Cosmolab
Understanding complexity requires going beyond classical analysis and engaging with diverse worldviews and knowledge disciplines. In this series of conversations with philosophers, scientists and research practitioners, the China Knowledge Network approaches the complexity of our relationship with China. What questions can we ask when developing knowledge and awareness for today’s policymaking? What arenas are emerging where we can deal with our entanglements?
Against Naive Realism
Markus Gabriel: - “I think we need a non-classical picture of international relations to understand the jazzy situation of the present moment. That's the nature of a negotiation. In a sense, reality itself, on the picture that I'm proposing, reality itself is diplomatic.”
“We need to become Europeans. Now, the even more interesting question is who can we become in the conversation with China? And we are much less ready to answer that question.”
Ideas of the World and the Self
Bernardo Kastrup: “I don't think that the conclusion is that we should go and hold hands and sing the Kumbaya. The conclusion is that we are inherently capable of understanding everybody else's point of view and what drives everybody else.”
Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad: “Unless we have a real mapping of epistemological diplomacy, we cannot start thinking through what the other person means.”
Thinking Complexity
René ten Bos: “In complexity no one has the final word. The price that you pay for this is, of course, the sheer unstoppable inundation of misinformation, disinformation and so on. But the problem here is that nobody can claim to have the right information anymore. That is what complexity is.”
“Complexity is basically about the weaving, or the interweaving, of stories or narratives. It's always good to get as many stories as you can.”
