VNU.JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, soc., SCI., HUMAN., Np5E, 2006CONFLICT BETW EEN CULTURAL WORLD OUTLOOKS IN THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION: SOME REASONS AND SOLUTIONS IN PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINT Globa
Trang 1VNU.JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, soc., SCI., HUMAN., Np5E, 2006
CONFLICT BETW EEN CULTURAL WORLD OUTLOOKS IN
THE ERA OF GLOBALIZATION: SOME REASONS AND
SOLUTIONS IN PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINT
Globalization is rapidly ta k in g place
in our world A lthough th e re are some
advantages, globalization also brings
about a lot of problem s, especially in the
relationships betw een different cultures
For the lim it of th e p aper, I try to
present briefly some m ain reasons for
the conflict betw een c u ltu ra l world
outlooks in th e E ra of G lobalization
in tercu ltu ral view points I will reflect on
some works by W ittg en stein an d offer
some solutions based on W ittg en stein ’s
insights
ou tloo k s in c o n flic t w ith one
an other?
From an in te rc u ltu ra l p o int of view,
there are two m ain reaso n s w hich m ight
lead to cu ltu ra l conflict: 1) conflict
between cu ltu ra l forms of life; 2) conflict
Prim ary reasons refer to indispensable
principles of some ce rta in form s of life
m isu n d e rsta n d in g /1*
n Dr., Departments of Philosophy, College of Social
Sciences and Humanities, VNU
(1) In detail see: concepts "cultural non-understanding”
and "cultural misunderstanding” in: Nguyen, Vu Hao:
The Concept o f Man in W ittgenstein’s Language
Nguyen Vu Hao(*}
1 C ultural n o n -u n d ersta n d in g
Discussions or violent criticism of different cultural world-views against each other may stem from cu ltu ral non understanding or lack of inform ation of other cultures Why is it so difficult to
u n derstand people of other cultures? The common and traditional conceptions tend to believe th a t the oth er’s interior thinking is completely secret, for it is
inaccessible.(2) The late W ittgenstein criticizes sharply this point of view, especially the thesis of C artesian on the so-called complete secrecy of the inner sphere C artesian thesis is based on an acceptance of the private language In
W ittgenstein’s opinion, people can perceive, to some extent, feelings (for example feeling of pain) and thoughts of
m anifestation One can not u n derstand actions and thoughts of people of other cultures not because their inner thinking
is completely secret and inaccessible for him (3), b ut there is another subtle reason
Philosophy The Anthropological Foundations for Education and Intercultural Understanding, Hamburg:
Kovaỗ 2002, p 240-251.
(2) See: Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Philosophical Investigations (PI) in: Wittgenstein, Ludwig Schritten 1,
Frankfurt am Main, 1969, part II, XI, p 534-536.
(3) See in detail: "The game of thinking guess" (das
"Spiel des Gedankenerraten") in intercultural context:
4 0
Trang 2behind it In fact, he is not able to
u n d erstan d people’s form of life, even if
th eir in n er thinking is totally accessible
for him The b arriers of language
(foreign languages) may be the difficulty
for understanding, b ut it is not the
fundam ental reason for cu ltu ral non-
und erstan d in g (4) The fundam ental
reason for non-understanding is related
to “cu ltu ral blindness” i.e not knowing
or not practicing th e cu ltu ral forms of
life, language games, and the traditions
such a s habits and customs of other
cultures According to W ittgenstein, in
this view, we could not u n d erstan d a lion
either, even if th a t anim al could speak(5),
for its “form of life” is completely alien
“C u ltu ral blindness” or cu ltu ral non
u n d erstan d in g can be one of (secondary)
reasons for conflicts between cultural
forms of life
2 C u ltu ra l m isu n d e r sta n d in g
C u ltu ra l blindness of a certain
m isunderstanding The m ain reason for
cu ltu ral m isunderstanding consists in
PI, part II, XI, p 536; Lutterfelds, Wilhelm:
Interkulturelles Verstehen in Wittgensteins Konzept von
Sprachspiel, Weltbild und Lebensform, in: Latterfelds,
w , Roser, A., Raatzsch, R (Hrsg.): Wittgenstein -
Jahrbuch 2000, Frankfurt am
Main/Ber1in/Bern/Bruxelles/NewYork/Oxford/Wien,2001,
p 6-19.
