What do you think?
Rate this book
Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers
“A brilliant and humane philosophy for our confused age.”―Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell Drawing on a broad range of disciplines, including history, literature, and philosophy―as well as the author's own experience of life on three continents― Cosmopolitanism is a moral manifesto for a planet we share with more than six billion strangers.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
215 people are currently reading
3358 people want to read
About the author
Kwame Anthony Appiah
113 books439 followersKwame Anthony Appiah, the president of the PEN American Center, is the author of The Ethics of Identity, Thinking It Through: An Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy, The Honor Code and the prize-winning Cosmopolitanism. Raised in Ghana and educated in England, he has taught philosophy on three continents and is a former professor at Princeton University and currently has a position at NYU.
Series:
* Sir Patrick Scott Mystery (as Anthony Appiah)
Series:
* Sir Patrick Scott Mystery (as Anthony Appiah)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 246 reviews
May 19, 2009
As a student of philosophy, and as a person genuinely interested in the type of project that Appiah pursues herein, I became increasingly frustrated with his work here. In an attempt to avoid metaphysical claims--and the subsequent alienation such notions entail--but, in the process, fails to come up with a coherent theory for dealing with these issues. His examples and storytelling feel frequently like counterexamples as much as examples to make his points.
I was very interested in Appiah's project and feel like I was putting forth a sympathetic ear in reading his work. In addition, contemporary ethical projects necessitate the sort of global thinking and trans-cultural realities he brings into the conversation. We need to think in a more thorough and grounded way than ethical theory, generally speaking, has managed to do. I am not denying that many ethicists are interested in engaging these ideas, but the flexibility that Appiah orchestrates is genuinely intriguing. Unfortunately, by dancing around universal and metaphysical claims the way he does, Appiah suggests solid ground that he subsequently ignores in his writing. That is, I argue Appiah does make metaphysical claims he ignores in order to make his project sound more successful than it is.
The idea of cosmopolitanism--in some form or another--is one route to articulating a trans-boundary ethic in a global age. And, indeed, I find Appiah's project of great importance. What I left the book feeling, though, is that someone needs to make more solid claims than he does and to articulate, and in fact argue, a theory that Appiah avoids. In the introduction, Appiah jests that philosophers do not frequently write "really useful books." Perhaps he takes his own joke too much to heart by avoiding more meaningful claims in the rest of the text.
I was very interested in Appiah's project and feel like I was putting forth a sympathetic ear in reading his work. In addition, contemporary ethical projects necessitate the sort of global thinking and trans-cultural realities he brings into the conversation. We need to think in a more thorough and grounded way than ethical theory, generally speaking, has managed to do. I am not denying that many ethicists are interested in engaging these ideas, but the flexibility that Appiah orchestrates is genuinely intriguing. Unfortunately, by dancing around universal and metaphysical claims the way he does, Appiah suggests solid ground that he subsequently ignores in his writing. That is, I argue Appiah does make metaphysical claims he ignores in order to make his project sound more successful than it is.
The idea of cosmopolitanism--in some form or another--is one route to articulating a trans-boundary ethic in a global age. And, indeed, I find Appiah's project of great importance. What I left the book feeling, though, is that someone needs to make more solid claims than he does and to articulate, and in fact argue, a theory that Appiah avoids. In the introduction, Appiah jests that philosophers do not frequently write "really useful books." Perhaps he takes his own joke too much to heart by avoiding more meaningful claims in the rest of the text.
March 20, 2010
Thoroughly, disappointingly mediocre. A couple of the arguments in this book were pretty terrible, the rest being rather tepid. Appiah disagrees with Peter Singer et al about the conclusions drawn from the Shallow Pond thought experiment, in which we are said to have very demanding ethical obligations to donate as much of our worldly possessions as possible to help the poor in the third world. His objection to this argument? We can't know all of the consequences of our actions, so we can't say that the sort of austere altruism drawn out from the Shallow Pond is the ethical thing to do. Really Kwame? Then how is it that this purported fog of epistemic uncertainty leaves any room for casuistry or ethics at all - for if ignorance of the full extent of the consequences of our actions is good enough reason to obviate an ethical duty, then NO action can be judged ethical because the full consequences of every single action can not be teased out. Appiah could have made something similar to R.M. Hare's suggestion of adopting general rules of thumb for ethical behavior, since neither can we know the full consequences of our actions nor do we have the time to examine the consequences of every trivial decision we make in a robust way. Then there is Bernard Williams who contends that utilitarianism demands too much of us, and that we should devote time and money to personal projects that we find meaningful. But I digress.
The other ridiculous argument that comes to mind is where Appiah criticizes the view that logical positivism takes on ethics. Following the tradition of Hume, logical positivists hold to the categorical distinction between is and ought. Facts describe actual states of affairs, they "are". Ethical claims say how states of affairs OUGHT to be. So it would seem that one could not settle ethical questions with merely an appeal to the facts, or vice-versa. Appiah's response to this is a radical interpretation of underdetermination. He claims that all scientific descriptions of reality are underdetermined, that some alternate theory could hold equally well or better with the given facts. Ergo, the uncertainty surrounding ethical questions is matched by uncertainty surrounding matters of fact. How this is supposed to help Appiah's case I can't be sure.
The one thing in this book that Appiah does well is explaining the difficulty in convincing people of something when their view of the world is radically different. It would be quite challenging, for instance, to convince a remote tribe that disease is caused by pathogens when it is central to their world view that diseases are curses from angry spirits. Much preliminary education and paradigm shifting would have to take place before the tribespeople would find the germ theory of disease plausible.
The rest of the book is largely a tepid plea for having interculturally shared values and mutual respect for diversity and differences of opinion.
The other ridiculous argument that comes to mind is where Appiah criticizes the view that logical positivism takes on ethics. Following the tradition of Hume, logical positivists hold to the categorical distinction between is and ought. Facts describe actual states of affairs, they "are". Ethical claims say how states of affairs OUGHT to be. So it would seem that one could not settle ethical questions with merely an appeal to the facts, or vice-versa. Appiah's response to this is a radical interpretation of underdetermination. He claims that all scientific descriptions of reality are underdetermined, that some alternate theory could hold equally well or better with the given facts. Ergo, the uncertainty surrounding ethical questions is matched by uncertainty surrounding matters of fact. How this is supposed to help Appiah's case I can't be sure.
The one thing in this book that Appiah does well is explaining the difficulty in convincing people of something when their view of the world is radically different. It would be quite challenging, for instance, to convince a remote tribe that disease is caused by pathogens when it is central to their world view that diseases are curses from angry spirits. Much preliminary education and paradigm shifting would have to take place before the tribespeople would find the germ theory of disease plausible.
The rest of the book is largely a tepid plea for having interculturally shared values and mutual respect for diversity and differences of opinion.
September 21, 2007
I have to say I find Appiah’s cosmopolitanism to be incredibly appealing. Call me a globalized liberal who thinks we can work most things out, but the fact that besides a bedrock belief in toleration of all but intolerance, there is little else that exists as a absolute in Appiah's thinking is attractive to me.
