I."Philosophy"as was distinguished from"Religion" In traditions of the West"religion"and"philosophy"have been, generally speaking, clearly and sharply distinguished from each other. In the West nowadays both are different concepts. However, in Eastern traditions there have been many cases in which the both concepts are not easily distinguishable. In the work Ta Indika, fragments of which are now remnant, Megasthenes, the Greek author (c. 300 B.C.), in describing metaphysical thoughts of Indians, calls them"philosophia"in Greek. Apollonios of Tyana (first century A.D.) is said to have made a journey to attain the"Wisdom of Indians"which he termed"philosophia"in Greek. When Tetsujiro Inoue began to lecture on Indian thought at the Imperial University of Tokyo in 1904 A.D., he termed the title of his lecture"Indo Tetsugaku"which was the Japanese translation of the Western term"Indian Philosophy"."Tetsugaku"is a Japanese word newly coined, when Western civilisation was introduced into Japan, to mean the Western concept"philosophy". Then, what was the Indian equivalent to"philosophy"as was in use among Indians? While Indians and other South-Asians adopted the traditional word "dharma"to mean religion, they adopted the word"darsana"which was traditionally in use among intellectuals there. II. darsana Nowadays in universities of India and other South Asian countries the department of philosophy is generally called darsana-bhaga. Etymologically the term darsana derived from the root drs which means'to see'or 'to view'. In Sanskrit literature originally it could mean'opinion'. This word was multivocal, and finally it came to mean'philosophy'or'a philosophical system.' III. anviksiki Another word which means'philosophy'was anviksiki, which originally meant'investigation'or'investigation by means of reasoning.' According to the Arthasastra of Kautilya anvikisiki meant the philosophy of the Samkhya school, the philosophy of the Yoga school and the philosophy of the Lokayatas (Materialists). The philosophical systems which based themselves upon religious, traditional scriptures were excluded from anviksiki. Law texts of Brahmanism regulate that the learning of anviksiki is essential to rulers. IV. The main purpose of the Studies of the Nyaya school Logicians of the Nyaya school regarded anviksiki as the main purpose of their studies, as are evidenced in logical texts. V. The Internal Knowledge (adhyatma-vidya) of Mahayana Buddhists The Mahayanasutralamkara, the Bodhisattvabhumi and other texts of Mahayana admit the five kinds of knowledge, i.e. 1) Internal knowledge (adhyatma -vidya), 2) logic (hetuvidya), 3) linguistics (sabdavidya), 4) medical science (cikitsa-vidya, and 5) technology (silpakarma-sthana-vidya). Among these five'internal knowledge'is closest to the Western concept of'philosophy'. Nowadays the word'adhyatma-vidya'is used as the equivalent to the western concept of'metaphysics'. However, the meaning of 'internal knowledge'differed with thinkers and peoples. VI. Concluding Words 1) The theory of the kinds of knowledge in India and South Asian countries developed gradually with the lapse of time. 2) The Buddhist theory of the Five kinds of knowledge owed its formation chiefly and substantially to pre-existing Brahmanistic ratiocination. 3) The investigation of the equivalent to Western'philosophy'current among thinkers of India and other Asian countries will be meaningful for clarification of the idea of'philosophy'in future.
In any political discourse some diachronic terms are indispensable, but these terms themselves were originally made in some age in the contexts of real situations. Therefore we are obliged to use these terms with enough consciousness of their original contexts. Moreover the scholars in Non-Western world have another problem concerning translation of terminology. Both European and native term has many meanings, and one term scarcely corresponds to its counterpart. Japanese term minzoku covers ethnos, populus, natio and so on, which on the other hand cover far more meanings than minzoku, and also have special contexts in their usages. Although the term“nation”derives from Middle Ages, its modern usage presupposed the emergence of sovereign state as a governing mechanism and provided it of some sense of community. The emergence of modern languages and the communication through printed matters made it possible and through French Revolution the new model of political integration“one nation, one language, one state”was established, while against Napoleon's imperialism nationalism rose in Germany and so on. Around the 1st world war“nation self determination”came to be a principle after the collapse of empires, Austrian, Russian and Turkish. And after the 2nd, this principle lead to the independence of colonies in Asia and Africa. In 1960s new term of ethnicity, the status of ethnic groups within the framework of nation state, was made originally in the mufti-racial United States of America. And this term came to be applied to the ethnic movements in Western Europe, the very birth place of nation states, and also extended to the developing countries, which covered former colonial territories and naturally consisted of many ethnic groups. The end of Soviet domination of Eastern Europe brought the third wave of“national self determination”, which also disintegrated the Soviet Union itself as well as Yugoslavia. Now we are watching many tragedies in e.g. Gorgia and Bosnia. But “national self-determination”no more could be the solution of many problems in this age of multi-identity of the individual, and the relativization of state system would be indispensable for the prospect of mankind.
The aim of this paper is to discuss the main features of a theory of democracy as developed by Schumpeter in his famous book entitled Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. In contradistinction to the classical theory of democracy which defines it as“that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will, ”Schumpeter defines the democratic method as“that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote.” Instead of stressing the ideal or the aim of democracy, Schumpeter treats it entirely as a method of“public choice”so to speak. The political leaders who are elected to make choice in democratic politics may be said to be the conceptual counterpart of the entrepreneurs in Schumpeterian economics. Just as the profit motive working through the market mechanism succeeds in attaining welfare objectives of an economic society, so the competitive struggle for power and office fulfills incidentally the social function of political choice for a society. This may be said to be in the same vein of thought as that of the“public choice”school. However, the thesis of“democracy in deficit”as propounded by some proponents of this school, notably James Buchanan and Richand Wagner, is an one-sided view of the political process of democracy. At least in the classical English practice, to which Schumpeter mainly alludes in his book, the general election is fought by means of policy programmes or“manifestoes”of different political parties. And it is by no means centain that inflationary programmes always win the majority of votes, if the evils of rising prices become widely understood among the people.