Description
A political and philosophical manifesto considers the ramifications of a world in which western society is divided from all other creeds and cultures, challenging the separatist doctrines espoused by other writers to evaluate the limited capacity of differentiating societies as compared to the power of a united world. By the author of In My Father'
Status
Available
Call number
Publication
New York : W.W. Norton, c2006.
User reviews
LibraryThing member worldsedge
The most frustrating thing about this book is that Prof. Appiah doesn't really seem to advocating what I would consider true Cosmopolitanism. He supports nation-states, individuals acting in preference to their local concerns over those at a distance, and even a form of I guess what you'd call
But I happen to like Sprite in preference to Coca-Cola, and I also happen to think his modifications to the over the top ideas of true Cosmopolitanism rein in some of the goofier extremes he cites, and that render the philosophy unlivable by humans. And that's the case even if these extremes follow logically from the premises of the philosophy, though he seems unwilling to concede this point.
His outlook on the world also candidly struck me as rather naïve, or at least tilting towards an unfortunate political correctness. As in, for a gay man, he certainly seemed reluctant to criticize Islam, though he mentioned attitudes toward gay marriage in the West. Well, if homosexuals can't get married in the West at least they're not at risk of being stoned to death.
An interesting work, but I would submit not a complete one.
Show More
enlightened self-interest. What's "Cosmopolitan" about any of this? Since the "neo-" prefix gets appended onto just about everything these days, I guess we could call what he's advocating "Neocosmopolitanism"? To coin a, uh, neologism. In any event, one thought I had reading the book is that he's filling a can with Sprite and calling it Coca-Cola.But I happen to like Sprite in preference to Coca-Cola, and I also happen to think his modifications to the over the top ideas of true Cosmopolitanism rein in some of the goofier extremes he cites, and that render the philosophy unlivable by humans. And that's the case even if these extremes follow logically from the premises of the philosophy, though he seems unwilling to concede this point.
His outlook on the world also candidly struck me as rather naïve, or at least tilting towards an unfortunate political correctness. As in, for a gay man, he certainly seemed reluctant to criticize Islam, though he mentioned attitudes toward gay marriage in the West. Well, if homosexuals can't get married in the West at least they're not at risk of being stoned to death.
An interesting work, but I would submit not a complete one.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mkjones
For as long as humanity has created different cultures, there has also been clashes between them. One would think that we'd be better at getting along by now. The author has written an engaging contemporary essay that is part philosophy and part situated reminiscence on the ancient concept of the
Show More
"polites of the cosmos", or citizen of the world. Show Less
LibraryThing member Bibliophial
A gentle, conversational, sharp piece of advocacy for dialoguing with each other across cultures. Eirenic and perhaps somewhat naïve; but hopeful.
LibraryThing member ohernaes
Appiah traces the history of cosmopolitan ethics to try to stake a course between cultural relativism and value fundamentalism. He does not present clear-cut answers, but believes mutual understanding will ensue if both (or all) sides participate in conversation - both in its original meaning of
Show More
living together and of the current meaning of discussing - and get used to each other. Then we may actually learn from our differences. And presumably also extend our moral circle. Perhaps this is naive, but perhaps not. I particularly liked the part where he reminds us that people with different beliefs often appeal to evidence the same way, e.g. by employing explanations that they cannot account for in detail, invoking authorities, and bringing up new facts that needs explaining. He is perfectly clear that modern science most often provides better explanations, thanks to its institutional structure that has been built and has persisted for a long time. Show Less
LibraryThing member charlie68
Some of the philosophizing is a little opaque, but the reasoning is sound. Makes a good case for Cosmopolitanism.
LibraryThing member maryroberta
Thoughful, well-reasoned. Nice introduction. Good message, but reliant on good SES.
LibraryThing member Kavinay
There's something really clever going on in Appiah's take on ethics in a global world. He goes out of his way to point out that while the main thrust of his positive argument is "you care about X because your neighbour does" is easy to articulate, it's damn hard to get there in most ethical
I don't think this will appeal or even make sense to anyone interested in defining their identity with nations and states. In many ways, Appiah's moral compass only makes sense in a post-colonial context. If you think some accident of your birth entitles you to a special or nobler moral value then he has nothing to offer you. The very point of Appiah's approach to ethics is to first realize that most of the historical precedents that are pointed to for defining moral identities are themeselves mutable. Judgements aren't static. They change over time and they change dramatically when in contact with the wider world.
Why bother reading this? In a political era where nationalism and populism is surprisingly effective, Appiah points out that the purity of moral identities is fiction. This isn't ivory tower philosophy. It's applied ethics that gets the experience of the world from a non-majority point of view--something that's really hard to find articulated so well in any work on ethics.
Show More
systems. I don't think this will appeal or even make sense to anyone interested in defining their identity with nations and states. In many ways, Appiah's moral compass only makes sense in a post-colonial context. If you think some accident of your birth entitles you to a special or nobler moral value then he has nothing to offer you. The very point of Appiah's approach to ethics is to first realize that most of the historical precedents that are pointed to for defining moral identities are themeselves mutable. Judgements aren't static. They change over time and they change dramatically when in contact with the wider world.
Why bother reading this? In a political era where nationalism and populism is surprisingly effective, Appiah points out that the purity of moral identities is fiction. This isn't ivory tower philosophy. It's applied ethics that gets the experience of the world from a non-majority point of view--something that's really hard to find articulated so well in any work on ethics.
Show Less
Subjects
Awards
Arthur Ross Book Award (Gold Medal — Gold Medal — 2007)
Language
Original publication date
2006 (1st edition)
ISBN
0393061558 / 9780393061550