I am sick of all encompassing theories. But I am also wary of an all out relativism. Appiah seems to be trying to walk a line somewhere in the middle. He argues that through engagement, "contamination" and tolerance we can create a new ethics what exactly this means in practical application isn’t always clear, and this small book doesn't answer all the questions I have, but it’s a start.
I am sick of all encompassing theories. But I am also wary of an all out relativism. Appiah seems to be trying to walk a line somewhere in the middle. He argues that through engagement, "contamination" and tolerance we can create a new ethics what exactly this means in practical application isn’t always clear, and this small book doesn't answer all the questions I have, but it’s a start.
Read
December 22, 2025Affable, sometimes witty, obviously learned, full of opinions that cause one to nod and say "yes, I suppose that's reasonable" - what's the point? What's the point of philosophy as a whole, or for that matter cosmopolitan exposure to a wide variety of cultures, if every idea on offer could have been published in a Newsweek of the year of publication? Philosophy should drive you mad! It should leave you concocting pipe bombs, or concrete possible worlds, or sentences like "philosophy leaves everything as it was" while clearly actually being scarred by the experience. Appiah has taken the opportunity to stare God in the face and come back with a tablet inscribed "you should eat plenty of vegetable as a part of a balanced diet, but there's nothing wrong with a little chocolate or beer every now and then, especially since there are plenty of things in life beyond health." Infuriating.
July 3, 2008
Appiah writes elegantly about cosmopolitanism, lacing his narrative (employing "we" as in, "we cosmopolitans") with anecdotes, effectively referencing philosophers, authors, and the like. The book is insidious, however...too easy in its conclusions. It celebrates the "contamination" of cosmopolitanism's curiousity and engagement with difference without critiquing seriously enough the uneven distributions of power that produce and map those differences. Moreover, there is little if any acknowledgement of what critics like Tim Brennan argue vehemently...that cosmopolitanism, like globalization and neoliberalism, are universals with origins in the West--their dissemination serves the interest of not all, but some. This is not to say, however, that the search for universals, or for ideals is a useless pursuit, only that the motivations, rationalizations and deployment of universals must be examined carefully.
September 30, 2020
"The conclusion is obvious enough: the points of entry to cross-cultural conversations are things that are shared by those who are in the conversation. They do not need to be universal; all they need to be is what these particular people have in common. Once we have found enough we share, there is the further possibility that we will be able to enjoy discovering things we do not yet share. That is one of the payoffs of cosmopolitan curiosity. We can learn from one another; or we can simply be intrigued by alternative ways of thinking, feeling, and acting." (97)That sounds good, right—even if a little naïve. Appiah's Cosmopolitanism is heavy on the anecdotes (many of which are very interesting) but thin on the philosophy, so that, in the end, you're not quite sure what Appiah's position really is. Does he have a theory of Cosmopolitanism? Is it simply liberalism writ large, across the globe? The most serious problem facing a global kind of getting-along is that there are people who are fundamentally opposed to this idea, people who do not want to live with (or let live) others who do not share their beliefs and values. Fundamentalists—of whatever color or creed—do not accept the liberal "do what you want and live how you will as long as you do not harm others" idea. Appiah's account might serve to reinforce commitments for those who are already inclined to accept the idea of being (even) more accepting of and curious about other people's customs and so on, but it will do little to sway those who have hardened anti-cosmopolitan beliefs. Appiah touches on several relevant philosophical discussions—on moral truth, obligations to strangers, cultural property, and so on—without, however, always successfully tying them together into a vision of cosmopolitanism. Paradoxically, this has the effect of making someone who at the outset was inclined to agree with Appiah less sure about the position by the end of the book. Or so it seemed to me.
November 19, 2013
This is a very disappointing book on Cosmopolitanism. For someone who wants the people of the world to enter into conversation with one another Appiah is surprisingly dismissive of others. We are presented with caricatures of anti-globalists, postmodern relativists and people who want to preserve some kind of cultural authenticity, their arguments being presented in an overly simplistic fashion so that Appiah can easily wave them away.
But even in these situations he is hardly convincing. To the ubiquitousness of Coca Cola he counters that at least it is drunk at different moments throughout the world. Really? The practical impossibility of acquiring a traditional ceremonial gown in Ghana by the Gahnese themselves because they are so popular throughout the world is countered with the argument that at least the producers are making good money. This is not entering into the discussion at all.
What strikes me even more in this book is the complete absence of the role of power and money in a globalised world. He explains the feelings of the fundamentalist forces in the Islam world like this: "[...]Islam, which once led Christendom, has somehow fallen behind, a sense that produces an uncomfortable mélange of resentment, anger, envy and admiration." No word on oil, Israel or two Gulf wars.
The, sometimes a little condescending, chatty tone of this book only enhances the impression that this is a vaguely argued, intellectually lazy introduction to the subject. There must be better books on Cosmopolitanism.
But even in these situations he is hardly convincing. To the ubiquitousness of Coca Cola he counters that at least it is drunk at different moments throughout the world. Really? The practical impossibility of acquiring a traditional ceremonial gown in Ghana by the Gahnese themselves because they are so popular throughout the world is countered with the argument that at least the producers are making good money. This is not entering into the discussion at all.
What strikes me even more in this book is the complete absence of the role of power and money in a globalised world. He explains the feelings of the fundamentalist forces in the Islam world like this: "[...]Islam, which once led Christendom, has somehow fallen behind, a sense that produces an uncomfortable mélange of resentment, anger, envy and admiration." No word on oil, Israel or two Gulf wars.
The, sometimes a little condescending, chatty tone of this book only enhances the impression that this is a vaguely argued, intellectually lazy introduction to the subject. There must be better books on Cosmopolitanism.
December 14, 2015
What are our ethical obligations to strangers? Appiah's answer, packaged int his relatively short, readable book, is the philosophy of cosmopolitanism. If the word conjures up images of chic city dwellers or the frou-frou drinks they possibly consume, rest assured: Appiah's using cosmopolitanism in the sense of the original root word: cosmos. So, if we're all citizens of the cosmos -- or, to scale it back, the planet -- how should we interact with and treat each other?
Appiah covers a lot of different territory here. There's a takedown of logical positivism, a bit of quibbling with Peter Singer, and a long, thoughtful chapter on the complexities of returning stolen art/artifacts to their original cultures (I don't entirely agree with him, but he does bring up some points I hadn't considered). The way we react to other cultures customs is explored at length, and it's all punctuated with stories and examples from Appiah's native Ghana. Philosophy from a non-Western POV is definitely an eye-opener, and I would definitely recommend this book to others interested in philosophy and ethics. I'm not a convert to cosmopolitanism as a philosophy -- it's a bit too laissez-faire for my tastes and dismissive of cultural appropriation to boot -- but it's definitely given me some things to think about. And that, ultimately, is what a good book does.