(4) See: PI, part II, X, p 536: "Wir sagen auch von einem
Menschen, er sei uns durchsichtig Aber es ist fur diese
Betrachtung wichtig, dass ein Mensch far einen andem
ein Vổlliges Rătsel sein kann Das erfahrt man, wenn
man in ein fremdes Land mit ganzlich fremden
Traditionen kommt; und zwar auch dann, wenn man die
Sprache des Landes beherrscht Man versteht die
Menschen nicht (und nicht darum, weil man nicht
weiss, was sie zu sich selber sprechen.) Wir kốnnen uns
nicht in sie finden."
(5) See: PI, part II, X, s 536: "Wenn ein Lõwe sprechen
kồnnte, wir kổnnten ihn nicht verstehen."
subjective ways of thin k in g , particularly
w hen one trie s to identify an d perceive people of o th er cu ltu res based on his
cu ltu ra l perspectives, or views them from form of life a n d world outlook of his
cu ltu ra l com m unity th ro u g h it ’s filter of
cu ltu ra l values In o th er w ords, cultural
m isu n d e rsta n d in g begins w hen one tries
to see o th er people only in his own view based only on th e criteria of his culture
T his way of th in k in g often gives him not only an incom plete or one-sided picture,
b u t it also gives him a w rong picture of
u n d e rsta n d in g of o th er people(6) belongs
to a type of e g o c e n trism or so-called
“cu ltu ra l solipsism ” As a result, the rep resen tativ es of each cu ltu re tend to universalize th e ir own forms of life, their own world outlook, th e ir own cultural values, an d th e ir own language games of
th e ir culture; an d th e n th ey generalize its criteria for d istin g u ish in g between
"correctness" or "incorrectness",
"rightness" or "wrongness", "goodness" or
"badness", "b eau ty ” or "ugliness" etc
In reality, we need to acknowledge
th a t th is ego-centric w ay is common and inevitable for m ost people in all cultures The origin of th is asym m etric, ego centric p a tte rn of a n in tercu ltu ral
u n d e rsta n d in g is, on th e one hand, the
n a tu ra l in clination of h u m a n beings to generalize th e ir own cu ltu re and then try to u n d e rs ta n d o th er people from
th e ir subjective perspectives; because only in th e lan g u ag e game of one’s own
(6) -yy|r kỡnnen uns nicht in sie finden" See: in PI, part II,
X, S 536.
VNU, Journal o f Science, Soc., Sci., Human., NaSE, 2006
Trang 342 Nguyen Vu Hao
culture, can one com pare th e different
forms of life an d verify th e ir sim ilarities
an d differences On th e o th e r hand, the
ego-centric p a tte rn of u n d e rsta n d in g is
in te rc u ltu ra l u n d e rsta n d in g is still
lim ited to a tta in a n ideal p a tte rn of
u n derstanding: th e sym m etric, objective
and u n iv ersal p a tte rn of u n d erstan d in g
T his requires a dialogue am ong different
cu ltu res in th e world to reach a common
ground and have a globally cu ltu ral
world outlook.(7)
In sum, c u ltu ra l m isu n d erstan d in g is
m ainly th e re s u lt of th e subjective
deduction, especially th e ego-centric way
of th in k in g ab o u t people of different
cultures As a resu lt, one m ay not even
w an t to have a sufficient know ledge of
th e form of life or th e w orld outlook of
o th er cultures A lthough lack of cu ltu ral
inform ation can lead to a cu ltu ral
m isu n d erstan d in g , th is factor is only a
triv ial reason for th e explanation
Therefore, th e ego-centric way of
th in k in g ab o u t people of different
cultures is th e m ain reaso n for cross-
cu ltu ral m isu n d erstan d in g Definitely,
cu ltu ral non - u n d e rsta n d in g and
m isu n d erstan d in g can c reate a lot of
conflicts betw een different cu ltu ral
forms of life, betw een d ifferent cu ltu ral
world outlooks, and betw een different
{7) See: Latterfelds, Wilhelm: Interkulturelles Verstehen
in Wittgensteins Konzept von Sprachspiel, Weltbild und
Lebensform, in: Liitterfelds, w., Roser, A., Raatzsch, R
(Hrsg.): W ittgenstein - Jahrbuch 2000, Frankfurt am
Main/Berlin/Bern/Bnjxe!les/NewYork/Oxford/Wien ,2001
p 21-22.
