Philosophers, Nationalism, and Cosmopolitanism

The concept of cosmopolitanism first surfaced during the Hellenistic era of ancient philosophy, particularly within Stoicism. While most people back then dismissed anyone who wasn't Greek as a barbarian, the Stoics taught that a wise person is a "citizen of the world," viewing the entire planet as their true home. You see a similar line of reasoning in the teachings of Pythagoras from Elyria, the founder of skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism

So, what does it actually mean in practice for a wise person to call the whole world their home? Does it mean they’ll act like a local when visiting Rome, or try to force the rest of the world to be as advanced as Greece, or...?

Nicole Castillo11 said:The concept of cosmopolitanism first surfaced during the Hellenistic era of ancient philosophy, particularly within Stoicism. While most people back then dismissed anyone who wasn't Greek as a barbarian, the Stoics taught that a wise person is a "citizen of the world," viewing the entire planet as their true home. You see a similar line of reasoning in the teachings of Pythagoras from Elyria, the founder of skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism

So, what does it actually mean in practice for a wise person to call the whole world their home? Does it mean they’ll act like a local when visiting Rome, or try to force the rest of the world to be as advanced as Greece, or...?

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. 😢

Nicole Castillo11 said:The concept of cosmopolitanism first surfaced during the Hellenistic era of ancient philosophy, particularly within Stoicism. While most people back then dismissed anyone who wasn't Greek as a barbarian, the Stoics taught that a wise person is a "citizen of the world," viewing the entire planet as their true home. You see a similar line of reasoning in the teachings of Pythagoras from Elyria, the founder of skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism

So, what does it actually mean in practice for a wise person to call the whole world their home? Does it mean they’ll act like a local when visiting Rome, or try to force the rest of the world to be as advanced as Greece, or...?

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).

I’ve always thought of cosmopolitanism as being a lot like an upscale American buffet—you just wander from station to station, picking up whatever looks good and filling your plate exactly how you want it. It’s a pretty sweet way to live, honestly.
Nationalists tend to stick to the local comfort food, and if I'm being honest, sometimes that really is the better call.

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?

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. 😢

If cosmopolitans are considered "schizophrenic" because they juggle conflicting viewpoints, then what does that say about political party members? Parties operate on set platforms, rigid ideologies, and the mandates of their leadership. I can't help but wonder how a true philosopher could ever maintain any sense of individual identity within one...

Some philosopher will probably just opt for that whole socio-political-identity thing... 🙂 Choosing a "lesser evil" or succumbing to political apathy just to fit in—that’s what makes someone a true pioneer of thought. They embrace ideas that clash with the status quo, which is exactly what defines a philosopher... Though, one has to wonder: is a philosopher a seeker of truth, or merely a seeker of wisdom? And what's really the difference...

Regarding cosmopolitanism...The concept of enlightened, humanitarian souls building connections that transcend national, religious, or political borders to foster global unity... It sounds lovely on paper. But aside from those "enlightened" types...Even a self-proclaimed chauvinist might make an exception for their favorite writers, artists, or pageant queens. But I have to wonder what you can actually expect from cosmopolitanism when it comes down to just two nations, or even different cultures and religions... It’s a messy question. In certain parts of the States, the exact same offense is punished differently; some things are criminalized in one state while being encouraged in another. For instance, drawing a caricature of Muhammad is seen as an expression of free spirit and artistic liberty in the West, yet in other places, authors face death threats and their countrymen suffer global boycotts because of it. If a philosopher or a cosmopolitan claims to stand by everyone's right to their own views—including their gods—they’ll likely find themselves feeling like a total outsider in places where those views aren't tolerated... 🙄 Different customs, rights, morals, and values inevitably trigger conflict. These differences only serve to deepen polarization between sides; people stop asking who is actually at fault and instead focus on "which side are we on?" If a cosmopolitan advocates for everyone to just follow their own path, aren't they actually the most extreme nationalists of all?...

