This Dialogue and Universalism issue contains the fourth and last part of the PHILOSOPHY IN AN AGE OF CRISIS: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS research series. The studies it includes were initiated by the International Socie- ty for Universal Dialogue (ISUD); a large proportion of the results were deliv- ered at the 12th ISUD World Congress in 2018, Lima, Peru. The authors were mainly ISUD members but—this has to be underlined—not only. As earlier such undertakings, and in keeping with ISUD’s mission, this was an open pro- ject to which philosophers who are not ISUD members were also invited. This open approach—with full respect for binding academic values and criteria— enriches the ISUD legacy and helps the Society to avoid seclusion and ossifica- tion. Free access to the project for thinkers from all parts of the world and di- verse philosophical schools has brought to the fore yet another element which conditions philosophy—its embedding in the cultural and social specifics of the societies the participants originate from. Thus, philosophy is anchored in non- global lifeworlds and, alongside its mission to create universal and holistic con- ceptions, also addresses the concrete. Contrary to appearances there is no con- tradiction here if we consider universality not a simple synthesis of particularity (that which is concrete, not general) but as a set of universal essential features and essences concealed in the concrete. The term “crisis” in the title refers both to the crisis of the human world and humanity, and the crisis in philosophy. In the case of the first, one could some- what cynically say that humanity has stood in crisis almost permanently, at least when it comes to the dissonances between its ideals and their attainment. Hu- manity has never come closer to an ideal condition, nor even to one most hu- mans could accept as satisfying. It has always been plagued by insufficiency and failure, has never attained the ideal of universal happiness, freedom and wellbeing, nor has introduced into life any other attributes of a world that could be described as non-defective and free of hatred and evil. Moreover, the ideals which define wellbeing have been and remain debatable and diverse—both in philosophy and in common sense. Nonetheless, despite the irremovable misery of the human condition, previ- ous crises have been local and temporary, partly related to the natural, biologi- cal life conditions of humans as “beings burdened by shortage” (Arnold Gehlen’s concept), and partly caused by human-independent circumstances like natural disasters, epidemics, and the shortage of necessary commodities. Many past crises also had social roots, and in this case were usually the effect of group’s claims to dominate over others—culturally, politically, economically, religiously, and most often in all these spheres at once. Civilisation’s current crisis differs from its predecessors in that it is global, which means it penetrates to all the spheres of the human world and all its geo- graphical regions. Exclusively responsible for it are humans and the way they run the world, especially their omnipresent drive towards various kinds of dom- ination, especially—allegedly in compliance with a Biblical command—their conceited strivings to subordinate nature to their will. This crisis is spreading and there seem to be no solutions to it in immediate sight, because the damage done to our planet, the only habitat we have, is irreversible. Humanity is pro- ceeding towards self-annihilation, and while doing so is also falling into a mounting spiral of status quo tussles driven by ignorance, stupidity and self- ishness. It is no coincidence that the conception of post-truth (related to the well-known Marxian concept of false consciousness) has gained such populari- ty: it addresses one of the more significant attributes of today’s world. The present crisis is an urgently important, priority-status challenge for phi- losophy. The first step in any rational action against it is to investigate its basic structure, sources, and the deepest mechanisms that make it spread. This is a task for philosophy, whose mission is to diagnose on a broader and deeper level than the empirical sciences. Another good side—or, more proudly, ad- vantage—of philosophy is that, unlike the sciences, it addresses the sphere of values and poses itself normative tasks. This is important, because a breakdown of values is one of the main reasons behind the crisis, as well as one of its main driving forces and one of its main effects. The present issue of Dialogue and Universalism and the three preceding issues examine the crisis in its various aspects, as well as give insights into its roots. The second field of interest covered by the PHILOSOPHY IN AN AGE OF CRISIS: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS project was the dual crisis in philosophy. First, as it is well-known, there is the identity crisis philosophy has been suffering under for some time now, caused by, first, the relegation from it metaphysics and then transforming some philosophical fields into em- pirical sciences. In the early 20th century psychology and sociology have been separated from philosophy; more recently the cognitive sciences have forwarded such attempts with regard to the philosophy of the mind, and even episte- mology. Faced with the disintegration of its traditional operational field, philosophy must redefine itself. One of the two leading meta-projects today, that is, the transformation of philosophy into a study field focused on language and its meanings (the original programme of analytical philosophy, philosophical her- meneutics and postmodernism) appears to be too minimalistic to ensure philos- ophy the rank of a fundamental field, a guardian of rationality and in a specific sense a foundation of all knowledge. Whereas the second meta-project, that is, striving to naturalise philosophy is in its radical version destructive for philo- sophical autonomy because it puts philosophy in a secondary position to sci- ence. On one side, it is difficult to imagine contemporary philosophy in isola- tion from science, as purely speculative, non-rational, mystical, etc., but, on the other, the presence of science in philosophy must be restricted both in scope and character in order to preserve the latter’s autonomy. In sum, today philosophy offers different ideas of the nature of philosophy, a variety of programmes and sets of issues that are considered philosophical. Secondly, philosophy is in a crisis caused by the fact that it is less and less understood, respected, or even accepted by society. For many utilitarian, techni- cally-minded intellectuals—to say nothing of the man in the street—philosophy is an anachronous, unnecessary and at the same time, paradoxically, often in- comprehensible domain. Therefore, alongside internal problems with its own identity, philosophy must also struggle with a negative external image and striv- ings to marginalise it. Today philosophy must prove its worth and importance for a humanity which is lost, unable to define itself and the sense of its world and which is deprived of both axiological guidelines and salvaging visions of the future. This issue of Dialogue and Universalism presents philosophy as it is today: without one clear status or a consistent programme, it investigates current major social, political, anthropological and others issues, and also returns to the philo- sophical past which still seems to provide lasting inspiration for the present world.