language games In my opinion, th is is
th e m ain point which th e late
W ittgenstein w ants to present w ith a hope th a t cross-cultural problems m ight
be resolved Unfortunately, num erous problems regarding the relationships among ethnic groups, between religious
versus religious communities are still constantly taking place in m any Asian
globalization And this problem is also taking place in many countries in the world nowadays The roots of these problems are the lack of a sufficient and
communities, especially the lack of cultural tolerance and understanding among those who represent (stand for)
th e ir cultures
Anyway, cultural non-understanding
an d cultural m isunderstanding are not
m ain reasons for conflicts between different world outlooks They are only secondary reasons The prim ary reasons,
th e m ain reasons for these conflicts are related to the fundam ental difference of cultural world outlooks
3 The fu n d am en tal d ifferen ce o f
cu ltu ra l w orld ou tlook s
Cross-cultural problems not only stem from th e lack of inform ation and knowledge of other cultural forms of life
or stem from wrong understanding, but more complex issues are hidden behind
We know th a t these in tercu ltu ral
fundam entally, even if cultural non
VNU, Journal of Science, Soc., Sci„ Human., NJE, 2006
Trang 4u n d erstan d in g and m isunderstanding
were removed successfully and entirely
T he key problem of in tercu ltu ral
m isunderstanding is, first of all, related
closely to the fundam ental difference of
cu ltu ral world outlooks These world
outlooks are based on different and
essentially incom m ensurable principles
T hat difference can be considered as the
real an d prim ary factor for possible and
p o tential conflicts betw een cultural
forms of life Essentially, these are
conflicts betw een quite different
principles The la te r W ittgenstein
analyzed th is problem in his work "On
c e rta in ty ” (ũber Gewipheit) Through
num erous exam ples and rem arks, he
shows th a t the rep resen tativ es of each
culture are not able to reach a general
agreem ent on ju d g m en t and language
practice, i.e., a su p er cu ltu ral and global
view of w orld.(8)
According to W ittg en stein 's analysis,
it is im possible to tell w hether a culture,
a world outlook, or a form of life is
correct or not, scientific or non-scientific,
reasonable or non-reasonable, high or
low T he world outlook and th e form of
life of a certain cu ltu ral com m unity give
criteria for distinguishing between
correctness or incorrectness applied only
in th is com m unity In fact, a cultural
world outlook is n e ith e r good nor bad,
n eith er rig h t nor wrong It is m erely the
resu lt of a cu ltu ral h eritag e passed on by
(8) See: Wittgenstein, Ludwig: On Certainty (ĩber
Gewiflheit) in: Werkausgabe, Bd 8, Frankfurt a M.,
1989, 108, 118, 132, 153, 157, 167, 203, 231, 239, 240,
255, 262, 264, 321, 332, 333, 609 etc
previous g enerations; it is also th e resu lt
of th e whole education in each cu ltu ral
co m m u n ity /9* I t is th e fu n d am en tal foundation of th in k in g an d acting of each
m em ber in th e com m unity In th is view,
it is a m istak e to judge or criticize a certain form of life, language gam es, or a
c u ltu ra l world outlook by a n outsider Therefore, it is irra tio n a l to m easure religious or m ythical sta te m e n ts based
on scientific ex p erim en ts.(10) For exam ple, it is nonsense to use scientific
m ethods, e.g an an aly sis of chemical composition, to reject th e Catholic beliefs
in th e E ucharist: w a te r becomes blood of
C h rist’s or b read becomes th e body of
C hrist
(9) In On Certainty 94, Wittgenstein writes: "Aber mein
Weltbild habe ich nicht, weil ich mich von seiner Richtigkeit Qberzeugt habe; auch nicht, weil ich von seiner Richtigkeit ilberzeugt bin Sondern es ist der uberkommene Hintergrund, auf welchem ich zwischen wahr und falsch unterscheide."
