This is my problem with philosophy, I like bits and pieces of each theory, but the whole theory just doesn't work in reality. I start to see the flaws.
Appiah's argument in theory sounds quite lovely - accept everyone, provide everyone with choices - what he doesn't realize is we really don't have choices or rather only the very wealthy do, and even them? Not really. What he overlooks in his argument, which my mother stumbled upon and I wasn't seeing but saw quite clearly while watching Serenity and going back to work today - was "societal" pressure. The pressure to buy a TV set, a cell phone, a pair of blue jeans.
There's a fascinating couple of science fiction novels written by Maria Doria Russel called The Sparrow and The Children of God which more or less turn Appiah's lovely theory on its head. The characters journey to another world, they crash, and start to innocently plant a garden to feed themselves. They meet the locals and innocently teach them to plant a garden and learn their language. Then they discover, to their horror, how population is controlled on the planet. They attempt to interfer and chaos ensues. The novel asks the question - does sharing our culture, our world with another culture - irretrievably hurt it? Were the citizens of that new world really given an informed choice or was that choice made for them by the visitors? I see the same thing in my own company, we - as in the employees and the customers - make the decision to become a part of the giant company, that choice was thrust upon us. And in Appiah's example of his native Ghana, he forgets that Ghanians also did not have a choice. Europeans came to their land and persuaded them - sometimes peacefully, sometimes violently, to trade. It's far from simple. Yet, many philosophers want to simplify it - make things definitive, black and white, forgetting human beings aren't simple and there isn't a perfect formula to follow.
At any rate, I've come to conclude that while Appiah's philosophy has some interesting and valid points, (hey who wouldn't want to be a citizen of the world?) It tends to be a tad niave and falls apart under further analysis for the reasons you state in your post above.
I keep wanting to define my world and keep realizing it may not be definable.
no subject
Appiah's argument in theory sounds quite lovely - accept everyone, provide everyone with choices - what he doesn't realize is we really don't have choices or rather only the very wealthy do, and even them? Not really.
What he overlooks in his argument, which my mother stumbled upon and I wasn't seeing but saw quite clearly while watching Serenity and going back to work today - was "societal" pressure. The pressure to buy a TV set, a cell phone, a pair of blue jeans.
There's a fascinating couple of science fiction novels written by Maria Doria Russel called The Sparrow and The Children of God which more or less turn Appiah's lovely theory on its head. The characters journey to another world, they crash, and start to innocently plant a garden to feed themselves. They meet the locals and innocently teach them to plant a garden and learn their language. Then they discover, to their horror, how population is controlled on the planet. They attempt to interfer and chaos ensues. The novel asks the question - does sharing our culture, our world with another culture - irretrievably hurt it? Were the citizens of that new world really given an informed choice or was that choice made for them by the visitors? I see the same thing in my own company, we - as in the employees and the customers - make the decision to become a part of the giant company, that choice was thrust upon us. And in Appiah's example of his native Ghana, he forgets that Ghanians also did not have a choice. Europeans came to their land and persuaded them - sometimes peacefully, sometimes violently, to trade. It's far from simple. Yet, many philosophers want to simplify it - make things definitive, black and white, forgetting human beings aren't simple and there isn't a perfect formula to follow.
At any rate, I've come to conclude that while Appiah's philosophy has some interesting and valid points, (hey who wouldn't want to be a citizen of the world?) It tends to be a tad niave and falls apart under further analysis for the reasons you state in your post above.
I keep wanting to define my world and keep realizing it may not be definable.