.
The day of philosophical essay contest will be on Thursday, May 20, 2004. When the delegation students write their essay with a computer for four hours, they may refer their own language dictionary. Students should write the philosophical essay in a language other than their mother tongue. The official languages of the contest are English, French and German. Their essays will be evaluated by the five criteria: coherence, persuasive power of argumentation, philosophical knowledge, originality, and relevance to the topic. The essay topics of IPO will not be related to the theme of IPO suggested by the hosting country. The theme of IPO 2004, however, will be the main subject for the conference, student discussion, and all other educational activities.
All delegates are expected to arrive in Seoul by the afternoon of Wednesday, May 19, 2004. The official program of the XII IPO and the delegation information form are attached with this official invitation letter. In order to inquire more information about IPO in general and the XII IPO 2004 in Seoul, participants are welcome to visit our IPO website, < www. philosopiad.org >, and can communicate with other international participants, including the IPO steering committee members, through the internet.
Please let us know the confirmation of attendance of the [ Country's ] delegation, as soon as possible. When we receive the delegation information form and the specific information of your delegates' arrival and departure, we will arrange all the details for their convenience and email to them directly. For this process, please contact to our executive director, professor Ji-Aeh Lee (Department of Philosophy, Ewha Womans University, 11-1 Daehyun-dong, Seodaemun-ku, Seoul 120-750, Korea/ Tel:+82-2-3277-2214, +82-018-212-8941/ Fax:+82-2-364-7855/ Email: jiaehlee@ewha.ac.kr).
We all look forward to meeting the [Country's ] delegation in Seoul IPO, and also appreciate your thoughtful care and productive help of the International Philosophy Olympiad, for the peaceful global community in the future.
With best regards,
Cordially Yours,
- - - - - - - - - -
Prof. Dong-Hyun Son
President of the Korean Organizing Committee of the XII IPO 2004
Department of Philosophy, Sung Kyun Kwan University, Seoul 110-745, Korea
Tel: +82-2-760-0319, +82-010-3019-8485/ Email: sondnhn@skku.ac.kr
- - - - - - - - - -
PROGRAM of the XII IPO 2004
| Morning Program | Afternoon Program | Evening Program | |
| (1) Wednesday May 19 | |||
| (2) Thursday May 20 | |||
| (3) Friday May 21 | |||
| (4) Saturday May 22 |
The XII International Philosophy Olympiad 2004 in Seoul KOREA
(www.philosopiad.org)
Date: May 19(Wed) - 22(Sat), 2004
Theme: "Technopia or Technopoly?"
- On the freedom of human spirit in the new epoch of technology
Place: Ewha Womans University (www.ewha.ac.kr)
Lodge: SangNam Institute of Management, Yonsei University (http://sim.yonsei.ac.kr)