Appiah covers a lot of different territory here. There's a takedown of logical positivism, a bit of quibbling with Peter Singer, and a long, thoughtful chapter on the complexities of returning stolen art/artifacts to their original cultures (I don't entirely agree with him, but he does bring up some points I hadn't considered). The way we react to other cultures customs is explored at length, and it's all punctuated with stories and examples from Appiah's native Ghana. Philosophy from a non-Western POV is definitely an eye-opener, and I would definitely recommend this book to others interested in philosophy and ethics. I'm not a convert to cosmopolitanism as a philosophy -- it's a bit too laissez-faire for my tastes and dismissive of cultural appropriation to boot -- but it's definitely given me some things to think about. And that, ultimately, is what a good book does.
March 28, 2018
I've long liked to think of myself as a citizen of the world, as a cosmopolitan - so I was tad disappointed when bits of this book stuck in my craw. However, I agreed with almost all of it, and some of it was a relief to read - to see some things that had been niggling at me, now set out in black and white, with 'permission' to feel that's OK. Maybe it was more the examples than the messages that bothered me? Anyway! I would need to read it again (and not so fragmentedly) and ponder it well, in order to analyse it further, and right now I don't have time.
In the meantime, this gets my philosophical seal of approval.
In the meantime, this gets my philosophical seal of approval.
January 25, 2008
Everyone everywhere who lives in a complex world should read this book. It takes a difficult topic: How do we live in a world that's diverse and contradictory – and engages a thoughtful and gentle conversation and consideration about this subject
This books is intensely well-written. Appiah's concepts and arguments are exemplified and explained anecdotally through his own personal experience. He generously uses these diverse cultural experiences as models, thus cutting down the abstraction of philosophical thought, and allowing a means to engage with complex ideas.
The book is fairly fast read, pleasurable, and very accessible. It seems highly influential having already been translated into about 6 languages and is in the works to be translated into about half a dozen more.
I could go on an on, but the bottom line is that this book gave me tools I cherish for working from a more considered understanding of how diversity and globalization will play out in the everyday of my life.
This books is intensely well-written. Appiah's concepts and arguments are exemplified and explained anecdotally through his own personal experience. He generously uses these diverse cultural experiences as models, thus cutting down the abstraction of philosophical thought, and allowing a means to engage with complex ideas.
The book is fairly fast read, pleasurable, and very accessible. It seems highly influential having already been translated into about 6 languages and is in the works to be translated into about half a dozen more.
I could go on an on, but the bottom line is that this book gave me tools I cherish for working from a more considered understanding of how diversity and globalization will play out in the everyday of my life.
March 18, 2023
read for class. like most of the other things i’ve read for philosophy classes, i have no idea if i agree or disagree but it did make me more confused
November 26, 2022
The best bits in this book were, for me, the parts where the author talks about his childhood, youth and family in Ghana. There were some really interesting insights here, personal tales, thoughtful points about the world in his local neck of the woods and his local neck of the woods in the world, how migrations and different languages have been there for centuries. Like this on p.91: 'Eddie who lives in Japan speaks his wife's language now. ... he was never comfortable in English, the language of our government and schools. When he phones me ... he prefers to speak Asante-Twi'. These sorts of hybrid, multiple identities are key to our world and I love them as a counterpoint to relentless nationalist rhetoric.
I was very excited by the first few pages. The fact that we as humans evolved to live in small groups and to be familiar with every single face we are likely to meet throughout our entire lifespans has interested me ever since I saw the brilliant film about Australian aboriginals, Ten Canoes. And how we then adapt to the world we have created, where we see thousands of unfamiliar faces, where we live among and with and against strangers, where we ourselves are strangers (I was first alerted to this by Georg Simmel's writings on the hectic life and the blasé attitude of metropolises).
But then the book starts to be in a philosophical vein. Indeed, the author is a philosopher by trade. I have difficulties following philosophy at the best of times, and this was not the best of times. What quickly became apparent to me is that the book is heavily weighted towards the experience and writings of cis-men, and next, that it makes a number of annoying assumptions.
Gratuitous and spurious (to me) examples abound. Perhaps this is the way of philosophy? Make up putative cases that never happen in real life? Like the example of circumcision where the author within one sentence associates male circumcision with female circumcision and makes both about personal choice and being associated with modernity. I am no expert on female genital mutilation but even I know that it is an immensely controversial, political and patriarchal issue that far exceeds the way that Appiah uses it to demonstrate a 'change in taste', akin to piercings and tattoos among Americans (pp.74-5)
Then Appiah claims that the reason why there has been a change in the acceptance of lesbian and gay couples is that there has been an increasing presence of ""openly gay"" (his scare quotes) people in social life and in the media which has "changed our habits" (p.77). This ignores the decade-long political struggle that continues to be fought out every single day to attain and maintain equality and rights. It also unthinkingly falls into associating "our" habits with non-gay (and I'm assuming, cis-gender) people. This is a red thread throughout the book.
The colonial argument that it was Western-educated, middle-class people who led anti-colonial movements is interesting but again, I come up against the barrier of philosophical reasoning where what I want is historical information. Yes, "an Indian-born South African lawyer, trained in the British courts, whose name was Gandhi" led the resistance to the British Raj -- but I also know and suspect that there is more to the struggle than this sentence which appears to be, I don't know, implying that it was British education that enabled Gandhi to rebel against the British? That is part of it, and interesting, but it is here used in one paragraph as an example about agreeing on values or not. (p.79)
In fact, the emphasis on 'values' annoyed me throughout. Maybe this is a philosophical thing, thinking in the abstract, but it is meaningless to me. I want specificities. I want grey zones, where people's allegiances are not clear-cut and yes, where patriarchy exists. This is the most astounding thing about this book: patriarchy is not mentioned, feminist texts and struggles are not mentioned (let alone any kind of queer critiques).
The author also seriously underestimates discrimination and hate. "Among our [sic] Christian fellow citizens, there are some, though not, I think, very many [you think? I want statistics!], who want to make our government [he means the US where he resides] and society more Christian, with ... abortion and homosexuality proscribed, evolution off the biology syllabus. But that is usually about it. The centuries of massacre by Christian princes and the Holy Office are long gone." (pp.141-2)
This makes me so angry. Massacre by Christian princes? Hello? Abortion, homosexuality and evolution proscribed - "that is usually about it". About it?? These are not trivial matters! These issues are as bad as the 'massacre by Christian princes', and result in deaths just as much. This thoughtless sentence is especially painful in the light of recent (it's November 2022, as I write) political decisions, making abortion illegal in many parts of the US, and of recent homophobic murders in the US. But I guess these lives don't matter. "That is usually about it."
The book contains some important and serious discussion about our obligation to strangers and asks the moral question: Do we ignore suffering in order to live well? This question has, to my mind, been so much more subtly and powerfully addressed in Ursula Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.