Take the USA imposing sanctions on Burma over human rights violations, for instance—ignoring how they won't touch China nearly as easily, or how they basically oversee the arms and drug trade in Burma themselves... Is it really "cosmopolitan" to meddle in another nation's internal affairs? It reminds me of that American movie about Alexander the Great. They paint him as this romantic cosmopolitan because he had a vision of conquering the entire world just so there wouldn't be anyone left to fight. In that light, "cosmopolitans" are just people intending to seize the globe and force their own specific set of rules and rights upon everyone else. According to that screenwriter, cosmopolitanism is just wanting the whole world to look exactly like Greece...

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.

That mindset assumes there's such a thing as universal values. It suggests a wise, global citizen would act the same way regardless of where they land, because they follow some inherent sense of justice or humanity. But what's considered "natural" depends entirely on survival. In one part of the world, people might sacrifice everything just to keep a tribe alive, while in another, that's unthinkable. And if what is "natural" changes based on the environment...

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. 😢

I'm interested in that tangent. Globalization seems to set the stage for a cosmopolitan atmosphere, and its characteristics include:

- Massive multinational corporations use their accumulated capital to block any competitors from entering the market and sharing the pie.
- The existence of a single global market limits the ability of sovereign nations to jumpstart their own economies by setting rules that favor local businesses. Decision-making power shifts from domestic governments to international organizations, which reduces the ability of citizens to influence their own development through direct elections.
- The flow of goods, capital, and people across borders inevitably brings a flow of habits, customs, and cultures. People react differently to this; some see the influx of new culture as a positive enrichment, while others view it as a threat to established values and norms.
- Remote locations become so interconnected that events in one corner of the globe can trigger or result from events hundreds of miles away, and vice versa.
- An increasing web of connections between societies and their problems.
- A process that intensifies market competition.
- The mobilization of global market forces and the resulting economic weakening of individual states.
- National governments find themselves too small to tackle massive global issues, yet too large to handle localized ones.
- "Social waste," such as workers in India earning far less than those in Europe; their wages are kept low (cheap labor), allowing companies to threaten unions by simply moving operations to countries with cheaper workforce costs.
- Globalization widens the gap between rich and poor as powerful private firms merge and expand, while small businesses get swallowed up or wiped out by globalized commerce.
- Similarly, it creates millionaires who are nearly impossible to regulate because their desire for more capital drives them to constantly seek, buy, and sell.
- Environmental destruction existed long before globalization, but globalization has exacerbated these issues, leading to global air pollution and the destruction of natural beauty...

"Capitalism is a tiger full of strength that can be harnessed to revitalize an economy, but only if its power is restrained by state and political institutions. Globalization has let this tiger out of its cage, unleashing a 'wild' capitalism that, much like a released tiger, has begun to show its predatory instincts."
- Benjamin R. Barber.

So, is globalization actually creating the conditions for a cosmopolitan atmosphere? I suspect the technological conditions create the possibility—if you were to roughly divide society into three classes. The third class lives in the developing world, largely invisible and ignored; the middle class feels cosmopolitan, blissfully detached from the struggles of the third world or the "semi-world" of the suburbs; and the ultra-wealthy class destabilizes the planet through anarchy, wars fought in their own interests, and unchecked environmental exploitation... Fine, globalization might create the conditions for a shared "middle-class" culture defined by having the same consumer goods as your neighbors, but are the cosmopolitan philosophers actually part of that group?

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).

Before smartphones, the internet, computers, cars, and global warming, the world was a different place. Not long before that, no one even knew if we were living on a sphere or a flat disc... The realities of globalization—or at least Americanization—along with modern communication, the melting pot of cultures in major cities, universities, and unrestricted freedom of speech, have ensured that American philosophers will engage with an incredibly similar environment. While a philosopher certainly doesn't have to be a cosmopolitan, and you can find them in every culture and subculture, today's material conditions force cosmopolitan problems upon us in ways that are incomparable to anything in history.
I also feel that the goal of philosophy is to discover and follow values that are universal, general, and eternal. However, I wonder how much longer those ideas can remain rooted in the specific conditions of our current globalized society while remaining relevant. Religions and ideologies act as the soil where morality takes root, whereas specific national perspectives today—whether Belgian or Dutch, for instance—seem less central.

