Could you add some flesh to these rather bare bones of thread?

Sure. Cosmopolitanism is the idea that all humans (and presumably animals as well) belong to a single global community, with shared values, morals, etc. Having such a community seems to me to be a great way to stop international conflict.

But how realistic is this idea? Is it even possible to have a worldwide community? What are the obstacles in the way of a cosmopolitan society? Is a cosmopolitan society even preferable?

Cosmopolitanism was espoused by Diogenes of Sinope: I am a citizen of the world.

Its inversion was espoused by Aristippus of Cyrene: I am an alien everywhere.

Something is right about the gist, that we don't and can't belong exclusively to single communities, that it's a kind of bad faith to latch onto that kind of regional identity. The idea that, however, this is to be ameliorated by reaching out to a world-identity is not something I believe. Rather, it's to admit we have no such identities at all. 'Single community' is an oxymoron.

Given that "the world" consists of many communities, each having its own committed citizens, different values, interests, strengths, weaknesses, languages, cultures, and so on, it seems fatuous to claim citizenship in the whole world. I suspect "citizens of the world" of attempting to evade their local responsibilities--like the "trans national corporation" does. Some "citizens of the world" I have met seem more like parasites viewing the whole world as a potential host.

We haven't gotten anywhere close to 7+ billion people thinking like they belong to one big village.

That said, "One World Consciousness" is a form of cosmopolitanism I think we are in desperate need of, and not just because of global warming (though that is one big reason for having it). We are 1 species; we have no place else to go (now or in the foreseeable future), and we now understand that world-wide systems, such as climate, economics, agriculture, fisheries, etc., leave no one unaffected.

We understand the appalling consequences of a nuclear war; we understand what will happens when a fungus wipes out an entire crop -- potatoes, wheat, corn, rice: famine. We understand that some new virus won't stay put, unless intensive efforts to limit it's spread are undertaken (Ebola, for example).

We see ourselves much more as "one world" than we once did. Or maybe like an ocean liner without life boats: Different classes on board, but if the ship goes down, all go down with it.

Its inversion was espoused by Aristippus of Cyrene: I am an alien everywhere. — The Great Whatever

We're talking political identity, not existential identity.

it seems fatuous to claim citizenship in the whole world. — Bitter Crank

I think the "citizen of the world" tends to be existentially motivated than specifically politically motivated.

Some "citizens of the world" I have met seem more like parasites viewing the whole world as a potential host. — Bitter Crank

I suppose this might be true of some. But I think a "citizen of the world" might say that they hold no allegiance to any political entity. They might reject the idea of having a government that you arbitrarily swear loyalty to, usually only because you were born under their jurisdiction.

Perhaps cosmopolitanism in this context is not the appropriate term, rather, it should be global anarchism.

We see ourselves much more as "one world" than we once did. Or maybe like an ocean liner without life boats: Different classes on board, but if the ship goes down, all go down with it. — Bitter Crank

Hence why I think the first step to a cosmopolitan society would be to recognize our existential similarities. We are all human. We are affected by more or less the same things, like you said about global warming and pollution. We all experience pleasure and pain. We all exist in a short time period on a rock in space. After establishing an existential brotherhood, humanity as a family can begin to put away their differences and work together.

That quote is about political identity.

Is it? I don't have any sources on this and given the background of Aristippus it seems like he would be referencing the human condition more than political identity.

The global village is something that is real. At least in some aspects of it.

Yet let's say that the village isn't so tightly knit and doesn't get along so well, when it comes to political issues. But which village does, actually? Yet there are people that do fit into this cosmopolitanism.

First are the international businessmen, which are OK in nearly whatever community. They have no problem of interacting with each other. And if they find a common language, don't have much problems with the natives of foreign countries.

Then there are the highly educated academics and professionals, that you rush around the World. If it easier to send you off to another continent than get somebody there to do your job, you are in this field. Likely these people share similar values, are educated in similar things, and have seen the World. Even their lifestyle, which could be called upper-middle class or upper class consumerism, is the same.

Then there are those who have worked and lived in many countries. If they haven't been around themselves and distanced themselves from the people in the country, viciously avoiding "going native", it's likely that they adapt views that are quite cosmopolitan. Not all do that, but many do.

