Stan van Hooft, Wim Vandekerckhove
Springer Science & Business Media, Jun 16, 2010 - Philosophy - 230 pages
Wim Vandekerckhove and Stan van Hooft The philosopher, Diogenes the Cynic, in the fourth century BCE, was asked where he came from and where he felt he belonged. He answered that he was a “citi- 1 zen of the world” (kosmopolitês) . This made him the rst person known to have described himself as a cosmopolitan. A century later, the Stoics had developed that concept further, stating that the whole cosmos was but one polis, of which the order was logos or right reason. Living according to that right reason implied showing goodness to all of human kind. Through early Christianity, cosmopolitanism was given various interpretations, sometimes quite contrary to the inclusive notion of the Stoics. Augustine’s interpretation, for example, suggested that only those who love God can live in the universal and borderless “City of God”. Later, the red- covery of Stoic writings during the European Renaissance inspired thinkers like Erasmus, Grotius and Pufendorf to draw on cosmopolitanism to advocate world peace through religious tolerance and a society of states. That same inspiration can be noted in the American and French revolutions. In the eighteenth century, enlig- enment philosophers such as Bentham (through utilitarianism) and Kant (through universal reason) developed new and very different versions of cosmopolitanism that serve today as key sources of cosmopolitan philosophy. The nineteenth century saw the development of new forms of transnational ideals, including that of Marx’s critique of capitalism on behalf of an international working class.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
accept according achievements action activities approach argues argument associations basic become calls Cambridge capacity citizens citizenship claims commitment conception concern constitute context corporations cosmopolitan critical cultural David democracy democratic depends discussion distinction distributive domestic duties economic effective equal ethical example existence experience fact forms freedom give given global justice governance ground harm human rights idea identity important individuals institutions interaction interests involves issues kind Lévinas liberal live means moral nature normative obligations one’s Oxford particular person perspective Philosophy political position possible poverty practice principle problem promote proposals question reasons recognition recognize regard relations relationships republican requires respect responsibilities result sense social society stranger suffering suggest Theory Thomas tion transnational understanding University Press values