Regardless of whether cosmopolitanism is possible or impossible, given the idea that a wise person's homeland is the entire world, I am still curious: are there other rules or ideas regarding conduct that would apply to such a worldview? Perhaps humanity or something else?

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?

Interesting turn of events. Can we get more on these nomads and their value system? What kind of people are we talking about here? Like those from Zahir by Paul Coelho? 🙂

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?

Not as long as there's hope in that tiny scrap. It’s nihilistic to believe everything at a buffet is equally good, but we all know that isn't true. We can try to comfort ourselves with poor choices, terrified by the fact that things could always be better or much worse.

Nicole Castillo11 said:Interesting turn of events. Can we get more on these nomads and their value system? What kind of people are we talking about here? Like those from Zahir by Paul Coelho? 🙂

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?

Not as long as there's hope in that tiny scrap. It’s nihilistic to believe everything at a buffet is equally good, but we all know that isn't true. We can try to comfort ourselves with poor choices, terrified by the fact that things could always be better or much worse.

I’m not sure about Coelho—I was thinking more along the lines of the Tuareg or the Gypsies; wanderers without a homeland, though I suppose there's that romanticized notion of them rejecting materialism and everything superfluous...

We can afford to talk big about cosmopolitanism because we’ve supposedly "evolved" past mere materialism. It's easy to preach. But take some laborer dying of thirst in the brutal heat of Dubai—someone without plumbing or any basic amenities—who is out there building the infrastructure for some glittering metropolis. He doesn't give a damn about cosmopolitanism; if anything, he might be slightly more concerned with nationalism. He belongs to a "superior race" without which he wouldn't be so miserable—or rather, without whom those wealthy cosmopolitans couldn't be so pathetic. Honestly, I'm embarrassed by us. The cosmopolitan community of global philosophers... yeah, right. Proletarians of all countries, unite!🤮

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. 😢

There’s really no need for such mental gymnastics. We can exist together despite our differences.

Globalization tends to flatten those distinctions, wiping out indigenous local cultures
to force a sense of unity among people stripped of their identity, essentially programmed to be nothing more than perfect consumers.

Cosmopolitanism operates on the premise that human values are universal
and seeks unity within diversity (*Gens una summus*).

Therefore, there is absolutely no requirement for forced homogenization,
no need to impose a "new global culture,"

and certainly no need to manufacture a world government—in fact, such things would be entirely redundant.

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. 😢

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.

It is the ultimate nightmare for the idea of cosmopolitanism.

Every person is locally rooted, at the very least through language:

no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

That doesn't necessarily have to mean a nation:

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

Nicole Castillo11 said:If cosmopolitans are considered "schizophrenic" because they juggle conflicting viewpoints, then what does that say about political party members? Parties operate on set platforms, rigid ideologies, and the mandates of their leadership. I can't help but wonder how a true philosopher could ever maintain any sense of individual identity within one...

Some philosopher will probably just opt for that whole socio-political-identity thing... 🙂 Choosing a "lesser evil" or succumbing to political apathy just to fit in—that’s what makes someone a true pioneer of thought. They embrace ideas that clash with the status quo, which is exactly what defines a philosopher... Though, one has to wonder: is a philosopher a seeker of truth, or merely a seeker of wisdom? And what's really the difference...