Appiah makes up a hare-brained example, not pertinent to the actual real world. Imagine, he says, a "drab totalitarian regime with excellent prenatal healthcare" (p.165). [Why drab, I ask? My own country, Germany, had a totalitarian regime but it was anything but drab; that is what gave it its deadly glamorous power]. After a "velvet revolution" [he does not mention Czechoslovakia in this context], a "vibrant democracy" with "wobblier" healthcare emerges. [The ideological coupling of "vibrant" with "democracy" is highly dubious.] Even worse is Appiah's caveat: perhaps the healthcare is wobblier because "some pregnant mothers exercise their newly won right to smoke and drink"). [What?] And then comes the clincher: despite infant mortality being higher in the "vibrant democracy" (with its smoking, drinking mothers), "most people would still plump for the velvet revolution."
Would they, though, Professor Appiah? Where is the proof? Oh, there isn't any. It's just conjecture. And even if you had the statistics that most people would sacrifice the infants for the right to vibrancy, does this justify your next sentence: "We think the death of a child is a very bad thing; but clearly we don't think it's the only thing that matters." I don't like the apodictic nature of this statement. I don't like the adverb "clearly". I don't like the way this statement is untethered from any real historical circumstances where the difficult point about healthcare and democracy actually arises. Not to mention the painful dilemma of limited healthcare resources during a pandemic.
We continue to p.166: "What would the world look like if people always spent their money to alleviate diarrhea in the Third World and never on a ticket to the opera?" He has the answer, of course: "Well, it would probably be a flat and dreary place." (Not "vibrant".) The question is so loaded and so pointless; it reminds me of the sort of tedious discussions I had as a teenager: Is nutrition more important than art? Also, I believe this mode of thinking about aid to the "Third World" is highly problematic in itself. In the 1980s, people did spend money on a ticket to an opera (to be more precise: a music gig organised by Richard Branson) in order to give that money to alleviate problems in the "Third World". Result: most of the money went to dictators who used it to finance a civil war.
A disappointing and angry-making book.
Chosen for the #readtheworld21 challenge: an author from Western Africa.
ETA: The cover of my edition includes endorsements by Kofi Annan, ex-general secretary of the United Nations, and the left liberal British newspaper The Guardian that calls the book "a refreshing antidote to today's scare-mongering pessimism". I hate it when realists get called "scare-mongering". It reminds me of the British rhetoric around "Project Fear", directed against those who voted Remain in the Brexit referendum and who warned against the fall-out of leaving the European Union -- all of which warnings Have Come True. So piddle right off, people who dare to use "scare-mongering". I don't want a "refreshing antidote" to any kind of reality mongering.
I was very excited by the first few pages. The fact that we as humans evolved to live in small groups and to be familiar with every single face we are likely to meet throughout our entire lifespans has interested me ever since I saw the brilliant film about Australian aboriginals, Ten Canoes. And how we then adapt to the world we have created, where we see thousands of unfamiliar faces, where we live among and with and against strangers, where we ourselves are strangers (I was first alerted to this by Georg Simmel's writings on the hectic life and the blasé attitude of metropolises).
But then the book starts to be in a philosophical vein. Indeed, the author is a philosopher by trade. I have difficulties following philosophy at the best of times, and this was not the best of times. What quickly became apparent to me is that the book is heavily weighted towards the experience and writings of cis-men, and next, that it makes a number of annoying assumptions.
Gratuitous and spurious (to me) examples abound. Perhaps this is the way of philosophy? Make up putative cases that never happen in real life? Like the example of circumcision where the author within one sentence associates male circumcision with female circumcision and makes both about personal choice and being associated with modernity. I am no expert on female genital mutilation but even I know that it is an immensely controversial, political and patriarchal issue that far exceeds the way that Appiah uses it to demonstrate a 'change in taste', akin to piercings and tattoos among Americans (pp.74-5)
Then Appiah claims that the reason why there has been a change in the acceptance of lesbian and gay couples is that there has been an increasing presence of ""openly gay"" (his scare quotes) people in social life and in the media which has "changed our habits" (p.77). This ignores the decade-long political struggle that continues to be fought out every single day to attain and maintain equality and rights. It also unthinkingly falls into associating "our" habits with non-gay (and I'm assuming, cis-gender) people. This is a red thread throughout the book.
The colonial argument that it was Western-educated, middle-class people who led anti-colonial movements is interesting but again, I come up against the barrier of philosophical reasoning where what I want is historical information. Yes, "an Indian-born South African lawyer, trained in the British courts, whose name was Gandhi" led the resistance to the British Raj -- but I also know and suspect that there is more to the struggle than this sentence which appears to be, I don't know, implying that it was British education that enabled Gandhi to rebel against the British? That is part of it, and interesting, but it is here used in one paragraph as an example about agreeing on values or not. (p.79)
In fact, the emphasis on 'values' annoyed me throughout. Maybe this is a philosophical thing, thinking in the abstract, but it is meaningless to me. I want specificities. I want grey zones, where people's allegiances are not clear-cut and yes, where patriarchy exists. This is the most astounding thing about this book: patriarchy is not mentioned, feminist texts and struggles are not mentioned (let alone any kind of queer critiques).
The author also seriously underestimates discrimination and hate. "Among our [sic] Christian fellow citizens, there are some, though not, I think, very many [you think? I want statistics!], who want to make our government [he means the US where he resides] and society more Christian, with ... abortion and homosexuality proscribed, evolution off the biology syllabus. But that is usually about it. The centuries of massacre by Christian princes and the Holy Office are long gone." (pp.141-2)
This makes me so angry. Massacre by Christian princes? Hello? Abortion, homosexuality and evolution proscribed - "that is usually about it". About it?? These are not trivial matters! These issues are as bad as the 'massacre by Christian princes', and result in deaths just as much. This thoughtless sentence is especially painful in the light of recent (it's November 2022, as I write) political decisions, making abortion illegal in many parts of the US, and of recent homophobic murders in the US. But I guess these lives don't matter. "That is usually about it."
The book contains some important and serious discussion about our obligation to strangers and asks the moral question: Do we ignore suffering in order to live well? This question has, to my mind, been so much more subtly and powerfully addressed in Ursula Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.
Appiah makes up a hare-brained example, not pertinent to the actual real world. Imagine, he says, a "drab totalitarian regime with excellent prenatal healthcare" (p.165). [Why drab, I ask? My own country, Germany, had a totalitarian regime but it was anything but drab; that is what gave it its deadly glamorous power]. After a "velvet revolution" [he does not mention Czechoslovakia in this context], a "vibrant democracy" with "wobblier" healthcare emerges. [The ideological coupling of "vibrant" with "democracy" is highly dubious.] Even worse is Appiah's caveat: perhaps the healthcare is wobblier because "some pregnant mothers exercise their newly won right to smoke and drink"). [What?] And then comes the clincher: despite infant mortality being higher in the "vibrant democracy" (with its smoking, drinking mothers), "most people would still plump for the velvet revolution."
