21 posts shown.
Sandra Wilson68 said:swiftcobra15,
swiftcobra15 said:👍
I think we all remember the massive uproar surrounding those Prophet Muhammad caricatures and the usual "arguments"
regarding free speech. To me, it felt like a textbook case of globalization overstepping its bounds.
I don't particularly care for Muslims,
but I respect them just like anyone else, which is why I won't accept that kind of
"freedom" of speech—or communication, for that matter.
frozenotter232 said:So, what’s your angle here? Are you saying cosmopolitans are inherently contradictory? Or are we talking about people twisting cosmopolitan ideals to fit their own agenda? Maybe you're suggesting there are actually two different definitions of cosmopolitanism at play. Or something else entirely? What is it?Capitalism is a powerhouse—a tiger with massive potential to jumpstart an economy. But that only works if our government and political institutions actually keep a leash on it. Globalization basically opened the cage door, letting this beast run wild. Now, we’re dealing with a version of capitalism that acts exactly like an unleashed predator.
Benjamin R. Barber.
I think this is a pretty one-sided take on globalization. It isn't the same thing as unrestrained "wild" capitalism. In short, globalization is about increasing integration and interdependence across different parts of the world, driven by advances in transportation, communication tech, and so on. This process touches almost every aspect of life, not just the economy. Unchecked global capitalism is just one facet of globalization—and a negative one at that—but it isn't necessarily inseparable from the concept itself. Didn't communism have globalist ambitions too?Globalization is setting the stage for this shared "middle class" culture where everyone basically owns the same stuff as their neighbors. It’s predictable. But it makes me wonder: do the cosmopolitan philosophers actually fit into that mold too?
I haven't the slightest clue. 🤷
Didn't communism also have globalist ambitions?
swiftcobra15 said:There’s really no need for such mental gymnastics. We can exist together despite our differences.
and certainly no need to manufacture a world government—in fact, such things would be entirely redundant.
Cosmopolitanism assumes human values are universal
and finds unity within diversity (Gens una summus).
So there is absolutely no need for forced standardization,
no need to impose some "new world culture,"
and certainly no need to create a world state—in fact, such things are redundant...
Globalization primarily dehumanizes us: it turns individuals into objects for total manipulation.
It is the ultimate nightmare for the idea of cosmopolitanism.
Every person is locally rooted, at least through language:
no matter how well you learn a foreign tongue, your native one is always your strongest.
As for which local community I identify with, that's another story.
That doesn't necessarily have to be a nation:
a community can be much broader or much narrower than a single country.
Samuel Robinson41 said:I was recently presented with a choice between two paths—one involving nomads, who have always fascinated me, though I’ve been written off by them because they claim I lack the tolerance they supposedly possess in spades. The other option would be Nazism, which is equally alluring in its own twisted way. But then I hit a snag with an uncomfortable retort: if we stay this brilliant and this "pure," who will be left to stay young once everyone else grows old?
The whole dilemma is honestly pathetic—it just goes to show how impossible idealism really is. 😢
Still, I suppose we cling to those tiny fragments of our imaginary "Brave New World"—our idealism, our philosophy, our madness.
Isn't that all just a bit nihilistic?
The other alternative would be Nazism, which is equally alluring. But then comes that awkward question of who will stay smart and maintain a "pure race" when everyone else grows old...
The dilemma is actually quite pathetic; it highlights how impossible idealism truly is. 😢
Still, we cling to our tiny scrap of an imaginary "Brave New World"—our idealism, our philosophy, our madness.
Isn't that a bit nihilistic?
mistyfox812 said:Look, a philosopher doesn't have to be some global citizen, at least not in the sense of having zero connection to their own soil.
Think about one of the biggest moments in early philosophy—the death of Socrates. It was tied directly to him refusing to flee his city. He wasn't going anywhere because he was basically rooted there; he was part of that ground. He had his place, and his entire way of thinking was deeply tied to it.
Even Stoicism and those big ideas about cosmopolitanism didn't just pop out of thin air—they emerged during the era of the Roman "global village." Plus, if you look at history, we have specific eras like classic German idealism, French Enlightenment, or British empiricism... and honestly, those movements really do carry that German, French, or British flavor...
At the very least, a philosopher is bound to the language they use to express their thoughts. But it goes deeper than that—a philosopher is always in a dialogue with their surroundings. Their environment shapes them, even if—or especially if—they're fighting against it.
To me, it feels like any philosophy worth its salt tries to reach toward the Heavens (universal, cosmic, absolute, eternal, whatever), but it stays firmly planted in the Earth (meaning its own time, its own place, its own language, its own space, and yeah—even its own people).
