For hundreds of years, debates in political philosophy have surrounded the relationship between “temporal” political authority and the “eternal Church.” But the emphasis on the cosmopolitan aspect of the Church has diminished despite its ideal of a religious community embracing all peoples. In short, the debate was now directed against the secular and the religious, rather than against the local and cosmopolitan. To be sure, this debate has often had cosmopolitan consequences, which are sufficiently evident in Dante Alighieri`s plea for a universal monarchy in De Monarchia (c. 1314). But his case relates to Aristotle and Roman history, not explicitly to the ideal of a cosmopolis or cosmopolitanism, and he remains deeply interested in deciding between the pope and the Holy Roman emperor. Most other political cosmopolitans have not gone as far as Cloots. Immanuel Kant, the best known, advocated a much weaker form of international law, that of a “League of Nations”. In Towards a Perpetual Peace (1795), Kant argues that a true and world peace is possible only if states organize themselves internally according to “republican” principles, if they organize themselves abroad in a voluntary alliance to preserve peace, and if they respect the human rights not only of their citizens but also of foreigners. He argues that the confederation of states should not have military coercive powers, as this would violate the internal sovereignty of states. Socrates, it can be said, was also sensitive to this more cosmopolitan identification with man as such. At least as Plato characterizes him, Socrates avoids as much as he can the traditional political commitment, in favor of an extraordinary career in which he examines himself and others, and he insists that these trials be both authentically political (Gorg 521d6-8) and extended to all, Athenians and foreigners (Apol 23b4-6, 30a3-7; cf.

Eu. 3d5-9). Of course, Socrates chose not to travel far, but this decision might have been compatible with cosmopolitan ideals, as he may have thought that his best bet for serving the people was usually to stay at home, ironically because of Athens` superior freedom of speech (Gorg 461e1-3; cf. Apol 37c5-e2 and Meno 80b4-7). Whether Socrates was cosmopolitan in this way or not, there is no doubt that his ideas accelerated the development of cosmopolitanism and that he was adopted as a citizen of the world in later antiquity. Critics of the cosmopolitan economic ideal have also begun to point out another way capitalism carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction, namely that it is supposed to lead to a global environmental catastrophe that could mean the end of the human species, or at least the end of capitalism as we know it. The effects of overconsumption (in some parts of the world) and exploitation of nature would make the earth inhospitable to future human generations. Moreover, in Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, Mahmood Mamdani suggests that the imposition of Western cultural norms, democracy and Christianity, to name just two, has historically led to nationalist violence; [21] However, Appiah indicated that democracy is a prerequisite for cosmopolitan interventions in developing countries. [22]:169[23] In these cases, cosmopolitanism seems to be a new form of colonization: the powerful exploit the weak and the weak eventually fight back. [ref.

needed] In Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, Kwame Anthony Appiah notes how social ethics seem to work: whatever obligation one may have to another, especially to a stranger, that obligation does not replace the obligations one has to the people most familiar to him. Judith Butler, however, asks, “At what price should I define the familiar as a criterion” to evaluate others? [18] If the familiar is valued more than the stranger, what are the consequences? Paul Gilroy offers a possible alternative to this emphasis on familiarity by arguing that “methodical culture of some degree of alienation from its own culture and history. could be seen as essential for cosmopolitan engagement. [19]:67 This alienation involves a “process of exposure to otherness” to promote “the irreducible value of diversity in equality.” [19]:67 Alienation could therefore lead to less emphasis on the familiar in ethics through the integration of otherness. Often, however, the critic`s arguments about psychological possibilities are actually combined with desires. The critic says that the elimination of a special motivating bond with fellow citizens is not possible, but the critic thinks that the elimination of special motivational ties with fellow citizens will make a certain desirable form of political life impossible. To respond to these kinds of arguments, the cosmopolitan has two open paths. First, it can itself contest the allegation. Perhaps, as usual, the viability of politics does not depend on certain beliefs that citizens deserve more from their service, but on obligations to the community itself.

If strictly cosmopolitan patriotism is a possibility, it lives in a commitment to a universal set of principles embodied in a particular political constitution and set of political institutions. If such a commitment is sufficient for a desirable policy, then the anti-cosmopolitan is disarmed. But secondly, the cosmopolitan can, of course, also deny the value of the political form of life postulated as desirable. At this point, moral obligations lead to a discussion of political theory. In debates about the conditions for a just world order, we often hear calls for Kant`s call for states to unite in a federation. Given the power of Kant`s arguments and their influence on the form of institutions such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, this is certainly justified. But an essential part of what Kant considered necessary for a world legal order is largely neglected. What is overlooked is Kant`s emphasis on the status of individuals under what he calls “cosmopolitan law.” Cosmopolitan law does not deal with the interaction between states, but with the status of individuals in their relations with states of which they are not citizens. Moreover, it is about the status of individuals as human beings and not as citizens of States. In Kant`s political theory, global citizenship is the third category of public law along with constitutional law and international law. His heart is what Kant calls a right to hospitality. It argues that states and individuals have the right to establish relations with other states and their citizens, but not the right to enter foreign territory.

States have the right to refuse visitors, but not by force, and not if it leads to their destruction. This implies the obligation to abstain from imperialist invaders and to provide a safe haven for refugees. But while Plato and Aristotle were still writing, other Greeks posed cosmopolitan challenges. Perhaps the most obvious challenges came from itinerant intellectuals who emphasized the contrast between the conventional connections of politics and the natural bonds of humanity. Notice, for example, how Plato appeals to the sophistry Hippias to the motley crew of Athenians and strangers present in Plato`s Protagoras (337c7-d3) in Kallia`s house: Thich Nhat Hanh discusses what he calls “interbeing” as a way of living one`s life in relation to others; “Interbeing” could easily be compared to cosmopolitanism. Nhat Hanh`s philosophical beliefs are based on the rules of Buddhist teachings, which include compassion and understanding to protect and live in harmony with all humans, animals, plants and minerals. [16]:88 He goes on to describe what he calls “mindfulness training of the inter-being order” as being aware of, but not limited to, the suffering caused: fanaticism and intolerance that interfere with compassion and living in harmony with others; indoctrination of narrow-minded beliefs; the imposition of points of view; Anger; and misunderstandings. [16]:89-95 Understanding and compassion for others seem to be achieved by understanding the suffering of others and the causes of suffering. Being responsible, then, means acknowledging and understanding suffering, which then leads to compassion.

Through this process, others can be recognized as humans. The Venus Project, an international and multidisciplinary educational organization founded by Jacque Fresco, works to spread cosmopolitan ideas by crossing the artificial boundaries that currently divide humans and emphasizing understanding our interdependence with nature and with each other. In the eighteenth century, the terms “cosmopolitanism” and “cosmopolitanism” were often used not as labels for particular philosophical theories, but to indicate an attitude of open-mindedness and impartiality. A cosmopolitan was someone who was not subordinate to a particular religious or political authority, someone who was not biased by certain cultural loyalties or prejudices. In addition, the term was sometimes used to refer to a person who led an urban life or who liked to travel, maintain a network of international contacts or feel at home everywhere. In this sense, the Encyclopedia mentions that “cosmopolitan” is often used to refer to a “homeless man or a man who is nowhere a stranger.” Although philosophical authors such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, Addison, Hume, and Jefferson have identified themselves as cosmopolitan in one or more of these senses, these uses are not of great philosophical interest. A fuller exploration of positively engaged philosophical cosmopolitanism comes only with the socratic and cynically influenced Stoics of the third century CE.