Would they, though, Professor Appiah? Where is the proof? Oh, there isn't any. It's just conjecture. And even if you had the statistics that most people would sacrifice the infants for the right to vibrancy, does this justify your next sentence: "We think the death of a child is a very bad thing; but clearly we don't think it's the only thing that matters." I don't like the apodictic nature of this statement. I don't like the adverb "clearly". I don't like the way this statement is untethered from any real historical circumstances where the difficult point about healthcare and democracy actually arises. Not to mention the painful dilemma of limited healthcare resources during a pandemic.
We continue to p.166: "What would the world look like if people always spent their money to alleviate diarrhea in the Third World and never on a ticket to the opera?" He has the answer, of course: "Well, it would probably be a flat and dreary place." (Not "vibrant".) The question is so loaded and so pointless; it reminds me of the sort of tedious discussions I had as a teenager: Is nutrition more important than art? Also, I believe this mode of thinking about aid to the "Third World" is highly problematic in itself. In the 1980s, people did spend money on a ticket to an opera (to be more precise: a music gig organised by Richard Branson) in order to give that money to alleviate problems in the "Third World". Result: most of the money went to dictators who used it to finance a civil war.
A disappointing and angry-making book.
Chosen for the #readtheworld21 challenge: an author from Western Africa.
ETA: The cover of my edition includes endorsements by Kofi Annan, ex-general secretary of the United Nations, and the left liberal British newspaper The Guardian that calls the book "a refreshing antidote to today's scare-mongering pessimism". I hate it when realists get called "scare-mongering". It reminds me of the British rhetoric around "Project Fear", directed against those who voted Remain in the Brexit referendum and who warned against the fall-out of leaving the European Union -- all of which warnings Have Come True. So piddle right off, people who dare to use "scare-mongering". I don't want a "refreshing antidote" to any kind of reality mongering.
July 22, 2022
An extremely weak sauce recipe for how to live together that in no way delves into what happens if there are fundamental conflicts between different (groups of) people. I like Appiah and that was barely enough to pull me through to the end of the book.
Can we please get the same book but without the relativism? There is a ladder of human development, certain (sub)cultures are worse than others. It's not that hard, people!
I am glad I did get to that end because there he takes a bunch of pages to specifically tear apart the tepid moralism of Peter Singer and I'm glad that he does.
Can we please get the same book but without the relativism? There is a ladder of human development, certain (sub)cultures are worse than others. It's not that hard, people!
I am glad I did get to that end because there he takes a bunch of pages to specifically tear apart the tepid moralism of Peter Singer and I'm glad that he does.
August 9, 2021
When you talk about cross cultural communications between societies and the bridge of binding them all under the name of Cosmopolitanism in a sense where “Arabs and Islam are retarded in many sense and the west is the way of the true one culture shows your lack of vision and flaw in concept, biased and completely prejudice on Eastern Cultures and the core of Arabia philosophies, and the book is mainly Directed towards Arabian society because he keeps using those specific societies to compare the “Negatives” aspect of the communications and rights, granted there are flaws and no society is absolute and utopian perfect, but to demonstrate that the western way is the supreme fine line every now and then and actually call it’s a “Culture” is a far fetched idea and very cheap coming from a philosophy professor.
This Is a book written by an American Philosophy Professor from University of New York, this is how Academics are writing these days, and last but not least, this is what Amazon is listing as “Staff Pick” what a load of BS..
let that sink in for a bit..
Drink your Tea, not your over priced, overhyped capitalistic mega franchise Starbucks awful latte.
This Is a book written by an American Philosophy Professor from University of New York, this is how Academics are writing these days, and last but not least, this is what Amazon is listing as “Staff Pick” what a load of BS..
let that sink in for a bit..
Drink your Tea, not your over priced, overhyped capitalistic mega franchise Starbucks awful latte.
October 22, 2025
Een van de meest besproken trends van de voorbije jaren is de globalisering, het onvermijdelijke proces van wereldwijde economische en culturele integratie. Sommigen keren zich tegen dit proces en pleiten voor nieuwe vormen van protectionisme en een grotere greep van de natiestaten zoals critici van de globalisering. Anderen juichen die evolutie juist toe en beklemtonen de voordelen ervan. De realiteit is dat landen, volkeren en mensen steeds meer met elkaar in aanraking komen en relaties aangaan. Het is een onstuitbare evolutie die op zich losstaat van de moraal. Anders dan globalisering is kosmopolitisme een ethische houding. Het beklemtoont de verbondenheid van elk individu met de globale mensheid, een vorm van wereldburgerschap waarbij men de nadruk legt op de rechten van het individu en niet van een volk, natie of gemeenschap. In die zin staat het tegenover het cultuurrelativisme dat mensen ondergeschikt maakt aan groepen of gemeenschappen, en tegenover het monoculturalisme dat het behoud van de eigen cultuur vooropstelt. Het kosmopolitisme gaat uit van de idee dat iedereen vrij is in zijn of haar keuze. Het aanvaardt geen rechtvaardiging om tegen de rechten of de wil van het individu in te gaan met als excuus de bescherming van groepsrechten of de vrijwaring van de eigen cultuur.
Over dit onderwerp schreef de Brits-Ghanese filosoof Kwame Anthony Appiah in 2007 het boek Kosmopolitisme waarin hij op zoek gaat naar een ethiek in een wereld van vreemden. Daarbij pleit hij voor een werkelijk humanistische kijk op nationalisme en cultuurbehoud. Appiah voert de lezer terug naar de vierde eeuw voor Christus, toen Griekse denkers een sceptische houding aannamen ten aanzien van tradities en gebruiken en voor het eerst het ideaalbeeld van de wereldburger opstelden. De essentie van het kosmopolitisme is dat we als mens verplichtingen hebben ten aanzien van anderen, ook diegenen die niet behoren tot onze naaste familie- of vriendenkring. In de loop van de geschiedenis stond het kosmopolitisme recht tegenover het nationalisme en patriottisme. De auteur verwijst naar de schrijver Lev Tolstoj die stelde ‘wil je een oorlog uitroeien, roei dan het patriottisme uit’. Waaruit hij afleidt dat landsgrenzen moreel irrelevant zijn. Niet voor niets haalden dictators als Hitler en Stalin uit naar de ‘ontwortelde kosmopolieten’ als diegenen die ‘de gezondheid van de natie en het volk ondermijnden’. Net als het liberalisme en het individualisme werd het kosmopolitisme door hen verworpen als decadent, gezagsondermijnend en volksvijandig.
