What is Cultural Cosmopolitanism? (Philosophical Positions)

[@cmswrD]

I've never heard of this prior to this video. Thanks for making this, your channel has helped me learn about a lot of different ideas :)

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks! And thanks for watching.

[@sethhiles7830]

This is fun to think through because of what it already notices and includes in its arguments, and much of what is considered and offered as a solution is good and reasonable. That being said, there are some major issues that go beyond being simply impractical. Thank you for this lesson; I now have a new concept to learn and consider.

[@blakaligula3745]

I love this series

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Thanks! Glad you enjoy.

[@hjge1012]

The big problem with Rawls his theory of justice, is that it isn't practical. Because what someone believes to be just or good, depends on the moral and cultural values you already hold. So people from different cultures will never come to the same conclusion on what is just and good. So to get to his society, people need to already be in this society. So while it's a nice ideal to hold, how do we actually get there? The only way to get to something of the sort, is to actually hold to what you (a group, a nation a ...) think is good and just for everyone, and hold to that. That however also has some nationalist tendencies, because the values already prevalent in a country, depends on who lives there. And were a new culture to move in, they would not think everything is just and good. And this gets us to roughly where we(in the west) as a society are right now.

[@mylesrobertson6451]

Great video by the way. Hear are my perspectives on sharing cultures and experiencing different learning techniques of any culture. People do learn from each others to take into consideration of capability, knowledge, and even integrity. The United States is definitely a country full of diverse citizens looking for better opportunities. Frequently, this country is growing fast in population and economic growth. If a person migrates from India, or China, Indonesia, or where ever a place may be globally, if they move to the U.S.A of course they'll need to learn English. It will be important for them to socialize and understand everyone they encounter when living here. They much take the knowledge of learning to read and write it. On a geographical standpoint, when moving to an entirely new country, adapting to the surroundings of places, historical settings, and environments play a big role. As I begin my point, learning a new culture can open up doors for somebody who is finding a new job. Studying the language, religious values, and beliefs are essential to being successful. Its not necessarily a bad thing but its a great experience to have and become smart. Of course learning a new language isn't the only way to be successful but we need more teachers, professors, and educators in today's society. For people that travel overseas, people can share the language and incorporate in with the people they work with.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

That is one of the ideas at the center of cosmopolitanism, you do not need to be restricted to the language, culture, or religion you were born into.

[@WezMan444]

Reading the comments it’s sad to see that we are all so jaded and world weary that as soon as we hear a good ideology we immediately denounce it as unachievable

[@blueglassar]

It is achievable. If each state would start taking cosmpolitanism seriously and push towards it little by little, then by the end of a century or two there would be one united world. Of course, this is very far at the moment. And yet, closer than ever before in human history, so it would seem. And of course... the closer the better. So our current situation, in that regard (as well as many others), is the best in human history so far. So, although it might seem small, there is some reason to stay positive.

[@owenswabi]

It’s actually a terrible theory and it erodes every culture it touches and extinguished lineages of entire peoples

[@Malikav0311]

I didn't hear any good ideology in this. Cosmopolitan thought is poison.

[@blueglassar]

@user-ck9ul4ic4k In what sense? I guess it could be many things. Though, I suppose it could lean fairly well towards some kind of social democracy.

[@blueglassar]

@user-ck9ul4ic4k I suppose it depends on where you stand. For example, I would consider it more of a left wing position, for the most part. However, communists and such might claim it is a right wing stance. At least the sort of cosmopolitanism that I imagine. Because social democracy is still a sort of capitalism, in their eyes. On the other hand, for nationalists and libertarians cosmpolitanism would be a left wing thing. Although, I suppose the economics could go either way (socialist, social democracy, libertarian). The one thing cosmopolitanism seems to be strongly at odds with is nationalism and other forms of mindless tribalism. So in essence you could say it is left wing leaning.

[@aryaghorbani2675]

I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world. ~ Eugene Debs

[@IndustrialMilitia]

A friend to all is a friend to none. ~ Aristotle

[@blueglassar]

@@IndustrialMilitia I am not sure of this. I mean, it might imply that if your loyalty is split between friends (or allies) which are in conflict then you are not really loyal to any. And there is no friendship without loyalty. So you must abandon one to save the other. This line of thought has its merits, I think. However, it still seems to me that if there is no conflict then there is no problem ethier (why should there be?). Moreover, even in case of a conflict, it does not mean that the friendship is not valued. Just because one can value different things which have tension between them does not necessarily implies he is ought to abandon one. Instead, he can live with the conflict, as part of life's complexity. Maybe in radical cases one is forced to chose a side. But those cases (whatever they are) are not a must, a world without them might be possible. And still, even if to insist otherwise, that there will always be some radical conflict... I think it should be said instead that "A friend to all can remain a friend to most (or at least many)". Aside from that, the cosmpolite is probably more concerned with universal goodness, fairness and justice for all rather then friendship with all. So it is not a problem for the worldview.