(10) More detailed see: Nguyen, Vu Hao, The Concept o f Man in W ittgenstein’s Language Philosophy The Anthropological Foundations fo r Education and Intercultural Understanding, Hamburg: Kovã 2002, p
254-259; List, E.: Zum Problem des Verstehens fremder Kulturen: Wittgensteins Bemerkungen zu J.G Frazers' Golden Bough, In: List, E u.a (Hrsg.): W ittgenstein und sein Einfiufi a u f die gegenwdriige Philosophie, Akten
des zweiten intemationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums
1977, Wien, 1980, s 471-474; Fretlổh-Thomas, Sigrid: Interkulturelles Verstehen Oder kulturbedingtes Erklăren: Wittgensteins Kritik an Frazer, in: Latterfelds, w und Salehi, Djavid (Hrsg.): " W ir kõnnen uns nicht in sie finden Problem s interkultureller Verstăndigung und Koope ration” - W ittgenstein-Studien 3 (2001) -Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Lang, 2001, p 36-44; Davies, P:
"Remarks on Wittgenstein’s Remark on Frazer’s T h e Golden Bough", in K ing’s Theological Review 6 (1983),
p 10-14; Henderson, D.: Wittgenstein’s Descriptivist Aproach to Understanding: Is There a Place for Explanation in Interpretive Accounts?, in: Dialectics 42
(1988), p 105-115; Kippenberg, H.G und Luchesi, B (Hrsg.): Magie: Die sozialw issenschaftliche Kontroverse uber das Verstehen frem den Denkens, Frankfurt am
Main, 1978.
VNU, Journal o f Science, Soc., Sci., Human., NJ E, 2006
Trang 544 Ngiyen Vu Hao
According to W ittgenstein, there is a
diversity of principled different forms of
life and a diversity of principled different
of world outlooks Claiming th a t there is
only one tru th in some determ ined
unacceptable.(11) In my opinion, the late
W ittgenstein’s position seems to support
a diversity of different cultures, a
diversity of world outlooks In this way,
he seems to protests ag ain st the Euro-
contemporary conceptions which attem pt
to identify the globalization with
W esternization or Am ericanization
He seems to accept the fact th a t in
spite of certain sim ilarities, it is difficult
and even, in some certain contexts,
impossible to have a common principle
for different forms of life No common
measure can be applied to compare
between different forms of life, or
between different cu ltu ral world
outlooks They belong to different
incommensurable principles This leads
to the fundam ental b arriers for
understanding of a strange culture or a
strange cultural world outlook
The m ain reason for conflicts among
different cultures to tak e place is th at,
especially in some cases, when the
(11) See: Latterfelds, 2001, s 26; Mall, R A.: Was heiBt
'aus interkultureller Sicht'?, in: Mall, R.A und Schneider,
N (Hrsg.): Ethik und Politik aus interkuttureller Sicht
(Studien zur Interkulturellen Philosophie),
Amsterdam/Atlanta, 1996, p.2ff; Arifuku, Kogaku: Das
buddhistische Natur- und Menschenbild Das Vertiăltnis
des Menschen zur Natur im Buddhismus, in: Takeichi,
Akihiro (Hrsg.): Das Bild von Mensch und Natur im 21
Jahrhundert Zur neuen Philosophie der Politik,
Gesellschaft, Technologie und Natur, Kyoto, 1995, p
91-107.