Appiah heeft het in zijn boek over de ‘kosmopolitische besmetting’. Het is een afkeer voor elke vorm van absolutisme voor het zuivere. ‘Culturele zuiverheid is een oxymoron’, schrijft de auteur waarmee hij aangeeft dat het hier een stijlfiguur betreft waarbij twee woorden die elkaar in hun letterlijke betekenis tegenspreken, desondanks worden gecombineerd tot één begrip. Hier ligt het essentiële verschil tussen particularisme en kosmopolitisme. Dat laatste aanvaardt de diversiteit die vertrekt van het respect voor de mensen zelf. Het eerste gaat uit van een vermeende vorm van superioriteit die vertrekt van een substantieel verschil tussen de ‘eigen’ mens en de ‘ander’. In die zin is de slogan ‘eigen volk eerst’ een cruciaal voorbeeld van antikosmopolitisme. Deze slogan suggereert dat we als mens enkel een verplichting hebben tot diegenen die behoren tot onze historisch gevormde familie of gemeenschap. Tot mensen die omwille van omstandigheden in onze buurt of omgeving zijn opgegroeid, en dat we geen enkele plicht zouden hebben tegenover wie daar niet toe behoort. Voor de auteur is het duidelijk: we hebben als mens, als kosmopolieten, verplichtingen ten opzichte van vreemden. In zijn laatste en meest boeiende hoofdstuk bespreekt Appiah deze verplichtingen.
De auteur verwijst naar Adam Smith en zijn werk The Theory of Moral Sentiments waarin de beroemde filosoof en econoom verwees naar het feit dat mensen eerder wakker zouden liggen van het verlies van hun pink, dan van de dood van honderd miljoen van zijn broeders in een ver land. ‘We kunnen niet op intieme voet staan met miljarden mensen; en daaruit volgt dat het kosmopolitische rechtvaardigheidsgevoel een onmogelijkheid is.’ Het is een stelling die in de achttiende eeuw en tot enkele decennia geleden begrijpelijk leek. De toename van de informatie door satelliettelevisie en internet maakt echter dat we steeds meer betrokken raken met leed dat niet binnen ons gezichtsveld ligt. Net het besef van misstanden maakt dat we een grotere verantwoordelijkheid dragen tegenover wat gebeurt in de rest van de wereld. Dat betekent volgens de auteur niet dat we een ‘unieke’ verantwoordelijkheid hebben voor het leed in de rest van de wereld. Daarvoor moeten alle mensen in de wereld hun aandeel leveren. Essentieel is dat mensen hun verstand gebruiken om anderen te helpen, eerder dan hun hart.
De auteur wijst erop dat mensen in de rijkste landen meer kunnen doen voor de armen, maar tegelijk wijst hij op het feit dat de leiders van de landen dan het goede moeten doen. Waarbij hij zich keert tegen de regeringspolitiek van rijke landen die met hun protectionisme andere landen in armoede houden. Ook de leiders van de ontwikkelingslanden zelf moeten inspanningen leveren. Zo wijst de auteur, net als Nobelprijswinnaar voor Economie Amartya Sen, op het essentiële belang van een goed bestuur en goede instellingen voor een betere ontwikkeling van het land. Maar nogmaals, de mensen van de rijkste landen kunnen meer doen, en in feite gaat het om een peulschil. De auteur verwijst naar die andere econoom Jeffrey Sachs die berekende dat tegen een prijs van 150 miljard dollar de extreme armoede binnen twintig jaar kunnen uitroeien. Dat komt neer op 45 cent per inwoner van de Verenigde Staten, de Europese Unie, Canada en Japan, en dat is minder dan een derde van wat de gemiddelde Noor momenteel al betaalt. Een grotere bijdrage ten bate van de armen spoort met het kosmopolitisme dat gerust beschouwd kan worden als een ethisch surplus.
Over dit onderwerp schreef de Brits-Ghanese filosoof Kwame Anthony Appiah in 2007 het boek Kosmopolitisme waarin hij op zoek gaat naar een ethiek in een wereld van vreemden. Daarbij pleit hij voor een werkelijk humanistische kijk op nationalisme en cultuurbehoud. Appiah voert de lezer terug naar de vierde eeuw voor Christus, toen Griekse denkers een sceptische houding aannamen ten aanzien van tradities en gebruiken en voor het eerst het ideaalbeeld van de wereldburger opstelden. De essentie van het kosmopolitisme is dat we als mens verplichtingen hebben ten aanzien van anderen, ook diegenen die niet behoren tot onze naaste familie- of vriendenkring. In de loop van de geschiedenis stond het kosmopolitisme recht tegenover het nationalisme en patriottisme. De auteur verwijst naar de schrijver Lev Tolstoj die stelde ‘wil je een oorlog uitroeien, roei dan het patriottisme uit’. Waaruit hij afleidt dat landsgrenzen moreel irrelevant zijn. Niet voor niets haalden dictators als Hitler en Stalin uit naar de ‘ontwortelde kosmopolieten’ als diegenen die ‘de gezondheid van de natie en het volk ondermijnden’. Net als het liberalisme en het individualisme werd het kosmopolitisme door hen verworpen als decadent, gezagsondermijnend en volksvijandig.
Appiah heeft het in zijn boek over de ‘kosmopolitische besmetting’. Het is een afkeer voor elke vorm van absolutisme voor het zuivere. ‘Culturele zuiverheid is een oxymoron’, schrijft de auteur waarmee hij aangeeft dat het hier een stijlfiguur betreft waarbij twee woorden die elkaar in hun letterlijke betekenis tegenspreken, desondanks worden gecombineerd tot één begrip. Hier ligt het essentiële verschil tussen particularisme en kosmopolitisme. Dat laatste aanvaardt de diversiteit die vertrekt van het respect voor de mensen zelf. Het eerste gaat uit van een vermeende vorm van superioriteit die vertrekt van een substantieel verschil tussen de ‘eigen’ mens en de ‘ander’. In die zin is de slogan ‘eigen volk eerst’ een cruciaal voorbeeld van antikosmopolitisme. Deze slogan suggereert dat we als mens enkel een verplichting hebben tot diegenen die behoren tot onze historisch gevormde familie of gemeenschap. Tot mensen die omwille van omstandigheden in onze buurt of omgeving zijn opgegroeid, en dat we geen enkele plicht zouden hebben tegenover wie daar niet toe behoort. Voor de auteur is het duidelijk: we hebben als mens, als kosmopolieten, verplichtingen ten opzichte van vreemden. In zijn laatste en meest boeiende hoofdstuk bespreekt Appiah deze verplichtingen.
De auteur verwijst naar Adam Smith en zijn werk The Theory of Moral Sentiments waarin de beroemde filosoof en econoom verwees naar het feit dat mensen eerder wakker zouden liggen van het verlies van hun pink, dan van de dood van honderd miljoen van zijn broeders in een ver land. ‘We kunnen niet op intieme voet staan met miljarden mensen; en daaruit volgt dat het kosmopolitische rechtvaardigheidsgevoel een onmogelijkheid is.’ Het is een stelling die in de achttiende eeuw en tot enkele decennia geleden begrijpelijk leek. De toename van de informatie door satelliettelevisie en internet maakt echter dat we steeds meer betrokken raken met leed dat niet binnen ons gezichtsveld ligt. Net het besef van misstanden maakt dat we een grotere verantwoordelijkheid dragen tegenover wat gebeurt in de rest van de wereld. Dat betekent volgens de auteur niet dat we een ‘unieke’ verantwoordelijkheid hebben voor het leed in de rest van de wereld. Daarvoor moeten alle mensen in de wereld hun aandeel leveren. Essentieel is dat mensen hun verstand gebruiken om anderen te helpen, eerder dan hun hart.