They do share common values, but don't think that it means they share common political views. And the "Cosmopolitans" are not a class that is somehow for a "Cosmopolitan" culture and society. I think it's wrong to view cosmopolitanism as something that opposes other views. In my view actually the people who are international have a deep and positive sense of their own culture and roots. They are many times quite patriotic (meaning they love their own country and it's culture), and haven't forgotten or abandoned their country and culture and replaced it with "cosmopolitanism". I think it's simply wrong to say that Cosmopolitanism would require you forget or distance the culture and the society you came from. Cosmopolitans do understand the differences between cultures. As likely they have been with foreigners and themselves been foreigners in other countries, there is no hiding from them that people even if similar at some aspects have their differences.

What Cosmopolitanism doesn't mean in my view, even if it can be meant to mean it by somebody else, is an agenda of somehow truly making a World government, federation and be against the nation states, national identities which are replaced by an uniform Cosmopolitan character. This is a bit of a different idea than just human beings having common morals.

No, it means 'alien' in the sense of 'foreigner.' In context he's literally talking about being physically itinerant and refusing to be a citizen in any one state, so as to avoid persecution.

Got a source for that? I don't doubt you but I'd like to have an actual citation.

It's in a dialogue between Aristippus and Socrates constructed by Xenophon, in the Memorabilia of Socrates, the second section.

I suppose I'd take this up a level in abstraction, first, and ask -- what does realism have to do with political ideals?

It's not that we shouldn't temper our desires by how the world is, but rather, it is possible to do so in a very brute way so that we never reach for anything more. In a supremely simplistic manner "realistic" could just mean "What exists now", which would clearly demotivate any political position no matter how easy or hard it may seem to pursue.

So, to rephrase my first question -- what is the relationship between realism and political ideals, and what do we mean when we say "realistic" in a political context?

So, to rephrase my first question -- what is the relationship between realism and political ideals, and what do we mean when we say "realistic" in a political context? — Moliere

An objective founded and created on political ideals that is achievable in reality? Realism doesn't mean that one has to accept the World as it is. Realism is that we try to change things in a way that can be possible in reality. Not the "assume that people are totally different and then this will work"-option.

That's a good refinement. I agree with you. But even then -- how do you determine the realm of possibility?

Even in a vague way? Obviously you can't determine the future precisely. But this is a common rhetorical move -- that such and such belief is not "realistic" when compared to human nature. That determination is oft taken for granted. How does one determine the bounds of possibility, in your opinion?

Cosmopolitanism is the idea that all humans (and presumably animals as well) belong to a single global community, with shared values, morals, etc. Having such a community seems to me to be a great way to stop international conflict. — darthbarracuda

This doesn't strike me as either an accurate or an informative explanation of cosmopolitanism. In political philosophy, cosmopolitans reject the legitimacy and moral relevance of borders and the division of people into separate political communities (e.g., states). The moral equivalent would be to reject the notion that we owe more to family than friends, more to friends than strangers, more to countrymen than foreigners, etc. We could sum this up as belonging to a single moral and political community, but it certainly doesn't entail that we in fact have shared values and morals. It may not even entail that we should have shared values and morals.

I suspect "citizens of the world" of attempting to evade their local responsibilities — Bitter Crank

In the political philosophy literature, cosmopolitanism is used as a way of increasing our responsibilities, not decreasing or shifting them. In many ways, it is a response to the nationalist attempt to limit whom we are responsible to. And while utilitarians are cosmopolitans in theory, some (e.g., Singer) shift our responsibilities in practice. So non-utilitarian theories of cosmopolitanism could also be seen as pushing back against that sort of tendency (here I am thinking particularly of Charles Beitz, who argues for expanding the Rawlsian approach beyond the limits of individual states).

That's a good refinement. I agree with you. But even then -- how do you determine the realm of possibility?

Even in a vague way? Obviously you can't determine the future precisely. But this is a common rhetorical move -- that such and such belief is not "realistic" when compared to human nature. That determination is oft taken for granted. How does one determine the bounds of possibility, in your opinion? — Moliere

That is the thing one has to ponder, Moliere.

