Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues of Our Time) | 
 enlarge | Author: Kwame Anthony Appiah
Publisher: W. W. Norton
Category: Book
List Price: $15.95
Buy New: $8.00
You Save: $7.95 (50%)
New (39) Used (20) from $7.18
Avg. Customer Rating:  13 reviews
Sales Rank: 48463
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 224
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.3
Dimensions (in): 8.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
ISBN: 039332933X
Dewey Decimal Number: 172.4
EAN: 9780393329339
ASIN: 039332933X
Publication Date: February 26, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
"A brilliant and humane philosophy for our confused age."—Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell
Kwame Anthony Appiah's landmark new work, featured on the cover of the New York Times Magazine, challenges the separatist doctrines espoused in books like Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations. Reviving the ancient philosophy of "cosmopolitanism," a school of thought that dates to the Cynics of the fourth century BC, Appiah traces its influence on the ethical legacies of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Raised in Ghana, educated in England, and now a distinguished professor in the United States, Appiah promises to create a new era in which warring factions will finally put aside their supposed ideological differences and will recognize that the fundamental values held by all human beings will usher in a new era of global understanding.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 8 more reviews...
 A Easy to Read Introduction to an Appealing Ethical System February 2, 2008
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.
Appiah (like me, I'd say) is not interested in all encompassing theories. But he is 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. And an excellent jumping off point for the kind of thinking we need to be doing in today's age.
Culture clashes are not limited to the transnational November 27, 2007
This book is a must-read for anyone expecting to engage traditions, ideas, practices and worldviews far outside her own. When I started reading it, I thought it was about globalism. How wrong I was. Well, it IS about living on a multifarious planet, but I found many of the insights useful in understanding local email flamewars which I have witnessed (and perhaps caused), and other local differences of opinion. It has caused me to question some of my own attitudes about communities and beliefs I regard as backward (such as American fundamentalist Christianity). I have discovered strong culture clashes within my own nation, a confrontation more stark than much of what I expect to encounter upon traveling.
I feel I have become somewhat more aware of my unproductive attitudes toward those who differ from me, and that boon alone is worth the time I spent with this book. I understand now the value incident in understanding those who sharply differ from you, even if they may never, even in a thousand years, come to agree with me. I can attempt, at least, to authentically hear what they are saying. That is cosmopolitanism.
Essays by Appiah June 27, 2007
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
This book is a collection of essays around a common theme; each is extremely well written, reflective and accessible to the non-specialist.
Anthony Appiah is surely one of our most important thinkers about ethical issues that arise in common life. He brings unusual color and verve to
his subjects, reflecting a childhood in Ghana and an adult life spent as a true citizen of the world in one of the world's great universities.
An importance exploration of what it means to be a responsible part of today's world February 10, 2007
7 out of 8 found this review helpful
There are few individuals more qualified to write a book on the idea of cosmopolitanism than Kwame Anthony Appiah. Biracial, raised in both Ghana and England, multicultural, multilingual, educated at Cambridge but teaching at Princeton, Appiah has an inside familiarity with larger world that few can rival. It is tremendously encouraging to me, a WASP who has been unable to engage in any real travel, that we both seem to share precisely the same ideals. My experience of the world counts for little; his a great deal. Yet it shows that people with extremely different backgrounds can embrace the same ideals.
Appiah is a philosopher, but though he has clearly been raised in the Anglo-American linguistic philosophical tradition, he has not found himself restricted by it. From the various philosophers he quotes, I'm sure that he and had had similar philosophical training. I envy the way that he can make what I learned as logical positivism (Appiah lops off the "logical") and make it relevant in a discussion of wider cultural issues. Though he obviously was trained in the tradition honed by Russell, Carnap, Frege, Ryle, Austin, Anscombe, Dummett, and the large contingent of American and British logicians and philosophers of language, none of them have informed his literary style. In fact, the two writers Appiah reminds me of most are Herodotus and Montaigne. Like them, he feels a license to bring into his discussion almost anything. If he is cosmopolitan on a moral and social level, he is also as a multidisciplinarian. Nor does he hesitate at mixing cultures. Many of the most compelling passages in the book detail incidents from his experience in Ghana.