Regarding cosmopolitanism...The concept of enlightened, humanitarian souls building connections that transcend national, religious, or political borders to foster global unity... It sounds lovely on paper. But aside from those "enlightened" types...Even a self-proclaimed chauvinist might make an exception for their favorite writers, artists, or pageant queens. But I have to wonder what you can actually expect from cosmopolitanism when it comes down to just two nations, or even different cultures and religions... It’s a messy question. In certain parts of the States, the exact same offense is punished differently; some things are criminalized in one state while being encouraged in another. For instance, drawing a caricature of Muhammad is seen as an expression of free spirit and artistic liberty in the West, yet in other places, authors face death threats and their countrymen suffer global boycotts because of it. If a philosopher or a cosmopolitan claims to stand by everyone's right to their own views—including their gods—they’ll likely find themselves feeling like a total outsider in places where those views aren't tolerated... 🙄 Different customs, rights, morals, and values inevitably trigger conflict. These differences only serve to deepen polarization between sides; people stop asking who is actually at fault and instead focus on "which side are we on?" If a cosmopolitan advocates for everyone to just follow their own path, aren't they actually the most extreme nationalists of all?...

Take the USA imposing sanctions on Burma over human rights violations, for instance—ignoring how they won't touch China nearly as easily, or how they basically oversee the arms and drug trade in Burma themselves... Is it really "cosmopolitan" to meddle in another nation's internal affairs? It reminds me of that American movie about Alexander the Great. They paint him as this romantic cosmopolitan because he had a vision of conquering the entire world just so there wouldn't be anyone left to fight. In that light, "cosmopolitans" are just people intending to seize the globe and force their own specific set of rules and rights upon everyone else. According to that screenwriter, cosmopolitanism is just wanting the whole world to look exactly like Greece...

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.

That mindset assumes there's such a thing as universal values. It suggests a wise, global citizen would act the same way regardless of where they land, because they follow some inherent sense of justice or humanity. But what's considered "natural" depends entirely on survival. In one part of the world, people might sacrifice everything just to keep a tribe alive, while in another, that's unthinkable. And if what is "natural" changes based on the environment...

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. 🤷

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.

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.




no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.




no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.




no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

I don't know. It all depends on how deep these differences actually go. You clearly think they’re just surface-level because...

Cosmopolitanism is built on the idea that human values are universal. It’s about finding unity within a massive sea of diversity—one single, interconnected humanity.

I think a lot of people who take a lot of pride in their individuality wouldn't be able to stomach my take.

Globalization is just a slow grind toward mediocrity. It’s designed to flatten everything out, wiping away local culture and unique heritage to make room for a forced, hollow sense of unity. The end goal isn't connection; it's creating a mass of people without any real identity, perfectly programmed to be nothing more than mindless consumers.
...
So, there’s really no reason to force equalization.
There’s absolutely no need to force some "new world culture" on us.
At least when it comes to building some kind of global superpower—actually, forget that. The ones we have right now are already redundant.

You and filozof28 both hit on the same point: global, unchecked capitalism moves way faster than any government can keep up with. You're pointing out the dark side of globalization, but it raises a massive question. If governments aren't willing to actually work together or form serious alliances, who is going to rein this wild capitalism in? What other entity actually has enough leverage to push back against these global forces?

Globalization mostly just strips away our humanity. It turns people into nothing more than targets for total manipulation.
She’s a total nightmare for anyone who actually believes in cosmopolitanism.

Like I said, globalization isn't just some buzzword. My main point was about how people are actually connecting and building networks that didn't exist before. To me, those connections are a prerequisite for anyone to develop a cosmopolitan identity—though, honestly, I don't think they're enough on their own.

Which local community I identify with is a question for another time.
That doesn't necessarily make it a nation.
A community can be bigger or smaller than the nation itself. It’s entirely possible.

It’s true that the community someone identifies with doesn't have to be a nation. Honestly, identifying with a nation is a relatively recent historical development anyway. My point about nations was just an example. Still, I don't think an identity can ever be broad enough to include everyone; there just isn't enough of a solid foundation for that. Sure, we are all humans first, and a cosmopolitan might claim "I am a human being" as their primary identity. But that kind of identification lacks any real socio-political weight. It’s hard to turn something that vague into a mass movement.
Look, what do I know? Maybe time will prove me wrong.

frozenotter232 said:In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.

no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

In my view, globalization primarily dehumanizes us by turning individuals into objects for total manipulation.




no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

I don't know. It all depends on how deep these differences actually go. You clearly think they’re just surface-level because...

