Cosmopolitanism speaks much more to a person’s character and willingness to see the world with an open mind. Religion seems to be so close-minded to the world around us. Christianity for example puts its theology and its scriptures above all other religions. Worshipping anything other than Christianity’s version of the “True God” is viewed as “idolatry, itself an offense against divine law…” (Appiah 10). But who decides what is true? Cosmopolitanism goes way beyond just religions. It serves to set a model of world wide community that looks beyond race or religion to see everyone as human beings.
Appiah brings the question of truth to light in chapter one of his book. He uses the example of the Catholic and Muslim religions. Each has its own practices, rituals, each believes their form of religion is “True”, and each believes the other is wrong. In contrast cosmopolitans are people who stand back and allow each group to pratice what they believe is true. There are two basic strands associated with cosmopolitism; first they have a high regard for art and literature from many different places. They also are very interested in the lives of the people who created the art and literature. Second they recognize that “…human beings are different and that we can learn from each other’s differences” (Appaih 4). Yet cosmopolitans do not have to agree or even approve with practices of other religions or cultures. Engaging with different religions or cultures has nothing do with approval; it has everything to do with respecting the group’s customs and beliefs. Without the beliefs the acts of a certain group have no meaning.
The main focus of cosmopolitism has to do with culture and how culture changes
over time. In Samuel Scheffler’s essay Conceptions of Cosmopolitanism he discusses the way people influence cultures around the world. He believes that cultures are in constant flux, constantly modifying, updating, and altering. He see this as a, “normal condition of living cultures” (Scheffler 256). This change is needed so the human race can progress. In his view there is no difference between Christians and Muslims or white and black. We are all citizens of the world and such we have an obligation to the world wide community of human beings to except and embrace our differences.
It is important to state that cosmopolitism does not believe that everyone has the right to do as they please just because they believe it is right. Shared values are needed to protect the world from anarchy. The key is to understand each others cultures. This makes for a more cultured society and one that can learn from each other.
Scheffler, Samuel "Conceptions of Cosmopolitanism." Utilitas 11.3 (1999): 255. Religion and Philosophy Collection. EBSCO. Web. 8 Dec. 2009.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Appiah and Pluralism
I found Appiah’s views of cosmopolitanism to be very intriguing. His views remind me of religious pluralism, where people are willing and able to accept one another despite religious differences. He makes some very good points about how Muslims and Christians have very different views about who should be worshiped, and what is important in religion, whether it be going to Mecca or going to mass. The real issue is if we as a human race can learn to let people believe whatever they feel works for them, without judging them and forcing our beliefs, whatever they may be, upon someone else. This is what I understood Cosmopolitanism to be.
Appiah states in his first chapter that human beings are different, and we should learn from one another. I agree with him whole-heartedly. If we, as a humans, could learn to break down the barriers of religion and learn to accept each other on a human level and see that we all have something in common, then we would not have all of the problems we have today. Appiah also says that real disagreements often arise from religion, which supports the reason why religious pluralism is a good concept to embrace.
According to Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad in her essay, Claiming Muslim Space in America’s Pluralism, she says, “The mission for Muslims in the world is to combat un-Islamic orders and not to compromise with them.” This puts the idea of religious pluralism in a tough and awkward position. According to this quote, religious pluralism and the act of accepting other people and cultures that believe anything other than the Muslim faith is against the Muslim religion. How do we embrace religious pluralism when it can force a particular group of people to go against what they believe?
This is what makes this topic such a difficult one for us to figure out here is America where people have religious freedom. People have the right to believe whatever they want, and it is unconstitutional for us to force people to be pluralistic. In my opinion, the best way to go about this is to educate the masses about acceptance and tolerance. We do not have to force people around us to agree with what we believe, but we can teach people about tolerance.
Works Cited:
Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck. "Claiming Muslim Space in America's Pluralism." Critical Issues in American Religious History. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2001. 785-795. Print.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Cosmopolitanism and Responsibility
Appiah begins Chapter Two by discussing the responsibility of cosmopolitans. He explains that the nature of a cosmopolitan is to feel responsible for the well-being of other cultures. That, because of the universal morality cosmopolitans experience, cosmopolitans consequently feel the need to help those that suffer. Appiah also discusses the anthropologists' aversion to such intervention. The anthropologist encourages us "to leave well enough alone" (Appiah, p 14). Much of this aversion is because of what anthropologists have seen throughout history. Even the best of intentions, as proven from witnessed history, can destroy cultures that could have otherwise survived.