A quick side note:
The standard logic used to build and maintain identity in social and political spheres is: A is A because it isn't B. This works perfectly well for things like national identity.
Globalization provides the material and technological groundwork for a cosmopolitan or universal human identity to emerge. However, one vital prerequisite is missing: a conscious awareness of other beings who are our equals. Without this realization, the logic of identity—which relies on distinguishing oneself from "the other"—simply can't function. It seems cosmopolitanism won't truly take hold until humans actually encounter intelligent aliens. 😁 Until then, the whole idea of being a "citizen of the world" remains somewhat floating in mid-air. 😢
frozenotter232 said:That’s a fair question. I think the answer is "both," which points to a certain schizophrenia inherent in the cosmopolitan mindset. You have two conflicting attitudes clashing: on one hand, they recognize the importance of local cultural communities, but on the other, they insist on the unity of humanity and want to strip away any local cultural elements that get in the way of that unity. That first attitude shows a willingness to adapt and accept others for who they are, while the second reveals a missionary streak—not necessarily spreading their own culture because they think it's better, but rather trying to establish a single global culture or even a global state that exists mostly as an idea.
I’m also skeptical about this whole "citizen of the world" thing. I don't buy the idea that someone can feel truly at home everywhere. I honestly don't think it's possible to not feel like a stranger somewhere.
A quick side note:
The standard logic for building and maintaining identity in social and political spheres is basically: A is A because it isn't B. This works perfectly fine for something like national identity.
Globalization provides the material and technological foundation for a cosmopolitan or universal human identity. But there's a massive missing piece: the awareness of other beings that are equal to humans. You need that prerequisite for the logic of identity to function—you define who you are by distinguishing yourself from the "other." So, it looks like cosmopolitans won't truly find their footing until we actually run into intelligent aliens. 😁 Until then, the whole concept of cosmopolitanism is just floating in mid-air. 😢
I’ve always been skeptical of this whole "citizen of the world" thing cosmopolitans love to preach. I just don't buy it... you can't truly feel at home everywhere.
casualtiger2 said:At first glance, I see two areas where they could spend a lot more time.
1. Helping the rest of us—people who don't necessarily have their logic dialed in quite like they do—reach that same level. Think "philosophy for the masses"—books, lectures, stuff that makes philosophy actually feel "cool" and accessible. A deep dive into logical fallacies is a great example; or even just reading blogs from people like Taylor Campbell4, casualtiger2, Jonathan Brooks8, or some of the other sharp thinkers here.
Even if it doesn't push the academic needle forward directly, you might end up pulling in a whole new crowd of interested minds.
2. Refining philosophical practice itself—kind of like what yogis aim for—by actually seeking and finding answers to those age-old questions: Who are we? Can we actually be happy (and if so, how)? What’s the right way to live our lives?
This would mean moving past philosophy as just this narrow intellectual exercise—you know, the endless loop of building theories and questioning everything.
Sure, asking questions is vital, but wouldn't it be nice if some of them were actually answered? We need some kind of undeniable knowledge that addresses the whole human experience—body, sex, emotions, thoughts, social circles, and maybe even what people call the soul or spirit.
To get there, I think philosophy needs to start offering meditative methods—tools that allow for deeper concentration and help us move beyond just pure thought.
swiftcobra15 said:I found the perspective shared by Jonathan Brooks8 to be quite thought-provoking,
even if it doesn't strictly align with biological facts, and I’m curious to see if anyone else shares that viewpoint.
Chris Peterson53 said:There are so many threads like this that they could all be condensed into one single question: to be a parent or not to be.
Those who judge others simply because they choose to be fathers—
I consider them completely unprepared for the realities of life, and frankly, selfishness is their defining trait.
If they hold these convictions, then by all means, they should go reject their own fathers—the very people who brought them into this world—
especially if that man was an irresponsible father who serves as their primary role model.
Calling parenthood "low" or "dirty" is nothing more than a hypocritical excuse—a convenient cover for pure selfishness and materialism. These are people incapable of sacrificing anything—anything at all—besides their own immediate comfort, just to give their lives some actual direction. And most often, their go-to justification is: "I can't afford to raise a child!"
But there is a certain poetic justice waiting for them: ending up alone in some lonely house,
where not even the neighbor's dog bothers to visit them during their lifetime or at the moment of their death—and that is precisely when the regret over not having children begins. And I'd bet 99% of them will feel it.
Regardless of what those children might have been like, the mere thought that they exist is the only comfort left.