7DOI: 10.4312/as.2026.14.1.7-14 The Master Said: Make Love, Not War Jana S. ROŠKER Just over a week ago, we passed the anniversary of a year in which we commem- orated the 50th anniversary of the International Society for Chinese Philosophy (ISCP). This means that exactly half a century has passed since the late Professor Cheng Chung-ying founded this society, which stands as the oldest and largest ac- ademic association in the world dedicated to building bridges between Chinese and global philosophies. The 50th anniversary is, of course, a significant milestone in the history of this association—especially so because we live in a world burdened by a range of global crises. It is precisely for this reason that such bridges, connect- ing diverse traditions and systems of thought, are more important than ever before. We marked this important milestone in past June at the 24th biennial conference of the society, held under the title “Addressing Global Crises and Reimagining Solutions through Chinese Philosophy”. Although today’s most pressing crises are deeply interconnected and can therefore only be addressed on a global level, it is worth noting that the core issues underlying these predicaments—ranging from ecological catastrophe, large-scale migration, and the threat of viral pandemics to the unjust distribution of global wealth, resources, and goods—have, over the past year, increasingly culminated in the growing threat of armed conflicts and wars of aggression. For this reason, we have chosen to dedicate this issue of Asian Studies, which commemorates the 50th anniversary of the ISCP and includes selected contributions from the 24th, i.e., the jubilee, conference of the society, to the culture of peace and pacifism within the Chinese philosophical tradition. We regard this theme as especially significant precisely because of the aforemen- tioned culmination of global crises into violent conflict. At present, we are confronted with two such crisis hotspots that are deemed suffi- ciently “interesting” by mainstream journalism to warrant daily coverage. These are, of course, the war in Ukraine and the genocide being carried out by the Israeli state against the Palestinian people. Clearly, these two armed conflicts are by no means the only wars in which innocent lives are being lost. Yet perhaps the dark clouds of a war-driven apocalypse—one that could give rise to a new world war—have never loomed so near and so threateningly in this century as they do now. Equally dangerous, however, is the fact that militarism—along with its military terminology and ideology of fear and hatred, which underpin this type of discourse—is becoming an increasingly central part of the culture in most states and civilizations. 8 Jana S. ROŠKER: The Master Said: Make Love, Not War If we are to resist this culture, which actually does not deserve to be given such a name, and oppose the pervasive and increasingly powerful ideology that un- derlies it, we must learn to think differently and establish alternative forms of discourse and strategy. The mission of the ISCP is grounded in a vision of egalitarian and mutually re- spectful polylogues among diverse traditions, especially between China and the so-called West. It strives to ensure that the voice of Chinese philosophy is heard not only within the narrow circles of specialized scholars dedicated to its study and global interpretation, but also more broadly. It seeks to foster a dialogue that makes space for ideas and methods that transcend the dominant paradigms established by Western-style modernization and disseminated globally through colonial ideologies. This is a culture in which we must learn to truly listen to one another, beyond the voices of the dominant intellectual currents that prevail in contemporary societies. The same vision also undelays the work and editorial policy of the journal Asian Studies. Its editorial board is convinced that violence can never be resolved by even greater violence—that is, through escalating militarization—but only through radical pacifism, even if its realization comes at the cost of reducing GDP and the wealth of those among the world’s richest. In this spirit, we were reminded that a culture of peace may be the most meaningful gift to mark the 50th anniversary of the ISCP, and, at the same time, the best legacy we can offer this international society for its future path of development. Many philosophers in the Chinese tradition have thought in similar ways. This is by no means a coincidence, given that Chinese philosophy itself, as a dis- course, was born in the turbulent era of the Warring States. It emerged as a hope- ful step towards a new universal ethics—one that would once and for all prevent the shedding of blood