The article I read, by Eduard Jordaan, explores world poverty and the lack of cosmopolitan support. Jordaan begins the article by arguing that if cosmopolitans did have the morality they claimed to, then they would be aiding those in poverty. Consequently, the lack of financial aid proves a lack of morality. This is a complex issue. Firstly, I don't agree that helping others is proof of morality. I think that the anthropologist thought of conserving other cultures shows more of their morality than trying to save other cultures would. To "save" a culture is very subjective. This subjectivity seems very counter intuitive to the cosmopolitan's thought process. How does a cosmopolitan know when to help a culture in need? When a culture doesn't have adequate food or clothing? Or when a culture is starving? Prevention of death from starvation seems like a good place to start. But wouldn't such help eventually infringe upon the culture of the society in need? Also, to financially aid those in need is not always a possibility, as Jordaan discusses.
As politics function today, there will always be poverty, and death by starvation. So what should an altruistic cosmopolitan do? They could take advice from the anthropologist, and conserve other cultures just as they are. They could drain their own finances trying to help a small portion of those who are starving to death, thus reducing their own quality of life without helping many others. They could intervene on a larger scale and risk destroying cultures in need. Or, they could realize that they can't change the world and give off the air of passivity that caused Jordaan to write his article in the first place.
It appears that Jordaan is displacing his ill feelings by blaming cosmopolitans for their seeming passivity. Shouldn't Jordan write to an audience who doesn't care about such matters, and attempt to educate that audience about their need to give financial aid? Instead he takes cosmopolitans, who feel morally responsible already, and basically tells them that they should be doing more. There really isn't much one can do besides giving time and money, which on a personal scale doesn't change much. A cosmopolitan could get into politics, and try to change things that way. But our country alone is in too much debt to save the world from starvation. Convincing those to do more than what is possible is like beating a dead horse. So many people do so much to help those in need, and it just isn't enough.
Kwame, Appiah. Cosmopolitanism, Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton & Co, 2006. Web
Jordaan, Eduard. Cosmopolitanism, Freedom, and Indifference: A Levinasian View. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. Jan-Mar 2009, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p83-106, 24p.
The article I read, by Eduard Jordaan, explores world poverty and the lack of cosmopolitan support. Jordaan begins the article by arguing that if cosmopolitans did have the morality they claimed to, then they would be aiding those in poverty. Consequently, the lack of financial aid proves a lack of morality. This is a complex issue. Firstly, I don't agree that helping others is proof of morality. I think that the anthropologist thought of conserving other cultures shows more of their morality than trying to save other cultures would. To "save" a culture is very subjective. This subjectivity seems very counter intuitive to the cosmopolitan's thought process. How does a cosmopolitan know when to help a culture in need? When a culture doesn't have adequate food or clothing? Or when a culture is starving? Prevention of death from starvation seems like a good place to start. But wouldn't such help eventually infringe upon the culture of the society in need? Also, to financially aid those in need is not always a possibility, as Jordaan discusses.
As politics function today, there will always be poverty, and death by starvation. So what should an altruistic cosmopolitan do? They could take advice from the anthropologist, and conserve other cultures just as they are. They could drain their own finances trying to help a small portion of those who are starving to death, thus reducing their own quality of life without helping many others. They could intervene on a larger scale and risk destroying cultures in need. Or, they could realize that they can't change the world and give off the air of passivity that caused Jordaan to write his article in the first place.
It appears that Jordaan is displacing his ill feelings by blaming cosmopolitans for their seeming passivity. Shouldn't Jordan write to an audience who doesn't care about such matters, and attempt to educate that audience about their need to give financial aid? Instead he takes cosmopolitans, who feel morally responsible already, and basically tells them that they should be doing more. There really isn't much one can do besides giving time and money, which on a personal scale doesn't change much. A cosmopolitan could get into politics, and try to change things that way. But our country alone is in too much debt to save the world from starvation. Convincing those to do more than what is possible is like beating a dead horse. So many people do so much to help those in need, and it just isn't enough.