That is how I look at ideals: first naturally what the ideals mean themselves, but then through their actual implementation. Many times we ourselves create perhaps unintentionally the barrier for something to be realistic and unrealistic. The common reason is that we just simply extrapolate from the past not understanding just when radical changes can happen (and when they won't happen). The extrapolation from the past does give us usually the correct estimate of the future: that things tend to be similar to what they are now. And something that has been improving now will improve in the future and things now going downhill will get even worse.

Just to give political examples, not many people saw in the West the Soviet bloc collapsing. Or the rise of political Islam with the Iranian revolution.

One example that comes to my mind of this kind of think "it's not realistic" is the debate about a third party in US politics and especially the reaction of Americans to the issue. Yes, the two parties dominating the scene having people follow their "primaries" which aren't at all part of the actual election, do have put difficulties on other parties to get their block into Capitoll Hill. Yet change can happen quite easily... people can vote for a third party. It doesn't take a revolution.

Of course this is a far broader issue than just politics.

I find the idea of cosmopolitanism very appealing. But is it realistic? Can it be done? See below. — darthbarracuda

No, it is something that isn't even desirable. Why should we want to be a global village? I don't. The idea of being all one is nonsensical and stupid. There are different peoples, different cultures and different values on the face of the Earth. These differences are valuable - they in truth make up each one of our individual identities. This Western bullshit regarding cosmopolitanism is just that - imperialist bullshit aimed at imposing the same way of life over the whole Earth. It's nothing more than a petty justification for totalitarianism.

I like Lewis Mumford approach quoted by Liane Lefaivre "A Facet of Modern Architectuie since 1945"
sites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic34807.files/9-5A_Lefaivre.pdf

"The philosophic problem of the general and the particular has its counterpart in architecture; and during the last century that problem has shaped itself more and more into the question of what weight should be given to the universal imprint of the machine and the local imprint of the region and the community." This was another way of saying that every regional culture necessarily has a universal side to it. It is steadily open to influences that come from other parts of the world, and from other cultures, separated from the local region in space or time or both together....As with a human being, every culture must be both itself and transcend itself; it must make most of its limitations and must pass beyond them; it must be open to fresh experience and yet it must maintain its integrity. In no art is that process more sharply focused than in architecture"

It is as clear as the sun to plenty of us and as real as our hands and legs — Πετροκότσυφας

Thus spoke the oppressor ...

Why should we want to be a global village? — Agustino

For the same reasons we form non-global villages (e.g., social cooperation, economic benefits, a unified justice system).

There are different peoples, different cultures and different values on the face of the Earth. — Agustino

This is just as true within states as it is between states. Eliminating borders doesn't require eliminating differences (as I noted above when clarifying what cosmopolitans actually claim).

Would you not agree that, in practice, non-global villages are generally formed, in large majority, by people sharing the same cultures and values?

This is just as true within states as it is between states. Eliminating borders doesn't require eliminating differences (as I noted above when clarifying what cosmopolitans actually claim). — Postmodern Beatnik

Sure - no logical necessity exists. But don't you think that in practice this is what will happen? If not, then why not?

I suspect "citizens of the world" of attempting to evade their local responsibilities
— Bitter Crank

In the political philosophy literature, cosmopolitanism is used as a way of increasing our responsibilities, not decreasing or shifting them. In many ways, it is a response to the nationalist attempt to limit whom we are responsible to. And while utilitarians are cosmopolitans in theory, some (e.g., Singer) shift our responsibilities in practice. So non-utilitarian theories of cosmopolitanism could also be seen as pushing back against that sort of tendency (here I am thinking particularly of Charles Beitz, who argues for expanding the Rawlsian approach beyond the limits of individual states). — Postmodern Beatnik

I like the idea of cosmopolitanism; I don't think I've met many people who actually are cosmopolitan. I don't know much about it.

I tend to think of cosmopolitanists as the sort of people who work in USAID, NGO's, and so forth -- careerists basically, working in foreign aid or diplomacy. I suppose some of these people actually ARE cosmo types, and some people who have never been far from home might be inchoate cosmopolitans.