and enslavement, while at the same time ensuring safety and a modest well-being for all. Such traditions have long been at the forefront of many special issues of our journal. In this context, it is worth mentioning three in particular: the issue on humanism and post-humanism in Asian traditions (see https://journals.uni-lj.si/as/issue/view/1078), the issue dedicated to traditional Asian ecological discourses (see https://journals.uni-lj.si/as/issue/view/916), and the special issue on COVID-19 as part of the broader spectrum of global crises— crises that pose dangers but also offer opportunities for renewed reflection and hope for resolution (see https://journals.uni-lj.si/as/issue/view/754). Among these thematic clusters, several contributions explicitly addressed the question of peace and pacifism. Notably, Dawid Rogacz’s article on the idea of Supreme Peace (Taiping) in premodern Chinese philosophies of history (Rogacz 2022, 401–13), Alok Bhalla’s reflection on Tagore’s dark vision of humanity (Bhalla 2013, 101), and Graham Parkes’s open letter to Xi Jinping (Parkes 2023, 9Asian Studies XIV (XXX), 1 (2026), pp. 7–14 242–43). Chen Bo’s article, which traces 70 years of Western logic in China, also originated from the idea of peaceful coexistence and dialogue between politics and academia, highlighting the pacifism of the “Hundred Flowers” metaphor, in which a specifically Chinese mode of thinking was born (see Chen 2022, 77–78). Seongmin Hong, in his contribution on pandemics, explored pacifist aspects of Zhu Xi’s philosophy through the lens of ecological justice (Hong 2022, 317), while Hans-Georg Moeller (2023, 71) and Gloria Luque-Moya (2023, 130) each examined critical Daoist approaches that challenge the traditional anthropocen- tric supremacy over nature—approaches that not only lead to ecological crises, but also to disruptive imbalances in politics and society. In the context of the foundations of pacifism found within the Chinese philosophical tradition, Xiang Shuchen’s article, “Why the Chinese Tradition Had No Concept of ‘Barbarian’” (Xiang 2023, 149–50), is also particularly worth mentioning. Given the state of global politics and philosophy in 2025, the 24th ISCP con- ference was likewise dedicated to related questions, and this issue features a se- lection of contributions from that jubilee conference. Special attention has been given to the articles based on the three keynote lectures with which the academic gathering was opened. We have also included all three articles by young research- ers who were awarded the Charles Fu Foundation Prize. The remaining contribu- tions are grouped thematically into two main sections: one focusing on traditional models of pacifism within the Chinese tradition, and the other on the idea of dia- logue—not one grounded in adversarial opposition, but in the principle of mutual complementarity and adaptive exchange. The keynote section of the 24th ISCP conference brings together three major contributions that explore Chinese philosophical resources for rethinking justice, interdependence, and peaceful coexistence in the face of global crises. What con- nects them is their shared rejection of adversarial logic and self-assertion, and their common search for philosophical pathways beyond conflict. In his article “Confucian Role Ethics and a Holistic Conception of Justice Intro- duction”, Roger T. Ames draws on Confucian “zoetology” (shengshenglun 生 生論), a philosophy centred on generative relational life, to propose an ethical framework grounded not in individual rights or substance ontology, but in dy- namic relationships and co-creativity. This model of justice, inherently dialogical and non-confrontational, undermines dualistic thinking and offers a relational on- tology as the basis for a peaceful societal order. Robin Wang’s contribution, “Zhuangzi’s Jie Xin 解心 (Untangling the Heart- mind) and the Wisdom of Biomimicry”, connects Daoist philosophy with eco- logical and technological innovation. Through the metaphor of “untangling the heart-mind”, Wang presents Zhuangzi’s thought as a method for dissolving inner and outer conflict, emphasizing alignment with the natural order. In this context, 10 Jana S. ROŠKER: The Master Said: Make Love, Not War she introduces the concept of biomimicry, which is based on the principle of learning from nature rather than dominating it. This principle resonates with Dao- ist pacifism, for it proposes a model of technological and human development that is harmonious, not combative. In his essay “In Search of Allies: Global Philosophy as Criticism”, Heiner Roetz argues that the dominant global logic of self-assertion is incompatible with genuine solidarity. He critiques both nationalism and superficial forms of “global philos- ophy” for failing to transcend cultural self-enclosure. Roetz recalls philosophy’s critical origins as a response to crisis, emphasizing its task as a culture-transcending critique. His call to form philosophical alliances against systemic violence positions global philosophy as an ally of peace, instead of identity-based assertions. Although they proceed from different angles, all three keynote contributions out- line a philosophical paradigm opposed to domination and conflict—one that cen- tres interdependence, critique, and harmony as the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful future. The second section consists of three essays that were awarded the Charles Fu Foundation Prize at the 24th ISCP Conference. All of these deal with critical engagement with Confucian relational ethics, which each author creatively rein- terprets in response to contemporary global challenges. Their shared commitment to nonviolence and relational autonomy forms the thematic backbone of this sec- tion, linking classical Chinese thought with urgent ethical dilemmas in the age of digital alienation, technological domination, and distorted collectivism. In his paper titled “The Confucian Conception of Self: Collectivist or Relation- al?”, Thomas Moore redefines the Confucian self not as collectivist in the West- ern sense of subordinated individuality, but as a dynamic, processual identity shaped through ethical relations. By retrieving the practice-oriented virtue of Ren (仁) from the Analects and the Mencius, Moore argues for a model of personhood grounded in mutual responsiveness rather than domination or isolation. This vi- sion, integrating individuality and interdependence, exemplifies a pacifist anthro- pology: it resists both the violence of radical individualism and the coercive force of collective erasure. Yuchen Liang’s essay “Resisting Technology Addiction with Mencius” explores how Confucian philosophy, and specifically Mencius’ emphasis on nurturing care and non-coercive moral cultivation, can provide an ethical framework for resist- ing the systemic violence of the attention economy. Drawing on the principle “don’t forget; don’t force”, Liang proposes mutual aid communities as nonvio- lent sites of resistance against manipulative technologies. By foregrounding the relational care structures found in Confucianism, this approach offers a pacifist alternative to punitive or exploitative responses to digital addiction, countering both techno-authoritarianism and neoliberal abandonment. 11Asian Studies XIV (XXX), 1 (2026), pp. 7–14 Chen Hwee Loi’s Chinese contribution, “Are AI Robots Human? Exploring Con- fucianism’s “the Distinction between a Human Being and Object” from the An- cient Confucian Way of Naming ‘Objects’”, examines the ethical implications of AI through the lens of ancient Confucian debates on renwu zhi bian (the distinc- tion between humans and things). Rather than relying solely on human-centred moral agency, Chen traces a dual framework in early Confucianism that includes both ethical judgment and ethical description of nonhuman entities. This broad- er view resists the modern instrumentalization of “things”, opening a space for non-anthropocentric, non-dominative relations with emerging intelligences. The author’s nuanced reconstruction of Confucian classificatory thinking suggests a way of engaging with AI that avoids violent control and instead emphasizes eth- ical coexistence. Together, these essays articulate diverse, yet intersecting visions of pacifism root- ed in Confucian relationism. Whether confronting distorted views of the self, predatory technological systems, or the new ontological challenges posed by AI, they all affirm a common ethical thread: that peace is cultivated not through as- sertion or control, but through nurturing relationships, mutual recognition, and nonviolent co-creation. The next section gathers four contributions that critically engage with traditional Chinese philosophical models to rethink power, politics, and the possibility of pacifism. While they are also quite diverse in their approaches, these papers con- verge in their rejection of violence as a necessary or desirable mode of political action. Instead, they illuminate non-belligerent paradigms embedded in classical Chinese thought, offering alternative pathways to peaceful coexistence in an in- creasingly conflict-driven world. Xiang Shuchen’s paper “Must Great Power Politics Necessarily be Tragic?” chal- lenges the realist presuppositions of thinkers like John Mearsheimer by retrieving the classical Chinese distinction between li (力), coercive power, and de (德), moral or noncoercive influence. She argues that the tragedy of modern geopoli- tics lies in its adherence to