u nderstanding model of egocentrism,
community is used to judge a* criticize the representatives of othei cultural comm unities as well as th e ir )rinciples
In those cases, one forgets tia t these criteria and stan d ard s of t strange culture is quite different from lis or her
M uslims are forbidden to e a t )0rk This does not m ean th a t all C hriitians are forbidden to do the sam e, (riven the different teachings of the two religions,
it is unacceptable for a n Nuslim to criticize a C hristian who e a ts p rk
In some extrem e cases, ba;ed on his
or her subjective views, one tries not only to criticize b u t also to ciange the world outlooks and forms of lie of other cultures, i.e., to change th e beliefs of
th e ir representatives, an d thiỉ leads to
th e climax of intercultura] conflict Those are uncompromising struggles between different, opposite ind even confronted principles a g ain st eich other
In worse cases, some represeitatives of one group consider the repreỉentatives
of the other groups as foolish >r heretic, for his opinion is contrary ti w hat is generally accepted Each of them considers him / herself as an orthodox and the other as anom alous.(12)
(12) In: On Certainty 611, Wittgenstein siys: "Wo sich
wirklich zwei •Prinzipien treffen, die sich nicht miteinander aussỗhnen kỗnnen, da erklrt jeder den Andem far einen Narren und Ketzer." In this way, the answer to the question, if someone is ai orthodox or heretic is only relative, depending on the iocial cultural and historical conditions This is the sarTB as fact that only in his time, Galileo Galilei or Giordaio Bruno was considered as heretic.
VNU, Journal o f Science, Soc., Sci., Humai., NJE, 2006
Trang 6Therefore, the most im portant
reasons for potential conflicts are the
diversity and the difference between
incom patible forms of life However, the
conflict potential alone does not yet lead
to a real conflict Incom patible principles
lead only to th e real confrontation in
extrem e cases, when one party- in their
own ego-centric way of th in k in g - tries to
judge, criticize, or even to oppose and to
change the world outlook of the other side
II Som e so lu tio n s for co n flicts
o u tlo o k s
In order to avoid the possibilities of
conflict and to solve intercultural problems,
especially conflicts between cu ltu ral world
outlooks, it is necessary to elim inate
both prim ary and secondary reasons as
discussed above In other words, it is
necessary to elim inate cu ltu ral non
m isunderstanding Also it is necessary to
tre a t the principal difference of cultural
world outlooks in reasonable way
1 E lim in a tin g th e p h en o m en o n
"cultural blindness"
In order to avoid non-understanding,
it is very im p o rtan t to elim inate the
phenom enon ’’cu ltu ral blindness" : not
knowing or not practicing the cultural
forms of life, language games, and the
trad itio n s such as h ab its and customs of
other cultures In order to und erstan d
people of o ther cultures, one has to study
fundam entally and to know not only
about th a t culture w ith its world
outlook, its form of life, and its language,
b ut also, first of all, to take p a rt directly
in its language gam es and in its forms of life w ith the motto "learning by doing"
W ittgenstein seem s to be reasonable and possible, especially in the era of globalization in which people of different cultures or of different world outlooks have a greater chance to communicate
w ith one an o th er through internet, travels, and other interchange programs
By doing so, one can communicate, participate, and experience of other
acknowledge th a t these opportunities are not always available for every nation, every cu ltu ral community, and for everyone
2 A v o id in g c u ltu r a l m is