Would you not agree that, in practice, non-global villages are generally formed, in large majority, by people sharing the same cultures and values? — Agustino

If we're talking about literal villages, then sure. But then they expand. Or they spawn a new generation of inhabitants, which ends up split between those who accept the old values and those who have new ideas. They form countries. The United States was formed by a group of people who shared certain key values, but disagreed on a lot of other things. Ideological divisions within the Communist Party ensured that the USSR was always run by a paranoiac. And the whole point of Rawlsian political philosophy is to separate the right from the good, allowing people to live as they choose so long as they live within the law. It is fundamentally an acknowledgment that you can't force uniformity onto a society—even if you begin with it.

But don't you think that in practice this is what will happen? — Agustino

When groups come together, they often blend some of their practices. This is just the natural process of cultural exchange, and it happens regardless of whether we have borders or not. But I do not think that putting people into a single state will lead to the elimination of all differences between groups. We see cultural differences survive political integration all the time during times of mass immigration. In the US, for instance, there are still many distinct cultural communities despite several of the groups having immigrated over a century ago.

Social and economic pressures frequently relegating the Irish and the Italians to the same areas when they first came over, yet they managed to remain distinct and maintain their culture—even as many of them intermarried. The United States has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel and the largest Hispanic population outside of Mexico. It has thriving Indian, Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese communities. It has a long history of bilingual education despite attempts to outlaw languages other than English (attempts that were later declared unconstitutional). All of this sparks debates from time to time, of course, but precisely because political integration has not eliminated cultural differences.

Why should we want to be a global village? — Agustino

This Western bullshit regarding cosmopolitanism is just that - imperialist bullshit aimed at imposing the same way of life over the whole Earth. It's nothing more than a petty justification for totalitarianism. — Agustino

Marshall McLuhan, who coined this phrase "global village", didn't actually like some of the stuff he wrote so exuberantly about. I'm not sure what he thought of "the global village".

I think you have put your finger on the one aspect of the global village: imperialist bullshit. Those in the position (at this point in time) to impose their will on large populations across borders (heads of transnationals, presidents of powerful states, military honchos, etc.) look at the population of earth more like a conqueror than a colleague.

We see cultural differences survive political integration all the time — Postmodern Beatnik

Right.

When radio and television became significant cultural influences, it was predicted by some observers that Americans would lose regional differences in speech, and would tend to speak more like the network voices that were heard coast to coast. That didn't happen.

Neither because of, nor in spite of radio and television American speech patterns have continued their steady differentiation -- something they have been doing for a long time. Not only are words pronounced differently from region to region, different words are preferred, and in some cases, varying grammar rules are applied. Whether you prefer pop, soda, or tonic (all the same product) depends on where you are from. In Detroit, "block" (a piece of land surrounded by streets) is undergoing a vowel shift towards "blaeck", an 'eh' sound gradually replacing the 'ah' sound. Languages do this all the time, radio and television or not.

People in the Upper Midwest tend to have slightly differently cultural habits than New Englanders. Some observers think average New Englanders are more socially adept than average upper midwesterners. Why? Because of the shorter experience of multi-generational urban living in the Upper Midwest than in New England. In Minneapolis, for instance, a lot of residents (like me) are 1 or 2 generations away from small, rural towns and farms. Small town America (probably small town Anywhere) is more parochial and restrictive than large urban centers. Is everyone in small town America friendly and gregarious? Hardly. Partly because the population is small, one knows and is known by a lot of other people from the get go. People in small towns don't get to re-invent themselves--not without group resistance, anyway.

People whose ancestors (say, 5 generations back) lived in urban settings are generally more accustomed to mixing and matching people who, of course, they haven't known from birth.

We don't have to fear that culture will be homogenized by the global village. It is more likely to be homogenized (in as much as it is possible) by "free trade", economic imperialism, and other sorts of forced impositions.

Seeing as 1) science has now repudiated biological notions of race, which has thus made inequality, whether in terms of wealth or intelligence, a function of contingent rather than essential factors, and 2) nations, their boundaries, and even many of their rights and laws are all abstract concepts, constructed out of the real relations of human beings with each other and their environment, as well as their natural rights, 3) it follows that cosmopolitanism must be true.