a narrow, militarized conception of power. Drawing from the Chinese tradition’s elevation of de over li, Xiang proposes an alternative understanding of power that is inherently pacifist—not weak, but sustainable, relational, and ethically grounded. This redefinition undermines the assumed in- evitability of violent great power conflict. Gregor Paul, in “The ‘Confucian’ Ideal Person(ality) and Pacifism”, centres the ethical figure of the junzi (君子) as an exemplar of individual moral autonomy and nonviolence. The junzi refuses to resolve conflict through force and embodies virtues such as ren (仁) and yi (義), promoting persuasion over domination. Paul asks what impact such individual pacifism can have in the context of war and state violence, ultimately arguing for a virtue-based pacifism that can be normatively 12 Jana S. ROŠKER: The Master Said: Make Love, Not War binding even in political contexts. His proposed model offers a stark contrast to current justifications of militarized defence and suggests the relevance of Confu- cian ethics for contemporary global pacifist discourse. Yuchen Guo’s essay “Pacifism in Mengzian Political Philosophy” revisits Men- cius through the lens of “positive-pragmatic pacifism”. Rather than situating Mengzi within traditional just war theory, Guo highlights the philosopher’s em- phasis on benevolent governance and fundamental opposition to violence. Apply- ing Olaf Müller’s framework, the paper argues that Mengzi’s practical political proposals reflect a constructive pacifism rooted in realpolitik but guided by mor- al ideals. This synthesis of realism and normative pacifism positions Mengzian thought as an important resource for ethical governance beyond militarism. In his “Confucian Social Philosophy Between Self and Family”, Kevin Turner explores the tension between the Confucian ideal of harmony and the historical participation of Confucian figures in armed resistance. Rather than dismissing Confucianism as either pacifist or non-pacifist, Turner emphasizes its practical orientation toward social transformation. Taking the concept of the “conscious- ness of worry” (憂患意識) as central to the Confucian notion of responsibility, he suggests that Confucian ethics is not passive but deeply invested in the well-being of society. While not dogmatically pacifist, this philosophy allows for nonviolent social engagement and morally grounded reform as preferred strategies. Taken together, these essays argue that Chinese traditions offer more than ab- stract ethical ideals—they contain robust philosophical resources for rethinking the very foundations of political power, war, and peace. By foregrounding moral authority over coercive dominance, relational responsibility over isolation, and virtue over force, they make a compelling case for alternative models of political order anchored in pacifist principles. The final section, Models of Adaptation and Complementarity, gathers five stud- ies that reinterpret classical Chinese thought through the lenses of flexibility, harmony, and ecological interdependence. Each contribution explores how bal- ance—rather than confrontation—functions as a principle of pacification, mak- ing adaptability and complementarity central to the philosophical architecture of nonviolence. In his study “Complex Adaptive Systems and Chinese Philosophy: A Fruitful Resonance”, Margus Ott tries to bridge contemporary complexity theory and tra- ditional Chinese thought. He demonstrates that notions such as yin-yang, rela- tional embeddedness, and processual change anticipate key concepts of complex adaptive systems (CAS). Both frameworks privilege interconnection over control and responsiveness over rigidity. Ott’s comparative synthesis reveals a form of systemic pacifism: conflict is replaced by self-organization, and stability arises through dynamic equilibrium, not domination. 13Asian Studies XIV (XXX), 1 (2026), pp. 7–14 Rory O’Neill’s essay “Complementing Aggressive Activity with Laozian Still- ness” offers a Daoist model of pacification through complementarity. Contrary to interpretations that portray Laozi’s stillness as pure withdrawal, O’Neill argues that jing (靜) interacts with activity as its balancing counterpart. This dialectic of stillness and movement mitigates aggression and restores stability without sup- pression. The political implications are profound: peace, for Laozi, is not enforced but flows from the fluid interplay of opposites—an ethical flexibility mirroring the soft power of water that overcomes rigidity without violence. Tao Junbo’s “Shuwu’s Tragedy: Rethinking Mencius’ Arguments on the ‘Right of Rebellion’” revisits the Confucian discourse on legitimacy and moral resist- ance. Through an analysis of Shuwu’s Tragedy in the