u n d e r sta n d in g
C ultural m isunderstanding can be avoided if only its root is removed, i.e only when both following conditions are fulfilled First, one m ust be in contact
w ith people of o th er cultures or of other cultural com m unities to get acquainted with th eir language, th e ir world outlooks, and th e ir "game rules'* At the sam e time, one m ust study them basically In o ther words, the first condition is to elim inate cultural non understanding Second, th e asymmetric, ego-centric p a tte rn of intercultural
u nderstanding m u st be elim inated, and
it needs to be replaced by the symmetric, objective and universal understanding of people of other cultures This needs to
VNU, Journal o f Science, Soc., Sci., Human., NJ E, 2006
Trang 746 Nguyem Vu Hao
begin w ith dialogues based on equal and
m u tu a l u n d e rsta n d in g cu ltu res
Of course, th is is not easy, because
th e egocentrism or a so-called “cu ltu ral
solipsism ” is common in every cu ltu ral
comm unity Besides, it is necessary to
remove psychic reasons, w hich can cause
m isu n d erstan d in g of o th er cu ltu res The
solution is to have a to le ra n t a ttitu d e
an d high respect tow ard o th er cultures
3 S o lu tio n s c o n c e r n in g th e
p r in c ip a l d iffe r e n c e o f c u ltu r a l
w orld o u tlo o k s
Because th e principal difference of
cu ltu ral world outlooks is th e main
reason for p o ten tial conflict betw een
different cu ltu ral com m unities, it is not
sim ple to overcome th e differences
According to th e la te r W ittgenstein,
conflict risks betw een incom m ensurable
principles can be reduced an d even
avoided, if a "peaceful coexistence”
betw een principles or betw een different
world outlooks is accepted as long as
people stop to u niversalize th e ir own
criteria, th e sta n d a rd s of th e ir own
cu ltu ra l com m unity an d to criticize
stran g e cu ltu ra l world outlooks Because
in some certain contexts, it is im possible
to correct th e co n trary principles in
order to reach a consensus T hus, the
first solution for p rev en tin g conflicting
risk s betw een th e contradictory world
outlooks is avoiding every dispute This
is a n e u tra l solution, an d it req u ires a
recognition an d respect for th e diversity
of different an d even co n trary world
outlooks
C ultural conflict happens inevitably, when th is person considers his/her own form of life an d world outlook as th e criteria for criticizing or even refuting other's world outlooks The second solution for uncompromising conflicts of principles is persuasion.(13) This solution
acknowledgem ent of the subjective intention In order to realize a fanatical persuasion in order to spread their own form of life, people often use rational procedures and th en try to reject the other’s world outlooks by argum ents which support th e ir own correctness of language game and th eir own form of life Although the strategy seems aggressive, it is still a peaceful approach One g reater concern is that some people m ight use persuasion through the form of violence, in stead of peaceful one Violent persuasion usually goes along
w ith some extrem e strategies such as using m ilitary force, terrorism, or wars
to oppress th e other side In these cases, the other side would react strongly including retaliation or revenge As a consequence, both sides are stuck in a confused circle, and it finds extremely difficult to get out of the spiral The situation m ight lead to hatred and hostility tow ard each other And it is also a resu lt of irreconcilable struggles among the cultures, or "clash of civilizations" in a world scale as Samuel
representatives of one side - in extreme cases - sense th a t they are driven to a
(13) On Certainty 262.