De auteur wijst erop dat mensen in de rijkste landen meer kunnen doen voor de armen, maar tegelijk wijst hij op het feit dat de leiders van de landen dan het goede moeten doen. Waarbij hij zich keert tegen de regeringspolitiek van rijke landen die met hun protectionisme andere landen in armoede houden. Ook de leiders van de ontwikkelingslanden zelf moeten inspanningen leveren. Zo wijst de auteur, net als Nobelprijswinnaar voor Economie Amartya Sen, op het essentiële belang van een goed bestuur en goede instellingen voor een betere ontwikkeling van het land. Maar nogmaals, de mensen van de rijkste landen kunnen meer doen, en in feite gaat het om een peulschil. De auteur verwijst naar die andere econoom Jeffrey Sachs die berekende dat tegen een prijs van 150 miljard dollar de extreme armoede binnen twintig jaar kunnen uitroeien. Dat komt neer op 45 cent per inwoner van de Verenigde Staten, de Europese Unie, Canada en Japan, en dat is minder dan een derde van wat de gemiddelde Noor momenteel al betaalt. Een grotere bijdrage ten bate van de armen spoort met het kosmopolitisme dat gerust beschouwd kan worden als een ethisch surplus.
February 25, 2020
I read this book as an introduction to the complexities of living respectfully and humanely in a world where people do not all value the same things or organize their lives the same way. Appiah takes time in the beginning of the book to illustrate how values and ways of living can differ, while people still share some foundational beliefs. Later chapters show how difficult it can be to put a commitment to respect for other peoples and cultures into practice, and suggest alternative ways of going about it.
None of the analysis is in depth (the book is less than 200 pages), which is why I call it an introduction. It is very readable, with great anecdotes and examples from Appiah’s own life to illustrate the concepts. I recommend.
None of the analysis is in depth (the book is less than 200 pages), which is why I call it an introduction. It is very readable, with great anecdotes and examples from Appiah’s own life to illustrate the concepts. I recommend.
February 18, 2024
4.5/5 — Kwame Anthony Appiah’s “Cosmopolitanism” begins with the fundamental problem of a globalized world: hundreds of generations of human society conditioned us for living in small groups of people who were largely similar to us, and we are nevertheless now connected to people around the world, many of whom are very different from us. What framework can help us understand our ethical obligations to others across profound differences?
Appiah’s answer is cosmopolitanism, a philosophy that splits the difference between the importance of human universality and respect for human difference. These are the two strands of cosmopolitanism, according to Appiah’s introduction: we have obligations to others that we are not connected to (what he terms universal concern) and we must also respect and honor legitimate human difference.
Perhaps more of a process than a principle, Appiah’s central metaphor is that of conversation, the seeking of understanding, which refuses both to universalize human beliefs (what he terms counter-cosmopolitanism, often found in religious or cultural fundamentalism) or relativize them. (Relativism, he writes provocatively, does not lead to tolerance or engagement. “If we cannot learn from one another what is right to think and feel and do, then conversation between us will be pointless,” p. 31.)
The book takes us on a journey through positivism, the language of values, the importance of habit and practice, and the various thorny issues that arise when cultures interact (among them being a transformation of so-called “authentic” culture and cultural imperialism, neither of which are compelling critiques for Appiah).
Among the many delights of this text are the ways that Appiah’s book is itself cosmopolitan: he writes beautifully of his childhood in Asante Ghana, his experiences in Britain, and his life in the United States, and his references span from modern psychology to Ancient Rome to contemporary Kumasi culture to the Christian scriptures. Only here will you find an analysis of a George Eliot passage followed immediately by an anecdote about urban Ghanaian commerce. His writing is clear and easy to understand (though I did get bogged down briefly in the Positivism chapter).
My main critique of the text is that he assumes certain contested epistemic claims, such as the idea that there is one reality and that there are universal moral principles (even as he acknowledges that they are quite difficult to suss out). I wished at times for clearer definitions of terms and a clearer organization of his argument. His style is narrative-driven rather than propositional, which is engaging in the moment but sometimes left me wondering how he got to his conclusions. I get the sense that there are some internal contradictions in the text, but they are difficult to identify for someone like me, formally untrained in philosophy.
Still, he’s a wonderful conversation partner and an incredibly readable writer. (His book is more readable than my review, in fact.) Highly recommended!
Appiah’s answer is cosmopolitanism, a philosophy that splits the difference between the importance of human universality and respect for human difference. These are the two strands of cosmopolitanism, according to Appiah’s introduction: we have obligations to others that we are not connected to (what he terms universal concern) and we must also respect and honor legitimate human difference.
Perhaps more of a process than a principle, Appiah’s central metaphor is that of conversation, the seeking of understanding, which refuses both to universalize human beliefs (what he terms counter-cosmopolitanism, often found in religious or cultural fundamentalism) or relativize them. (Relativism, he writes provocatively, does not lead to tolerance or engagement. “If we cannot learn from one another what is right to think and feel and do, then conversation between us will be pointless,” p. 31.)
The book takes us on a journey through positivism, the language of values, the importance of habit and practice, and the various thorny issues that arise when cultures interact (among them being a transformation of so-called “authentic” culture and cultural imperialism, neither of which are compelling critiques for Appiah).
Among the many delights of this text are the ways that Appiah’s book is itself cosmopolitan: he writes beautifully of his childhood in Asante Ghana, his experiences in Britain, and his life in the United States, and his references span from modern psychology to Ancient Rome to contemporary Kumasi culture to the Christian scriptures. Only here will you find an analysis of a George Eliot passage followed immediately by an anecdote about urban Ghanaian commerce. His writing is clear and easy to understand (though I did get bogged down briefly in the Positivism chapter).
My main critique of the text is that he assumes certain contested epistemic claims, such as the idea that there is one reality and that there are universal moral principles (even as he acknowledges that they are quite difficult to suss out). I wished at times for clearer definitions of terms and a clearer organization of his argument. His style is narrative-driven rather than propositional, which is engaging in the moment but sometimes left me wondering how he got to his conclusions. I get the sense that there are some internal contradictions in the text, but they are difficult to identify for someone like me, formally untrained in philosophy.
Still, he’s a wonderful conversation partner and an incredibly readable writer. (His book is more readable than my review, in fact.) Highly recommended!
March 28, 2025
3,5/5*
There is something so different about Appiah’s definition of cosmopolitanism than how other critical thinkers have defined it. It’s so much more personal and bottom-up rather than pointing to those in power and saying “do better.” It starts with each of us through conversation, and the strength in numbers that we acquire through listening to each other should lead to action and change.