Zuozhuan and Gongyang- zhuan, Tao supports Justin Tiwald’s view that Mencius’ notion of rebellion is a moral critique of tyranny, not an endorsement of violent uprising. The study high- lights the Confucian tension between confronting injustice and restoring order, proposing a model of pacifist resistance grounded in ethical admonition rather than revolutionary force. Massimiliano Lacertosa’s paper “Human and Natural: The Function of the Myri- ad Things (Wanwu 萬物) in the Zhuangzi” interprets Daoist cosmology as an eco- logical ethics of coexistence. By dissolving hierarchies between humans and the myriad things, the Zhuangzi offers a radical critique of anthropocentric domina- tion. Through wuwei (無為), or non-coercive action, Lacertosa articulates a mode of pacifism that protects life by refusing to harm or impose. Mutual adaptation, instead of conflict, becomes the ethical ground of peace within an ever-transform- ing continuum of being. In his contribution, titled “Encountering the Zhuangzi: Adaptability and Empti- ness in the Story of Huzi, Jixian, and Liezi”, Thaddée Chantry-Gellens extends this reflection by focusing on adaptability as a spiritual and ethical practice. Through the imagery of emptiness and transformation, the Zhuangzi teaches at- tunement to change and humility before multiplicity. This adaptability, rooted in nonattachment, functions as an antidote to violence and rigidity, cultivating inner and social harmony through the acceptance of flux. The essays in this section show that nonviolence in the Chinese philosophical tradi- tion is not mere passivity, but an active art of transformation. Peace arises through adaptive responsiveness, balance, and ethical complementarity, i.e. through prin- ciples that dissolve oppositional conflicts. They emphasize the harmonization of diversity, and sustain coexistence across the human and natural worlds. Across all its sections, this commemorative issue celebrates 50 years of the ISCP’s commitment to fostering intercultural understanding through philosoph- ical dialogue. From the ontological depth of Confucian relationism to the Daoist ecological insights into adaptation and balance, the collected works articulate a 14 Jana S. ROŠKER: The Master Said: Make Love, Not War shared refusal of domination, conflict, and coercion. They demonstrate that peace between nations, species, and minds, cannot be achieved through conflicts of con- tradictions but rather through creative transformation, ethical responsiveness, and relational harmonization. Probably no Chinese master ever literally said “make love, not war”, yet many have conveyed ideas that embody the same philosophical depth and moral ap- peal. They remind us that genuine love for humanity in the Confucian sense of humaneness (ren 仁), the Daoist sense of non-impositional harmonization, and the Buddhist sense of compassion, belongs to the deepest form of resistance to violence. To make love in this sense means to nurture and enjoy life in loving re- lationships and cultivated connections, and to restore balance in a world increas- ingly defined by profit-driven division. It is this humanistic and transformative spirit that has guided the ISCP for five decades, and it remains the guiding light for the future of global philosophy and the culture of peace. References Bhalla, Alok. 2013. “Tagore’s Dark Vision of Humanity.” Asian Studies 1 (1): 91–104. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2013.1.1.91-104. Chen, Bo. 2022. “70 Years of Logic in China, 1949–2019.” Asian Studies 10 (2): 19–78. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2022.10.2.19-78. Hong, Seongmin. 2022. “The Pandemic, Ecological Justice, and Zhu Xi’s Philosophy.” Asian Studies 10 (1): 317–43. https://doi.org/10.4312/ as.2022.10.1.317-343. Luque-Moya, Gloria. 2023. “Toward a Harmonic Relationship Between Humans and Nature: A Humanist Reinterpretation of Early Confucian Philosophy.” Asian Studies 11 (3): 129–47. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2023.11.3.129-147. Moeller, Hans-Georg. 2023. “Early Confucian ‘Human Supremacy’ and Its Daoist Critique.” Asian Studies 11 (3): 71–92. https://doi.org/10.4312/ as.2023.11.3.71-92. Parkes, Graham. 2023. “Open Letter to President Xi Jinping on the Climate Crisis.” Asian Studies 11 (2): 233–43. https://doi.org/10.4312/as.2023.11.2.233-243. Rogacz, Dawid. 2022. “The Idea of Supreme Peace (Taiping) in Premodern Chinese Philosophies of History.” Asian Studies 10 (1): 401–24. https://doi. org/10.4312/as.2022.10.1.401-424. Xiang, Shuchen. 2023. “Why the Chinese Tradition Had No Concept of ‘Bar- barian’: The Mercurial Nature of the Human and Non-Human in Chinese Metaphysics.” Asian Studies 11 (3): 149–73. https://doi.org/10.4312/ as.2023.11.3.149-173.