Talk:Cosmopolitanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Hi Mikkalai Why remove the critique of Beck? It's not spam. Its a genuine academic article on cosmopolitanism from a reputable academic journal that is relevant to the topic. This sort of thing appears all over Wikipedia, including on this page, why do you feel it is inappropriate here? It's by a tutor at my university and many of the students like me have found it really useful in finding a critical persecptive on cosmopolitanism which is quite rare. You also removed an article by Martell on the neoliberalism page which we also put there for the same reason - again this is an academic article from a recognised journal relevant to the topic just as the other articles posted there are, and you haven't removed these other ones. User 86.27.89.53 11 August 19.00 GMT.
What happened to the rest of this article?? OrionK 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Objection: "Cosmopolitanism is the quality or state of being sophisticated and having wide international experience."
The disambiguation page under Cosmopolitan has a much better definition of the term--I suggest using it here; with "cosmopolitanism" defined as a social, political, or philosophical stance advocating a cosmopolitan way of life.
Also: "For this reason the implementation of a world government would be morally right and ultimately just..."
I don't believe this is necessarily true--cosmopolitanism in the sense of "world citizen" may mean a world government, but could also mean various national governments working together, or may imply a kind of political anarchy--world citizenship without a government.
--Pariah 08:52, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Everything you've said is fine. Make changes as you see fit, I say. :) Chadofborg 23:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Cool--will do--Pariah 23:18, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
In the beginning of the century, communists governments often reffered to cosmopolitanism as one of the evil of the capitalist world. See, for example, Rootless cosmopolitan. I think this should be included here, but I fail to see how cosmopolitanism is contrary to standard communist doctrine. In fact, it should fit perfectly in it, but it would not the first contradiction. UnHoly 15:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed the edits by 213.202.187.208, as they do not refer to cosmopolitanism as defined in this article. Maybe one could write an Cosmopolitan cities article? Anyway, I doubt the claim that London is "the most" cosmopolitan cities. What about New York? UnHoly 23:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The last sentence in the critique seems biased. --69.159.66.135 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Klitou
I have two questions. First, where is the citation of this Klitou fellow? Also, am I being thick when I am confused by cosmopolitanism being a "major foe" and yet a "necessary element" of the human rights movement? --Hashshashin 19:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Philosophical Roots
If someone is willing, I think a section detailing the philosophical roots -- from the Greek origin of the word, to Kant and Habermas -- would further enrich this article. As I'm no expert, I'll leave it to someone who is.
Though not at all an expert, I've tried to add my share. Sven Jense 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on a thesis that will make use of cosmopolitanism as a theoretical base for making a broader argument on how we as humanity should act towards culture and poverty; for who's interested the thesis will be written as a wiki and you're invited to participate. See www.svenjense.com/thesis Sven Jense 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-- Universalism/Pluralism --
In the article cosmopolitanism is solely being compared to universalism, however a pluralist version of cosmopolitanism is just as conceivable. Perhaps this could be extended by someone more adept than myself? Scholars that come to mind, who support such a possibility, would include Linda Bishai, Will Kymlicka or perhaps Magda Opalski?
[edit] Cosmopolitanism and Anarchism
A Cosmopolitanist is one who is ideologically free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments and believes that as citizens of the world we all share common moral values at heart and as Progressive Reconstructionists they go about disproving the percention that people of different religious backgrounds can't get along. Cosmopolitans are worldly chameleons--they reject the concept of race and regard all of humanity as one race and a Cosmopolitanist is one who aims to strenthen this idea and challenge others to accept it. Cosmopolitanists support a government free world as they believe the government polarizes citizens against other citizens of the world in order to start wars, which makes them very much like Anarchists in that respect. They unlike Internationalists, perfer anarchy instead of a world government because they acknowledge the fact that citizens of the world may not agree on the same economic system.
[edit] US Cosmopolitanism
Presently the article suggests that the EU is the "most successful attempts of cosmopolitanism" and describes how "companies from selling products with lead within the EU". If this is the standard, the US is far ahead of the EU. Should we delete the text below, or properly insert the US success?
"The most successful attempts of cosmopolitanism so far are the successes of the European Union, such as the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive which forbids companies from selling products with lead within the EU. As the European market is significant as a whole, this forces companies globally to remove environmentally destructive chemicals from their products. In this way, the EU counters a global risk through regional transnational co-operation which has enough clout so that it cannot be challenged in the courts of the World Bank and the IMF."
[edit] Proposed Merge of Cosmopolitan into Cosmopolitanism
I propose that Cosmopolitan be merged into Cosmopolitanism. There is a great deal of overlap between these two articles. I believe that Cosmopolitanism is the proper article to keep, as a Cosmopolitan is merely one who subscribes to Cosmopolitanism; and Cosmopolitanism also seems to be the more developed article. Squideshi 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Support. `'Míkka 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- disagree. the person is not the same as the ideology, overlap is fine here. there is no space issue to force conceptual confusion. --Buridan 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes the person is not the same as ideology. Still, we don't have separate articles for marxism and marxist, bureaucracy and bureaucrat, fascism and fascist, expressionism and expressionist, and long etc. `'Míkka 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- That there are not, does not imply that there should not be.--Buridan 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- That there are not, implies that there must be a solid reason, otherwise wikipedia would have had as many "-ist" articles as there are political "-isms" already (wikipedians just llloove to write new articles). And this reason is that unlike occupational usage of suffix "-ist" (guitar ->guitarist) there is not much to say about a philosophical "-ist" beyond them being an adherent of the corresponding "-ism". and splitting a single topic in two is maintenance hightmare for keeping information consistent. Of course, I may be mistaken about cosmopolitanism, but you have to provide a more solid reason than "why not?". `'Míkka 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- actually no, it has no implications according to wikipedia policy as best as i can tell. feel free to find a contrary policy though. --Buridan 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it was the problem with my poor language. Only now I realized that "cosmopolitan" is adjective. The noun is "cosmopolite". There are no articles about adjectives in wikipedia. So this page must be merged wherever unique text may go, and Cosmopolitan (disambiguation) page must be moved here, and I am doing this now. `'Míkka 23:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- That there are not, implies that there must be a solid reason, otherwise wikipedia would have had as many "-ist" articles as there are political "-isms" already (wikipedians just llloove to write new articles). And this reason is that unlike occupational usage of suffix "-ist" (guitar ->guitarist) there is not much to say about a philosophical "-ist" beyond them being an adherent of the corresponding "-ism". and splitting a single topic in two is maintenance hightmare for keeping information consistent. Of course, I may be mistaken about cosmopolitanism, but you have to provide a more solid reason than "why not?". `'Míkka 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- That there are not, does not imply that there should not be.--Buridan 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes the person is not the same as ideology. Still, we don't have separate articles for marxism and marxist, bureaucracy and bureaucrat, fascism and fascist, expressionism and expressionist, and long etc. `'Míkka 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lede of the article
Aliens? ALIENS??!!! This is not what the dog of Sinope had in mind. Skomorokh incite