Cosmopolitanism is built on the idea that human values are universal. It’s about finding unity within a massive sea of diversity—one single, interconnected humanity.

I think a lot of people who take a lot of pride in their individuality wouldn't be able to stomach my take.

Globalization is just a slow grind toward mediocrity. It’s designed to flatten everything out, wiping away local culture and unique heritage to make room for a forced, hollow sense of unity. The end goal isn't connection; it's creating a mass of people without any real identity, perfectly programmed to be nothing more than mindless consumers.
...
So, there’s really no reason to force equalization.
There’s absolutely no need to force some "new world culture" on us.
At least when it comes to building some kind of global superpower—actually, forget that. The ones we have right now are already redundant.

You and filozof28 both hit on the same point: global, unchecked capitalism moves way faster than any government can keep up with. You're pointing out the dark side of globalization, but it raises a massive question. If governments aren't willing to actually work together or form serious alliances, who is going to rein this wild capitalism in? What other entity actually has enough leverage to push back against these global forces?

Globalization mostly just strips away our humanity. It turns people into nothing more than targets for total manipulation.
She’s a total nightmare for anyone who actually believes in cosmopolitanism.

Like I said, globalization isn't just some buzzword. My main point was about how people are actually connecting and building networks that didn't exist before. To me, those connections are a prerequisite for anyone to develop a cosmopolitan identity—though, honestly, I don't think they're enough on their own.

Which local community I identify with is a question for another time.
That doesn't necessarily make it a nation.
A community can be bigger or smaller than the nation itself. It’s entirely possible.

It’s true that the community someone identifies with doesn't have to be a nation. Honestly, identifying with a nation is a relatively recent historical development anyway. My point about nations was just an example. Still, I don't think an identity can ever be broad enough to include everyone; there just isn't enough of a solid foundation for that. Sure, we are all humans first, and a cosmopolitan might claim "I am a human being" as their primary identity. But that kind of identification lacks any real socio-political weight. It’s hard to turn something that vague into a mass movement.
Look, what do I know? Maybe time will prove me wrong.
[/B]

no matter how fluently you learn a foreign tongue, your native language remains your true home.

Which specific community I identify with is another question entirely.

a community can easily be much broader or much narrower than a national identity.

I don't know. It all depends on how deep these differences actually go. You clearly think they’re just surface-level because...

Cosmopolitanism is built on the idea that human values are universal. It’s about finding unity within a massive sea of diversity—one single, interconnected humanity.

I think a lot of people who take a lot of pride in their individuality wouldn't be able to stomach my take.

Globalization is just a slow grind toward mediocrity. It’s designed to flatten everything out, wiping away local culture and unique heritage to make room for a forced, hollow sense of unity. The end goal isn't connection; it's creating a mass of people without any real identity, perfectly programmed to be nothing more than mindless consumers.
...
So, there’s really no reason to force equalization.
There’s absolutely no need to force some "new world culture" on us.
At least when it comes to building some kind of global superpower—actually, forget that. The ones we have right now are already redundant.

You and filozof28 both hit on the same point: global, unchecked capitalism moves way faster than any government can keep up with. You're pointing out the dark side of globalization, but it raises a massive question. If governments aren't willing to actually work together or form serious alliances, who is going to rein this wild capitalism in? What other entity actually has enough leverage to push back against these global forces?

Globalization mostly just strips away our humanity. It turns people into nothing more than targets for total manipulation.
She’s a total nightmare for anyone who actually believes in cosmopolitanism.

Like I said, globalization isn't just some buzzword. My main point was about how people are actually connecting and building networks that didn't exist before. To me, those connections are a prerequisite for anyone to develop a cosmopolitan identity—though, honestly, I don't think they're enough on their own.

Which local community I identify with is a question for another time.
That doesn't necessarily make it a nation.
A community can be bigger or smaller than the nation itself. It’s entirely possible.