Kwame, Appiah. Cosmopolitanism, Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton & Co, 2006. Web
Jordaan, Eduard. Cosmopolitanism, Freedom, and Indifference: A Levinasian View. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. Jan-Mar 2009, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p83-106, 24p.
Caste and Class in India
When reading Patel's chapter, An American in India
, I remembered past travels that I took to Bolivia as a teenager. The younger I was the more I hated going back to Bolivia every summer. I hated the smell of the dirty streets riddled with beggar's and the fact that I had to brush my teeth with bottled water and I especially hated the nonexistence of American food. It was not until my later teen years that I began to appreciate the culture and sympathizes with the poverty. Similar to Patel's experience, I saw the unjust treatment of people and the acceptance of that treatment and I saw the importance of a class system and wealth. Patel realizes his early resistance to his Indian culture was due to what he was subjected to in America. He pinpoints America as a nation that, "seduced me [him] into adopting its styles and its scorn, forced me [him] to sacrifice my [his] true heritage in a devil's bargain for acceptance, and then laughed viciously when it slowly dawned on me that I would never be anything but a second-class citizen there".
Patel's later visits to India opened his eyes to the inequality people suffered and the different values of his American culture to those of Indian culture. The different identities people had in Indian seemed unchangeable. His grandmothers servants had been in the family for over fifty years and were considered part of the family by Patel's grandmother but they would still be nothing more than servants. India has an easily distinguishable class system while Americans class system is much more fluid because of most of the population can be classified as middle class. The different values placed in America oppose those of many different cultures. Patel classifies those values as, "the dignity of labor, the fundamental equality of human beings, mobility based on drive and talent, the opportunity to create and contribute". The fundamental value of humans being equal is not one accepted by all in America let alone other countries that place high value on a class system.
The Harijans (better known as the "untouchables") are an example of how the Hindu caste system oppressed people based on their occupation. Before 1949, Harijans were subjected to discrimination and had social restrictions because they were viewed as the absolute bottom of the Hindu caste. They were seen as pollution to others. This type of discrimination has been seen in most parts of the world and is reminiscent of the different types of discrimination in America. In past years, Harijans have been given more rights. They have been granted the right to an education and to vocational opportunities but are still discriminated against. Although the government in India has given them more rights many people still view them as the bottom of the Hindu caste. Similar to figures that Patel draws insight and inspiration from (Douglass, Malcolm X, Gandhi) he sees the injustice in the creation of a caste system.
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition; 10/1/2009, p1-1, 1p
Khare, R.S. The Untouchable as Himself. New York, NY. Cambridge University Press 1984.
, I remembered past travels that I took to Bolivia as a teenager. The younger I was the more I hated going back to Bolivia every summer. I hated the smell of the dirty streets riddled with beggar's and the fact that I had to brush my teeth with bottled water and I especially hated the nonexistence of American food. It was not until my later teen years that I began to appreciate the culture and sympathizes with the poverty. Similar to Patel's experience, I saw the unjust treatment of people and the acceptance of that treatment and I saw the importance of a class system and wealth. Patel realizes his early resistance to his Indian culture was due to what he was subjected to in America. He pinpoints America as a nation that, "seduced me [him] into adopting its styles and its scorn, forced me [him] to sacrifice my [his] true heritage in a devil's bargain for acceptance, and then laughed viciously when it slowly dawned on me that I would never be anything but a second-class citizen there".Patel's later visits to India opened his eyes to the inequality people suffered and the different values of his American culture to those of Indian culture. The different identities people had in Indian seemed unchangeable. His grandmothers servants had been in the family for over fifty years and were considered part of the family by Patel's grandmother but they would still be nothing more than servants. India has an easily distinguishable class system while Americans class system is much more fluid because of most of the population can be classified as middle class. The different values placed in America oppose those of many different cultures. Patel classifies those values as, "the dignity of labor, the fundamental equality of human beings, mobility based on drive and talent, the opportunity to create and contribute". The fundamental value of humans being equal is not one accepted by all in America let alone other countries that place high value on a class system.