The point of the book is to discuss many of the problems that arise if one attempts to embrace--as Appiah clearly feels we all should--cosmopolitan ideals. He deals interestingly with a host of issues, from the idea of who owns the products of a culture to the incommensurability of values from one culture to another (or their possible commensurability) to whether it is problematic when there are conflicts on fundamental issues. As a person he seems to have been deeply molded by all of the cultural influences in which he grew up, but as a philosopher he is exceptionally British. Over the decades there have been a number of British thinkers who have been able to cut through a thick wad of nonsense and discuss issues in a balanced, commonsensical manner. Gilbert Ryle had this capacity, as did (sometimes) G. E. Moore, and so also Mary Midgley. While his views are unquestionably progressive, Appiah always seems to avoid extremes to arrive at conclusions that are, above all else, balanced and reasonable. He is a master at making sense. So when philosopher Peter Unger argues that we all have a moral obligation to give every penny that we do not need for our own sustenance to organizations like UNICEF and OXFAM so that food and medicine can be purchased for the desperately poor in the Third World. Appiah, on the other hand, believes that a world in which no one bought a ticket to the opera would be flat and uninteresting. Besides, what really matters is reforming local governments in order to provide long-term transformation of the socioeconomic structures in the areas most afflicted by poverty, something that giving exclusively to UNICEF and OXFAM will not accomplish (though for the record, Appiah thinks both organizations are very important and he does not discourage contributing to them). Though he does not state it as a principle, he constantly employs something akin to Aristotle's golden mean.
I especially enjoyed his chapter on The Counter-Cosmopolitans. He places many of today's Islamic extremists in this category, though he also very correctly places many Christian fundamentalists here as well. I have long fantasized about writing a book about contemporary proponents of Counter-Enlightenment ideas (a book I will never write because I haven't mastered the range of disciplines such a project would require). Isaiah Berlin wrote frequently about various Counter-Enlightenment thinkers such as Hamaan, but I believe it can be extended into the present for such mass movements as various religious fundamentalisms (Christian, Islamic, as well as Jewish), the New Age movement, contemporary astrology, right wing political movements, and free market capitalism. Obviously I can't make my claim here, but I found Appiah's discussion of the counter-cosmopolitans to overlap entirely with counter-enlightenment ideals.
I value this book not only for its ideals and the intelligent discussion of a host of thorny issues, but for Appiah's warm humanity and wonderful literary style. It is not merely an intelligent book but a well-written one as well.
Becoming Cosmopolitan February 5, 2007
14 out of 14 found this review helpful
One of the most pernicious ideas has spung from the myth that we are necessarily separated and segregated into groups that are defined by criteria like gender, language, race, religion or some other kind of boundary. And it is easy to see that these boundaries are a major cause of conflict.
The author of this enthralling book - Kwame Anthony Appiah - challenges this kind of separative thinking by resurrecting the ancient philosophy of "cosmopolitanism." This school of thought that dates back almost 2500 years to the Cynics of Ancient Greece. They first articulated the cosmopolitan ideal that all human beings were citizens of the world. Later on, these ideas were elaborated by another group of philosophers: the Stoics.
According to Appiah, the influence of cosmopolitanism has stretched down the ages and through to the Enlightenment. He takes Immanuel Kant's notion of a League of Nations and the Declaration of the Rights of Man to be two manifestations of this ancient idea.
Appiah sees cosmopolitanism as a dynamic concept based on two fundamental ideas. First is the idea that we have responsibilities to others that are beyond those based on kinship or citizenship. Second is something often forgotten: just because other people have different customs and beliefs from ours, they will likely still have meaning and value. We may not agree with someone else, but mutual understanding should be a first goal.
The book is full of personal experiences. I doubt that anyone else could have written it: His mother was an English author and daughter of the statesman Sir Stafford Cripps, and his father a Ghanaian barrister and politician, who reminded his children to remember that they were "citizens of the world."
Appiah was educated in Ghana and England and has taught in both countries. He now holds a chair of Philosophy at Princeton. He is no starry eyed idealist, and he knows that differences between groups and nations cannot be wished away or ignored. But he contends, rightly, I think, that differences can be accepted without being allowed to become barriers.
As he says, "Cosmopolitans suppose that all cultures have enough overlap in their vocabulary of values to begin a conversation. But they don't suppose, like some Universalists, that we could all come to agreement if only we had the same vocabulary." The reason is simply this: most of us arrive at our values not on the basis of careful reasoning, but by lifelong conditioning and subjective beliefs and attitudes.
In parts of Europe, there have recently been misgivings about the growing diversity and multiculturalism of countries like the United Kingdom, with people asking whether it is doing no more than fracturing society. Appiah tackles this question head on. He has this to say, "If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference that they long to escape. There simply is no decent way to sustain those communities of difference that will not survive without the free allegiance of their members."
Cosmopolitanism, balances our "obligations to others" with the "value not just of human life but of particular human lives," what Appiah calls "universality plus difference." He remains skeptical about simple maxims for ethical behavior such as the Golden Rule. He swiftly demonstrates its failings as a moral precept. He argues that cosmopolitanism is the name not "of the solution but of the challenge."
This is an important book that will inevitably be controversial. In a world that is becoming more interconnected and shrinking by the day, and where the "clash of cultures" threatens our existence, Appiah has many new perspectives as he articulates a precise yet flexible ethical manifesto. He does not claim to have all the answers, but this book should be of interest to all of us as we try to make sense of the turmoil, challenges and opportunities of our globalizing world.
|
|
|
