Reecies crunchy thought on Cosmopolitanism Intro-Ch.4

Study Questions:

Introduction: Making Conversation
Cosmopolitanism. Appiah explains two principles to cosmopolitanism. The first is that we have obligations to others. Not just to people we know, but even to those we don’t. To have a concern for other communities as we do our own, and to accept every culture for the way it is, not desire any change. The second is that we take the value of particular human lives seriously. This means we should take interest in significant beliefs and practices of others… and do so with an open mind, not a judgmental one. Appiah’s main objective is to make it harder to think of the world as divided between “us” and “them”.
Ch. I: The Shattered Mirror
Appiah draws out a distinction between two points of view. The first: understanding why someone does something, from their point of view… The second: why we do something from our own point of view. I think it is important to know both of these because we should know why someone does something, even if we are against it. The reasons why they feel they should do it. It is very similar to our own point of view. I have beliefs and values and someone from another culture has different beliefs and values. We both have a strong belief in what we do, and might even be against each other at first, but if try to learn why this person has these values, then it might be the first step for me to try and understand. If I understand where they are coming from, then I might not be so against it, which is a step towards cosmopolitanism.
Ch. II: Escape from Positivism
Positivism. This is the thought that there are only beliefs and desires, or, “what is” and “what ought to be”. Positivism poses a problem for Appiah, because he does not find the theory to be entirely true. The reason being is that Positivism says that you need fact for your belief to be a truth. His example is that if 1 and 1 is 2, where exactly do we find that fact? Positivism means that we cannot believe in values because they hold no certain “fact” in the world. Not just values, but things like numbers, possibilities, universal truths, and much more. Positivism also says u can criticize beliefs as unreasonable. Appiah asks, where is the fact the belief is unreasonable. Positivism’s problem lies in its starting point, to act on your beliefs and desires. To figure out your values… and values are not for just one single person, values are to guide everyone. I believe Positivism is for the less open minded.
Ch. III: Facts on the Ground
Appiah talks about facts not being wholly distinguished from values. I believe his example of witchcraft was a good one. In Ghana, they believe they gets sick because someone placed witchcraft upon them, when we know that it was most likely due to germs or disease. The meaning behind this is that in his culture, they have that belief that witchcraft is true. Some people believe they are witches, and can cast harmful witchcraft (or good witchcraft) on others. It is what they were taught, what they value, and what they teach to others so they also will have this value. It is part of their culture. We are taught a different reason behind sickness, germs (which are the scientific reason behind a cold), and hold different values. But because we have our beliefs, does not mean another culture has to believe it (or should) just because we tell them to, or vice versa. We hold onto our own values. If we do not value witchcraft like the Ghanaians, then we do not have to value or believe in it… but because they do, nothing we can say will change their minds overnight. We have to remember to understand things from the other cultures perspective, and try to understand their values.
Ch. IV: Moral Disagreement
Appiah uses the terms “contestable” and “open textured” when he is describing difficulty of agreement of values. When he uses these terms, he means that some values are meant to be argued. When you learn of someone else’s value, you do not have to accept it right away, you should determine if you are against it, and for what reasons. It is not just because we don’t understand, but as Appiah says, it is …“because applying value terms to new cases requires judgment and discretion” When others use “evaluative language”, which is words such as kind, cruel, courage, coward, etc. , they are shaping our thoughts on what happened, and what we think should be moral. This complicates the discussion on values because it is now saying that we should be arguing about other’s values instead of trying to understand them. That we use evaluative language, and it most likely aids the disagreement, as it shapes our thoughts and feelings. Everyone will have their own opinion to what politeness or rudeness is (or any other evaluative language), thus the start of this complication.


The ideas in this book can relate to Bafa Bafa because it is explaining how other cultures do not understand each other’s values, and might not right away without explanation. In Bafa Bafa even if we were open-minded, without an explanation to the new culture’s values, we are unable to understand them. The ideas relate to the writings of Berry in the sense that Berry considered it to be one world. He was one with nature, respected his community, and the communities of others, showing cosmopolitanism.

In Second Life I have yet to find myself a cosmopolitan. All the people I have came across seemed to be immersed in their own culture only and we not very open to other cultures. Hopefully I will find some soon.


As long and possibly painful that was, thanks for reading :)
Reecie here, signing out..
^_^