The book, Cosmopolitanism
The reason is the definition the author gave on NPR today:
“Cosmopolitanism for me has two strands, one is that you have to take seriously the idea that we’re collectively responsible all of us for the fate of all of us. And the other is respect that the choices that people make can be different from one another.”
These two ideas combine to create the environment in which people with different ideas can explain their beliefs and can improve their beliefs through conversation. (Appiah points out that conversation is both listening and speaking in the interviews.)
This reciprocity of mutual respect and compassion is certainly healthy. It is also very republican (small ‘r’) in the general sense that people would be organized in a way that recognized the needs of the individual as part of the society.
Not having read Appiah’s book, I do not know if he addresses the fact that Cosmopolitanism requires (many) individuals to be engaged in the conversation. This is not something that can be legislated by bureaucrats or organized by mobs.
This approach also requires some amount of humility. You cannot engage in a conversation unless your mind is open and you are willing to admit that your ideas might be wrong.
Discussing beliefs…a requirement for individual engagement in the world…open minds…hopefully the book is as good as the jacket suggests. I’ll let you know when I’m done.
(thanks to rhiiow for the pointer to a few reviews)
Related posts:
Comments on this entry are closed.