My qualms with this book are mostly his writing style (there were some very obvious typos and errors in the text, where were the editors?) and his examples. The book starts with very microlevel examples of cosmopolitanism (understanding culture and cultural differences on a local scale), but it shifts to extreme examples of death in the final chapters which felt random and exhaustive. He treated it as if the prevention of death was the only form of cosmopolitanism when there are so many more, e.g. investing in education.
I guess you can’t expect one book to do everything, but in light of my thesis, I do want to highlight that this bottom-up, pluralistic approach is refreshing and definitely worth exploring when so many other critical thinkers focus on a universal human right language that simply doesn’t exist.
There is something so different about Appiah’s definition of cosmopolitanism than how other critical thinkers have defined it. It’s so much more personal and bottom-up rather than pointing to those in power and saying “do better.” It starts with each of us through conversation, and the strength in numbers that we acquire through listening to each other should lead to action and change.
My qualms with this book are mostly his writing style (there were some very obvious typos and errors in the text, where were the editors?) and his examples. The book starts with very microlevel examples of cosmopolitanism (understanding culture and cultural differences on a local scale), but it shifts to extreme examples of death in the final chapters which felt random and exhaustive. He treated it as if the prevention of death was the only form of cosmopolitanism when there are so many more, e.g. investing in education.
I guess you can’t expect one book to do everything, but in light of my thesis, I do want to highlight that this bottom-up, pluralistic approach is refreshing and definitely worth exploring when so many other critical thinkers focus on a universal human right language that simply doesn’t exist.
March 3, 2024
most disgusting most lame most weak ass ugly ass
did-not-finish
December 3, 2024DNF about half way through. It just felt like a loosely organized collection of reminiscences and examples without much theory or framework. I'd recommend Nussbaum's book on the topic over Appiah's.
Read
June 19, 2021Some interesting ideas in the latter part of the book, but doesn't really gel together. Appiah's writing is good, though.
April 26, 2022
Very interesting book that asks, and attempts to answer, thoughtful questions about what it means to live in a global society.
Questions like how much should I care for my global neighbors? To what extent should we be tolerant of others views? And what should guide my decision making through those difficult questions?
As it seems like a lot of the problems facing our world today are problems of global significance, I highly recommend those interested in making a different read this book.
Questions like how much should I care for my global neighbors? To what extent should we be tolerant of others views? And what should guide my decision making through those difficult questions?
As it seems like a lot of the problems facing our world today are problems of global significance, I highly recommend those interested in making a different read this book.
April 8, 2019
Very readable account of Appiah's own experiences of cosmopolitanism linked to theory. Somewhat too popular science-y for what I was looking for (academic background text) but definitely worthwhile if you come at it from a general reader perspective.
Want to read
August 11, 2017Kwame Anthony Appiah was interviewed on the Ezra Klein Show (podcast) in May 2017. Among the topics discussed was his modern take on the philosophy of Cosmopolitanism.
Note to self: see Jeffers, Chike. “Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 51.4 (2013): 488-510, already in possession (DOI 10.1111/sjp.12040).
Note to self: see Jeffers, Chike. “Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 51.4 (2013): 488-510, already in possession (DOI 10.1111/sjp.12040).
Read
October 17, 2017To call this philosophy is rather misleading, even though apparently Appiah has done some formidable philosophical scholarship, so I'll call it a manifesto. One for cosmopolitanism as a way of doing things, which is to say a position that is global rather than parochial, pragmatic rather than dogmatic, respectful of differences in fundamental values, and deeply suspicious of both presupposed universalism and cultural ghettoization. This isn't anything I disagree with, and I was super-amped to read it, but it's more of a polite lecture series than a serious scholarly argument. It's only when he engages with the ideas of Peter Singer et al that more philosophical ideas enter the framework whatsoever. I liked it, but I think Appiah's more academically oriented work might be of more interest to me.
November 5, 2015
I don't have much to say about this book. I have been aware of it for several years, have seen it referenced in various places and decided I should actually read the thing. Turned out to be a bit of a disappointment. It felt like a book that just glanced around on the surface of the author's "we are one world under it all" philosophy. Every once in a while it would start down an interesting path, but cut it off quickly with a homily. It's not that I necessarily disagree with the book's message, though I do take issue with some of his positions, e.g. I think he misses the point re cultural property rights and why they are important. Just don't feel that I learned anything new nor was I led to any new ways of looking at or thinking about anything.
June 17, 2009
I don't always find books by philosophers easy to read, but I think that's just because I often don't understand the shorthand references to "Hegalian" perspectives and such that require a knowledge of philosophy to interpret.
But this book is a really nicely balanced discussion of Appiah's personal history, globalism (or cosmopolitanism in the author's terminology) and ethics. It goes beyond the simplicity of 'multiculturalism' or 'globalization' to investigate and value the ways in which we are all different as well as the same, balancing the need to recognize the diversity and unity of humanity in order to get along.
But this book is a really nicely balanced discussion of Appiah's personal history, globalism (or cosmopolitanism in the author's terminology) and ethics. It goes beyond the simplicity of 'multiculturalism' or 'globalization' to investigate and value the ways in which we are all different as well as the same, balancing the need to recognize the diversity and unity of humanity in order to get along.
November 7, 2019
Η βιβλος του Ισαποστακια. Για τον συγγραφέα δεν υπάρχει κοινή λογική παρά μόνο η λογική του κάθε ένα ξεχωριστά. Αν κάποιος κάνει βουντου είναι λογικό επειδη έτσι έμαθε και είναι λογικό για αυτόν.Δεν έχει σημασία αν μια τρελή ιδέα κάποιων επηρεάζει τις ζωές κάποιων άλλων πρέπει να την αποδεχόμαστε στο πλαίσιο του σεβασμού .Άλλο είναι να σέβεσαι και να ζεις με διαφορετικούς σε κουλτούρα και έθιμα ανθρώπους και άλλο να υιοθετείται κάθε παράλογη και επικίνδυνη ιδέα που παρουσιαστεί.μια κοινωνία μετριοπαθών που να δημιουργεί το πλαίσιο μέσα στο οποίο δεν μπορεί να καταπολεμηθεί οποιοδήποτε ακραίο φαινόμενο όπως έχει γράψει ο Sam Harris στο "τέλος της πιστης "
December 26, 2016
... a very thoughtful, at times critical, but affirming look at ethics from the perspective of those of us (myself included) who put at least as much value in being a citizen of the world as that of any one country, who see difference in peoples and cultures more as an opportunity for learning more about the human condition as an amalgamate of _all_ human experience, rather than a reason to wall off from one another. I enjoyed this book very much.
June 2, 2020
I didn’t hate this as much as many of my classmates did. It was pretty interesting. Appiah isn’t in the business of giving answers but into provoking thought about deep questions— what does it mean to be a citizen of the world? How does one do the most good? Saw lots of connections with All American Boys, Happiness, Go Went Gone, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas...also The Good Place which is my new binge show.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 246 reviews