The Harijans (better known as the "untouchables") are an example of how the Hindu caste system oppressed people based on their occupation. Before 1949, Harijans were subjected to discrimination and had social restrictions because they were viewed as the absolute bottom of the Hindu caste. They were seen as pollution to others. This type of discrimination has been seen in most parts of the world and is reminiscent of the different types of discrimination in America. In past years, Harijans have been given more rights. They have been granted the right to an education and to vocational opportunities but are still discriminated against. Although the government in India has given them more rights many people still view them as the bottom of the Hindu caste. Similar to figures that Patel draws insight and inspiration from (Douglass, Malcolm X, Gandhi) he sees the injustice in the creation of a caste system.
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition; 10/1/2009, p1-1, 1p
Khare, R.S. The Untouchable as Himself. New York, NY. Cambridge University Press 1984.
Idealistic not realistic
Cosmopolitanism is an idealistic way of perceiving how the world should and could be by means of creating a community that shares similar values. Although the idea of creating a global community that shares the same beliefs and values may sound ideal, there come many issues caused by contradictions. According to Appiah, intervening with another society and trying to influence it with one’s own culture is not seeing the similar values one may have, but instead, it is pushing another belief or value that the “outsider” may see as a cure or value that will make the society better. Outsiders of one society make look at a culture and see that something is wrong with it because it goes against their personal or religious views. In seeing this, there are people who feel the need to intervene and push forth their beliefs, or the right belief (in their mind), and attempt to create a global community with the same values and beliefs that they find are true. The problem with this is simply that many cultures and religious beliefs and values clash and so there is no way to create a global community with shared beliefs without disrupting and possibly destroying cultures and religions because a new and “shared” belief system would be ultimately forced onto people. Appiah gives examples of how different cultures have practices that many outsiders would find atrocious but the people within the culture see no wrong or harm in what they do. Appiah also describes what he calls Positivism which consists of beliefs and desires. “Beliefs are supposed to reflect how the world is. Desires reflect how we’d like it to be” (Appiah, p 18). According to an article by Bohman J. he states that “It is no longer possible to assume national or cultural sovereignty over publicity: the de facto principle of one culture, one public sphere' hardly holds true for any society around the world.” I believe that although this idea sounds great to some, it can be scary for others in the sense that many people will be pressured to follow the one view and belief system of one global community which can also create tension with people who may not agree. The mix of beliefs and desires seems to conflict with one another in that we see the world the way we want it to be and how we need to go about changing it in order to make it that way. Because there are so many different beliefs and values in this world there is no way that all of them will simply blend together without some disruption.
Kwame, Appiah. Cosmopolitanism, Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: Norton & Co, 2006. Web
BOHMAN J. Philosophy & social criticism.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998, vol. 24, no2-3, pp. 199-216.
Kwame, Appiah. Cosmopolitanism, Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: Norton & Co, 2006. Web
BOHMAN J. Philosophy & social criticism.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998, vol. 24, no2-3, pp. 199-216.
Cosmopolitanism
The ideology of cosmopolitanism is, the entire human race is connected together and creates one community, which has a shared morality. Someone who is cosmopolitan is described by many authors as, a person with a widely defined position of openness toward other people with origins that are not similar to their own. When individuals show cosmopolitan openness toward others, it is demonstrated in political, cultural, or aesthetic domains. This attitude is expressed by ethical and emotional dedication toward universalism, selflessness, worldliness and communitarianism. To be a cosmopolitanism is to have a perspective, or state of mind that involves particular modes of managing meanings, and varieties of mobilities.
The word cosmopolitan derives from the Greek word cosmos, which refers to the universe. People in a cosmopolitan society are connected across this universe, different states, nations, or continents, and they have a shared respect with each other based on morality, political structure, or a shared economic connection. Cosmopolitanism thinkers’ believer that all borders should be broken down and everyone should unite as one.
Cosmopolitanism recognizes that depending on location, economics, and culture, humans are different (in their beliefs, politics, morals, etc) and we can learn from the differences that we have. According to Richard Burton, a cosmopolitan openness to humankind across the world is entirely consistent with picking and choosing among the options you find in your exploration. No nation can be self sufficient, so all nations should work together to supply each other with what we need to make this world turn smoothly. It is the responsibility of every cosmopolitan to watch over and care for every other human being on the planet.