It’s true that the community someone identifies with doesn't have to be a nation. Honestly, identifying with a nation is a relatively recent historical development anyway. My point about nations was just an example. Still, I don't think an identity can ever be broad enough to include everyone; there just isn't enough of a solid foundation for that. Sure, we are all humans first, and a cosmopolitan might claim "I am a human being" as their primary identity. But that kind of identification lacks any real socio-political weight. It’s hard to turn something that vague into a mass movement.
Look, what do I know? Maybe time will prove me wrong.
😕
I was just reading on the "Religion" forum and wanted to pass this along; I don't have much to add to it myself.

Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)

Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)

Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)

Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)

Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)
Imagine (John Lennon song)

http://forum.us/showthread.php?t=270578

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 feel like the people calling themselves cosmopolitans are still stuck in that same old loop: A is A because it isn't B. In their heads, it's like: "I'm a cosmopolitan because I'm not a nationalist."

If you ask me, these cosmopolitans justify themselves way more often by saying, "Hey, I'm not a nationalist," rather than claiming they have some massive, universal love for everyone (including actual nationalists). Actually, I'm kinda worried that this "universal love" is usually reserved mostly for other cosmopolitans, while they just look down on nationalists. If that’s true, they aren't actually that different from nationalists, who also "love their own" (meaning people with the same identity) while looking down on everyone else.

mistyfox812 said:I feel like the people calling themselves cosmopolitans are still stuck in that same old loop: A is A because it isn't B. In their heads, it's like: "I'm a cosmopolitan because I'm not a nationalist."

If you ask me, these cosmopolitans justify themselves way more often by saying, "Hey, I'm not a nationalist," rather than claiming they have some massive, universal love for everyone (including actual nationalists). Actually, I'm kinda worried that this "universal love" is usually reserved mostly for other cosmopolitans, while they just look down on nationalists. If that’s true, they aren't actually that different from nationalists, who also "love their own" (meaning people with the same identity) while looking down on everyone else.

An excellent observation.🙏

mistyfox812 said:I feel like the people calling themselves cosmopolitans are still stuck in that same old loop: A is A because it isn't B. In their heads, it's like: "I'm a cosmopolitan because I'm not a nationalist."

If you ask me, these cosmopolitans justify themselves way more often by saying, "Hey, I'm not a nationalist," rather than claiming they have some massive, universal love for everyone (including actual nationalists). Actually, I'm kinda worried that this "universal love" is usually reserved mostly for other cosmopolitans, while they just look down on nationalists. If that’s true, they aren't actually that different from nationalists, who also "love their own" (meaning people with the same identity) while looking down on everyone else.

😕😕 You can't seriously suggest that nationalists follow the categorical imperative, can you? 😕
Your attempt at relativizing this misses the entire point: the detachment (the liberation) from those "blood and soil" ties.
Of course, most people naturally gravitate toward those similar to them (in terms of interests, worldview, etc.),
but if a person is incapable of distancing themselves from their local community, they remain fundamentally unfree.

Growing up in the States back in the early seventies, I didn't even know what nationalism was, nor did I care about it;
I always saw myself as a cosmopolitan—someone who primarily belongs to humanity as a whole.

bluebison70 said:If someone is truly a philosopher, they can't be a nationalist; and if they're a nationalist, then I suppose they aren't really a philosopher. That’s just how Taylor Swift and I see things, I guess.

Why do you both act like philosophers aren't human? People naturally group themselves together, and once you join a group, you inevitably adopt its specific "-isms."

Or do you disagree?🙂

🙂 🙂 🙂

swiftcobra15 said:😕😕 You can't seriously suggest that nationalists follow the categorical imperative, can you? 😕
Your attempt at relativizing this misses the entire point: the detachment (the liberation) from those "blood and soil" ties.
Of course, most people naturally gravitate toward those similar to them (in terms of interests, worldview, etc.),
but if a person is incapable of distancing themselves from their local community, they remain fundamentally unfree.

So, we achieve freedom from blood and soil, yet remain shackled by our preferences and perspectives?
In what way is this second version any superior?
Is it based on some arbitrary measure of how "significant" this lack of freedom is?
And more importantly, according to whose judgment?