[@IndustrialMilitia]

@@blueglassar I think that it's a fundamental metaphysical difference that you see manifest itself time and time again in different iterations. It's a difference between Heraclitus and Parmenides. An entity only has value relative to that which it is not. Friendship only has value relative to that which is not friendship. So to apply the value of friendship to all entities is not to eliminate the existence of non-friendship, but to reduce non-friendship to friendship itself, thus removing any initial or substantive meaning for the value itself. Heraclitus very actually identified this, but unfortunately in large part due to moral and ethical sentiments, Oneness as a metaphysical concept is valued over Twoness when in fact even Oneness itself is two: it necessitates that which is not one (ie. two) in order to provide it with any meaning. Friends without those who are not friends is merely apathy.

[@blueglassar]

@@IndustrialMilitia Interesting, however I am not certain I quite follow. Maybe, I did not understand your argument. Because to me it does seem that a thing can have independent value. If there are only two beings in the world, and they have a friendship, then this has value. Regardless of the fact that their is no such thing as non-friendship in that world. And this does not seem to change if to add more beings into it. Or maybe, as more beings you add, I can see it as less rare, less unique and thus less charished perhaps. So in that sense I can see its value reduced. And then there would also be a difference between having one friend or twenty or billions of them. The more you have, the less valuable they seem to be. Which is probably true of most (or all) things of value. And then, you are reduced as well in the eyes of everyone, as you are a friend of everyone. I mean, that can be one way to look at it. Although, it seems to view friendship as simplistic. A means rather than an end. So I would not take this view. In truth, I think, true friendship is complicated and deep and demands loyalty. And this is the sense in which it has value in itself. Again, I guess you might have aimed your argument at another aspect instead of what I wrote above. And yet, as I see it, true friendship can not be diminished by being universalized. Not that I think it should or could be done at the moment. But say, if only 2 (or 5) beings remained on earth, why not be friends instead of non-friends? I think, maybe as you said, I am more concerned with ethics (what makes a good life in particular) and its implications than metaphysical accuracy (although I might be wrong to do so). This aside, I will mention again, cosmopolitanism makes no claim for friendship between all (at least not in the true, complex and deep sense of it). Instead, it argues for mutual understanding and collaboration of humanity, which will be based on reason (and that requires much less than friendship).

[@prenuptials5925]

this is pretty much the position of Charles Taylor, the godfather of communitarianism, and just about everyone he's influenced. yet, this contradicts the description of "communitarians" you have in your other video. i know you're taking from Stanford's Plato, but even then it's page on communitarianism contradicts the page on nationalism. whoever wrote the page on nationalism either misunderstands communitarianism, or is just uncharitable and is trying to make a Motte and Bailey out of it. and once again, there's no literature i can actually find on "communitarian nationalism".

[@winnluke1976]

Great content, but you need to slow down and annunciate more clearly. Focus on thought groups and speed, plus a better audio set-up would make these videos much better.

[@johncracker5217]

The nationalist also believes cultural appropriation is immoral

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

It likely depends on the type of nationalist and the type of cultural appropriation. Nationalists generally think you have some special relationship to your culture or responsibilities, but exactly what those responsibilities are depends on the particular view. And some people find "cultural appropriation" as moral in some circumstances and immoral in others (kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYO2eGibqKmbhKc)

[@Overonator]

I think we should work toward Cultural Cosmopolitanism.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

It may be a hard thing to accomplish, but I think there is a strong case that it is a laudable goal.

[@zapazap]

*Who's* cultural cosmopolitanism?

[@Overonator]

@@zapazap The one that is determined from Rawl's Veil of Ignorance

[@zapazap]

@@Overonator : Rawls Veil is indeterminant. We might prefer different cosmopolitisms , or no cosmopolitanism at all, prior to the veil being withdrawn. Right?

[@Overonator]

@@zapazap Sure people have different preferences and different values but I think a strong concensus could develop around preferences and values.

[@brileyvandyke5792]

This idea seems to seek to rewire all of human understanding as it pertains to identity and belonging to one’s native culture. That to me is naïve and grossly immoral, reckless and impractical. This idea presupposes something it cannot prove; that the love of self, and that which identifies as belonging to one’s self is irrelevant.

[@clutrike7956]

Hmm. After watching this, I don't think there is anything that I am more diametrically opposed to then 'Cultural Cosmopolitanism'.

[@AakashKumar-gl2fk]

I know a political idea is useless if it sounds good like this one and communism.

[@blueglassar]

I think the ideas of the enlightenment also sounded too good to some back then. Good thing they were applied anyway, right? Perhaps some would argue that there is some significant difference between the two. But as I see it cosmopolitanism is just anothet great step of the enlightenment. Sure, it is a long step to make, countless of steps in fact. But why not start walking towards what is good? After all, just because some good sounding ideas are useless (if they are that is) does not mean they all are.