There is an ongoing debate whether cosmopolitanism literature has a class bias. Some authors think that cosmopolitanism is only for the privileged elites who have a higher education level, income, and capacity for mobility. This came from the late Victorian England era, when the cosmopolitanism belief was most common among the educated upper classes. Higher education, whether formal or informal, when examining cross ethnic lines without bias, expands a person’s cultural awareness. The same is true for the financial ability to travel globally, experiencing other societies (their religious, political, and cultural differences) first hand, can give a person an openness to humankind.
Works cited:
Kwame, Appiah. Cosmopolitanism, Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: Norton & Co, 2006. Web
Woodward, Ian. and Skrbis, Zlatko. "Strategic cosmopolitanism: Investigating the limits of cosmopolitan openness" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Aug 11, 2006
The word cosmopolitan derives from the Greek word cosmos, which refers to the universe. People in a cosmopolitan society are connected across this universe, different states, nations, or continents, and they have a shared respect with each other based on morality, political structure, or a shared economic connection. Cosmopolitanism thinkers’ believer that all borders should be broken down and everyone should unite as one.
Cosmopolitanism recognizes that depending on location, economics, and culture, humans are different (in their beliefs, politics, morals, etc) and we can learn from the differences that we have. According to Richard Burton, a cosmopolitan openness to humankind across the world is entirely consistent with picking and choosing among the options you find in your exploration. No nation can be self sufficient, so all nations should work together to supply each other with what we need to make this world turn smoothly. It is the responsibility of every cosmopolitan to watch over and care for every other human being on the planet.
There is an ongoing debate whether cosmopolitanism literature has a class bias. Some authors think that cosmopolitanism is only for the privileged elites who have a higher education level, income, and capacity for mobility. This came from the late Victorian England era, when the cosmopolitanism belief was most common among the educated upper classes. Higher education, whether formal or informal, when examining cross ethnic lines without bias, expands a person’s cultural awareness. The same is true for the financial ability to travel globally, experiencing other societies (their religious, political, and cultural differences) first hand, can give a person an openness to humankind.
Works cited:
Kwame, Appiah. Cosmopolitanism, Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: Norton & Co, 2006. Web
Woodward, Ian. and Skrbis, Zlatko. "Strategic cosmopolitanism: Investigating the limits of cosmopolitan openness" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Aug 11, 2006
The meaning of finding the same language of values
It is mentioned in the Cosmopolitanism by Appiah that the meanings of things are not in our heads, that we can talk about things that we don't even know what they are, and yet the reason that we can use those words and mean something by them is that people in our language community do have the relevant expertise (Appiah 28). It is quite interesting in that way that language was created, just as a means of communication; however, if an individual has no need of communicating to others around them, language doesn't even have to exist. The reason language became necessary is because there is a shared public need among a group of people to be able to share thoughts, ideas and as the matter of fact be able to come up with values. Values therefore are shaped out of interactions between human beings. It is thus imperative that the language of values is influential and discussable among human beings.
Toward the conclusion of his discussion, Appiah pointed out that relativism about ethics and morality gives reasons to fall silent more than encouraging conversations. That in fact goes against the original purpose of language, or language of values to be specific. Stories told through the language of values were to be convinced who ever the stories were told to to accept the values communicated or at least should be open for discussions in order to find shared values among people. Through examples of stories, it opens a certain concerned set of values that give people the opportunity to express their opinions toward the situation. To understand why different people think differently from you allows you to discuss your way of adjusting their thoughts to the current environment and vice versa. It is in the end the target of finding the middle ground where certain values of different people meet each other and can be tolerated so that the people are able to live together in the same place regardless of where they came from originally.
As values change from culture to culture, the share values is more essential when individuals start sharing the same environment through migration, globalization, etc. Yet, is is then important that not only a shared language of values is used to communicate, but also to find ways for a shared point of view of the same world that people are living in together. For if we all live in different world, have different world views, and never have to see each other, again, there will be no need for discussions using languages of any sort. As the matter of fact, the meaning of finding the same language of values has become crucial due to the development of economy, sociology during the time of globalization when human beings from everywhere in the world are trying to fit their language of values with each other in order to live in the same world.
Source: Appiah, "Cosmopolitanism"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)