VNU, Journal o f Science, Soc., Sci., Human., NJE, 2006
Trang 8corner or th ere m ight be a th re a t for the
destruction of th eir own culture and
th eir own form of life, th en they m ust
use all m eans they can afford, including
barbarous and terro rist m eans, to defend
fanatically their cultures and values
They will act w ithout th in k in g of ethical
values, even sacrificing th e ir own lives
They are ready to die for the so called
“ju s t w ar” in the b attles of cultures The
currently in tern atio n al terrorism is a
clear evidence for th at
In my opinion, th e effectiveness of
this solution - the persuasion of people of
other cultures w ith violent to "civilize”
and to "assim ilate" the o th er’s forms of
life, which is tak in g place in our
contem porary process of globalization -
needs to be questioned This approach is
doubtful and unacceptable, for it brings
more destruction th a n peace
approach is still a common solution for
cultural conflict, for its m ain purpose is
to convert people of o ther cultures Of
course, th e m otivation behind are other
hidden factors such as economical
in terests an d political power In th e past
history, th is solution could bring some
globalization and in th e era of the atomic
weapons, however, th is solution is
totally unsuitable
The th ird solution for conflicts of
world outlooks is th e o rientation to a
common and global cu ltu ral world
outlook T his solution is based on the
common foundation of people in all
cultures, th a t is, th e sim ilarity in the
way of th in k in g a n d actin g of all people
as a n essence of h u m a n species in
tran sfo rm atio n , a n d acceptance of world
c u ltu ra l outlook a re necessary and
contem porary globalization should be done w ith th is model G lobalization should not be e ith e r W esternization or
A m ericanization G lobalization is not born by some c u ltu re w hich trie s to force
or swallow up all o th er cultures
G lobalization does not accept the
a rro g a n t a ttitu d e s of some cu ltu res and
u n d erestim atio n of o th e r cu ltu res a t the sam e tim e Good globalization is possible only th ro u g h dialogues betw een different
cu ltu res in th e w orld on th e level of equality T h a t is th e approach of the sym m etric, objective, a n d universal
p a tte rn of th in k in g In th is model, the rep re se n ta tiv e s of each cu ltu ral com m unity need to be aw are of the
co n trary to th e tra d itio n a l asym m etric, ego-centric p a tte rn of thin k in g In order
to do th a t, education for a civilized world
in which everyone is a citizen of the world, is th e crucial condition for a g reat globalization.(14)
Of course, th e common, global
c u ltu ra l world outlook an d the globalization need to aim to build a
u n ited world in a diverse world of
cu ltu res (or in th e d iversity of th e world
(14) See: Treml, Alfred K.: Die Erziehung zum Weltbarger Euphemismus Oder F iguration ?, in: Treml, Alfred K (Hrsg.): N atur der M oral? Ethische Bildung im Horizont der m odemen Evolutionsforschung, Frankfurt
am Main, 1997, s 56-63 Sistenzanthropoiogie 1.-6 Septem ber 1986 an der U niversitat Bamberg, Frankfurt
am Main/Bem/New York/Paris, 1988, s 171-186.
'NU, Journal of Science, Soc., Sci., Human., N^E, 2006
Trang 948 Nguyen Vu Hao
outlooks); it does not m ean excluding the
diversity of cu ltu res or th e diversity of
th e world outlooks a t all
Anyway, th e form ation of the
common, global c u ltu ra l w orld outlook as
a universal basis for in te rc u ltu ra l
u n d e rsta n d in g is an extrem ely difficult,
complicated, an d long process I t cannot
tak e place autom atically, w ith o u t a
collaboration of th e re p re se n ta tiv e s of
different cultures The m ore sim ilar
cu ltu ral world outlooks are, th e sm aller
c u ltu ra l conflicts betw een th em an d the
b e tte r chances for in te rc u ltu ra l
u n d e rsta n d in g become On th e contrary,
th e more different world outlooks are,
th e g reater change for c u ltu ra l conflicts
occur
Therefore, learn in g to u n d e rsta n d
quite different, opposite cu ltu res and
th e ir world outlooks is th e crucial thing
I t is th e reason why th e late
W ittgenstein, trie s to p o int o u t some
reasons an d to give some effective
adequate solutions for cultural and
intercultural conflict This is to say that
the later W ittgenstein laid an im portant
in tercu ltu ral philosophy In my opinion, however, th ere are m ain lim itations in
in tercu ltu ral conflicts only in a social, cultural, and in tercu ltu ral context He does not seem to pay enough attention to
interests, political power, or territo rial requirem ents, which might be standing behind in tercu ltu ral conflicts Second, the later W ittgenstein is not able to analyze in detail how to change and to approach different forms of life and world outlooks so th a t it can reach a common, globally cultural world outlook
lim itations will open new perspectives for in tercu ltu ral understanding, especially in the age of globalization
VNU, Journal o f Science, Soc., Sci., Human., N£E, 2006