Summary Of Overcoming Kwame Anthony Appiah

Imagine a world where societies were able to coexist and functioned through eyes of acceptance and love. This idea of universal peace is exciting and enticing to many, however this idealized world is realistically impossible. People are irrational and carry a heavy indifference for others. Throughout all time people have struggled to coexist, whether it be over cultures, ideas, patorism, hate, or religion; conflict is inevitable. Acceptance is the key to a utopian world, however there will always exist an underlying hate in society. An abyss of ignorance and unadulterated evil that corrupts society and exploits the weak. This chasm, or rather set beliefs that some people carry degrades the very moral foundation of a peaceful society. Overcoming
this hate is a challenge, but it is a task we are not unable to accomplish. Kwame Anthony Appiah discuss this dichotomy of conflicting morals and beliefs and argues that a society where people as a whole can come together and coexist is indeed possible.
This society however, does not envelop certain communities but rather the entire world. In Making Conversation, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers, Appiah introduces us to cosmopolitanism: an almost contradictory ideology based around the belief that people can and will get along, as long as they “make conversation,” so to speak. Appiah also dives into how global communication has its downsides, the history of cosmopolitanism, partial cosmopolis, his personal experiences with this ideology and the worldview post 9/11. His structure is very informal and at times, choppy, however he does explain his thesis to a well versed extent and proves his understanding on the subject by defining the ideology thoroughly and countering his own arguments and reaffirming them with following explanations. Nevertheless, he is lacking in some areas and is not without his faults, where lack of analysis betrays him and his overall extremely optimistic worldviews portray him as somewhat daft. Despite this, his exploration into the idea of cosmopolitanism is well thought and maybe one day, considered
possible.
Cosmopolitanism: a contradictory belief system that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways gilded around the expansion and exploration of communities, human interaction and spreading ideas. Its simplest definition can be summed as “living in harmony with one another.” Appiah begins his thesis by explaining how in ancient societies people were limited to tribes that they were born into, and only interacted with a select amount of people. Usually, and quite so often these small groups lived in peace, since they were born in a culture and faced little opposing backlash from others. Now however, in a new age of technology where communication is rampant, ideas are easily spread, and disagreements from different cultures, individuals, religions, and opinions are shared and stir a commotion or cauldron of conflict.
Appiah addresses this with a solution, it being: cosmopolitanism. He then goes on to explain that “the challenge, then, is to take minds and hearts formed over the long millennia of living in local troops and equip them with ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become” (Appiah 3). Cosmopolitanism itself is not a difficult nor tricky idea to wrap someone's head around, but rather the application of its ideals is the trial. He continues this thought later, and instead jumps into the history of cosmopolitanism as a follow up. He cites the “Cynics of the fourth century BC, who first coined the expression cosmopolitan, ‘citizen of the cosmos’” (Appiah 4), whose phrase can be considered somewhat ironic, but more so enlightening and buoyant. Citizen, which means an individual loyal to a city or state, and cosmos, which refers to the universe a whole. The phrase, “citizen of the cosmos” can be translated to “loyal to the world, or all humanity.” Appiah counties his maunder by invoking Christianity, who used the
idea of cosmopolitanism as its core beliefs, more specifically Saint Paul, who stated “that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’” (Appiah 4). Appiah is not without his distinctions with his writing which jumps between educational and deceptively persuasive. He continues on with the 1789 Declaration of Rights and Man and the Teutscher Merkur, who both invoked the ideas of cosmopolitans. Appiah eventually strays from his history lesson and continues his first argument by giving a more modern definition of this idealized world. “One is the idea that we have obligations to others, obligations that stretch beyond those to whom we are related by the ties of kith and kind, or even the more formal ties of a shared citizenship. The other is that we take seriously the value not just of human life but of particular human lives, which means taking an interest in the practices and beliefs that lend them significance” (Appiah 4). To reiterate, humanity must care for those they do not know, and understand the value of individual human life. He does understand however, the indifference some people carry, and even states that “there will be times when these two ideals-universal concern and respect for legitimate difference-clash” (Appiah 4). Not without cliche, Appiah evokes Hitler and Stalin as extremes of this “legitimate difference.” These two characters however, are applicable to his arguments by showing the extreme sides of cosmopolitanism, in which he addresses as “partial cosmopolitanism.” In Hitlers and Stalins case, they cared for their fellow man so greatly that they were willing to murder and kill foreigners or individuals defiant to their law. They embodied cosmopolitanism to an extreme in a sense where they remained loyal “to one portion of humanity- a nation, a class- that ruled out loyalty to all of humanity” (Appiah 5). Appiah goes on to explain how local allegiances and loyalties to certain creeds or countries define who we are, and how it inadvertently conflicts with the idea of human kinship. Remaining loyal to one group can constricts one beliefs and can engulf one's views to pure patriotism. He then touches upon the other side of partial cosmopolitanism, where one fully accepts this ideology and still remains a part of their own heritage while embracing others with open arms. Appiah recognizes the fact that not all people will be fully cosmopolism, and creates this scale to measure it so. Nevertheless, Appiah enjoys criticizing and poking holes in his own arguments, which subjectivity strengthen his statements. His essay should not be taken as a factual or argumentative piece, but rather food for thought, a philosophical diary on his perfect, conceptualized world. Appiah does remain in reality by addressing that people will deny this belief system or not accept it fully. He states this later, along with his own experiences with cosmopolitanism in his life in Ghana.