What is the Philosophical Challenge of Cultural Diversity and Pluralism?

[JackDaydream]

In referring to cultural diversity I am pointing to the many aspects of cultural different groups, including different ethnicities, religious groups and different belief systems, including political and minority groups. There are so many clashes between ideas, especially in the area of sexuality and religion, in the current cultural climate. My working definition of pluralism is of competing worldviews and systems of values. This emerged in the context of cultural and moral relativism, but the concept of relativism may imply that all perspectives are equally valid. I first became aware of this problematic area as a teenager, when I had been taught that Catholicism and Christianity was the correct way of thinking, when I was aware that it was only one perspective amongst many, and what we are taught to believe varies so much.

I was thinking about this whole issue of diversity in thought while reading 'Philosophy Now' (February- March 2023), which explores ideas of reason, knowledge and belief. In one article, 'Postmodern Flares in Brazil', Marcos A Raposo queries the relationship between science and postmodernism. He argues that 'the postmodern condition condition can be described, in a nutshell, as disillusionment with the great overreaching explanations of the world, including religion and sciences.' He suggests that the ideas of absolute truth have become critical aspects of philosophy. He says that, 'in times of liquid modernity, artificial intelligence', historical and science act 'as anchors which allow us to keep in touch with the real world.'

So, I am asking how do you think, from a philosophical perspective, that sense can be made in the maze of pluralism? Also, how much is a matter of reason, personal meanings, or related to situational contexts within social structures and, power balances and imbalances? What do you think about all these issues in relation to the nature of philosophical understanding?

[Gertie]

In referring to cultural diversity I am pointing to the many aspects of cultural different groups, including different ethnicities, religious groups and different belief systems, including political and minority groups. There are so many clashes between ideas, especially in the area of sexuality and religion, in the current cultural climate. My working definition of pluralism is of competing worldviews and systems of values. This emerged in the context of cultural and moral relativism, but the concept of relativism may imply that all perspectives are equally valid. I first became aware of this problematic area as a teenager, when I had been taught that Catholicism and Christianity was the correct way of thinking, when I was aware that it was only one perspective amongst many, and what we are taught to believe varies so much.

I was thinking about this whole issue of diversity in thought while reading 'Philosophy Now' (February- March 2023), which explores ideas of reason, knowledge and belief. In one article, 'Postmodern Flares in Brazil', Marcos A Raposo queries the relationship between science and postmodernism. He argues that 'the postmodern condition condition can be described, in a nutshell, as disillusionment with the great overreaching explanations of the world, including religion and sciences.' He suggests that the ideas of absolute truth have become critical aspects of philosophy. He says that, 'in times of liquid modernity, artificial intelligence', historical and science act 'as anchors which allow us to keep in touch with the real world.'

So, I am asking how do you think, from a philosophical perspective, that sense can be made in the maze of pluralism? Also, how much is a matter of reason, personal meanings, or related to situational contexts within social structures and, power balances and imbalances? What do you think about all these issues in relation to the nature of philosophical understanding?

I think in our globalised po-mo world where we can destroy humanity many times over we desperately need some sort of shared, universal moral grounding which everyone can sign up to.   It should  be secular and grounded in our shared humanity, which I don't see as incompatible with post-modernism, reason  or science.  (Religions which don't value our mortal lives as much as eternal, immutable,  god-given values may have an in principle problem tho).  

The UN has has had a good go with their Universal Declaration of Human Rights, without explicitly offering a philosophical justification, but it's basically based in human welfare.  However, it's hardly brought about world-wide harmony, justice and prosperity.  And anything smacking of such international cooperation gets the NWO conspiracy theory nutters in a tizzy. Still, if we were a grown up species not run by vested interests, that's the way to go imo.  In that context, cultural relativism is fine, as long as it's under-pinned by such a shared morality.

[JackDaydream]

In referring to cultural diversity I am pointing to the many aspects of cultural different groups, including different ethnicities, religious groups and different belief systems, including political and minority groups. There are so many clashes between ideas, especially in the area of sexuality and religion, in the current cultural climate. My working definition of pluralism is of competing worldviews and systems of values. This emerged in the context of cultural and moral relativism, but the concept of relativism may imply that all perspectives are equally valid. I first became aware of this problematic area as a teenager, when I had been taught that Catholicism and Christianity was the correct way of thinking, when I was aware that it was only one perspective amongst many, and what we are taught to believe varies so much.

I was thinking about this whole issue of diversity in thought while reading 'Philosophy Now' (February- March 2023), which explores ideas of reason, knowledge and belief. In one article, 'Postmodern Flares in Brazil', Marcos A Raposo queries the relationship between science and postmodernism. He argues that 'the postmodern condition condition can be described, in a nutshell, as disillusionment with the great overreaching explanations of the world, including religion and sciences.' He suggests that the ideas of absolute truth have become critical aspects of philosophy. He says that, 'in times of liquid modernity, artificial intelligence', historical and science act 'as anchors which allow us to keep in touch with the real world.'

So, I am asking how do you think, from a philosophical perspective, that sense can be made in the maze of pluralism? Also, how much is a matter of reason, personal meanings, or related to situational contexts within social structures and, power balances and imbalances? What do you think about all these issues in relation to the nature of philosophical understanding?

I think in our globalised po-mo world where we can destroy humanity many times over we desperately need some sort of shared, universal moral grounding which everyone can sign up to.   It should  be secular and grounded in our shared humanity, which I don't see as incompatible with post-modernism, reason  or science.  (Religions which don't value our mortal lives as much as eternal, immutable,  god-given values may have an in principle problem tho).  

The UN has has had a good go with their Universal Declaration of Human Rights, without explicitly offering a philosophical justification, but it's basically based in human welfare.  However, it's hardly brought about world-wide harmony, justice and prosperity.  And anything smacking of such international cooperation gets the NWO conspiracy theory nutters in a tizzy. Still, if we were a grown up species not run by vested interests, that's the way to go imo.  In that context, cultural relativism is fine, as long as it's under-pinned by such a shared morality.

Thanks for your reply and the UN declaration of Human Rights is a good example of the valuing of human welfare, but, as you say, it hasn't resulted in 'world- wide harmony, justice and prosperity.' I wonder if that is because it is an ideal and because many people lag behind in understanding, with narrow frameworks of perception. There is such a wide range of ideas and ideologies with many forms of extremism, ranging from the fundamentalism of religious views to that of conspiracy theories.

[davidjames15320]

In referring to cultural diversity I am pointing to the many aspects of cultural different groups, including very different ethnicities, religious groups and different belief systems, including political and minority groups. There are so many many clashes between ideas, especially in the area of sexuality and religion, in the current cultural climate. My working definition of pluralism is of competing worldviews and systems of values. This emerged in the context of cultural and moral relativism, but the concept of relativism may imply that all perspectives are equally valid. I first became aware of this problematic area as a teenager, when I had been taught that Catholicism and Christianity was the correct way of thinking, when I was aware that it was only one perspective amongst many, and what we are taught to believe varies so much.

I was thinking about this whole issue of diversity in thought while reading 'Philosophy Now' (February or March 2023), which explores ideas of reason, knowledge and belief. In one article, 'Postmodern Flares in Brazil', Marcos A Raposo queries the relationship between science and postmodernism. He argues that 'the postmodern condition condition can be described, in a nutshell, as disillusionment with the great overreaching explanations of the world, including religion and sciences.' He suggests that the ideas of absolute truth have become critical aspects of philosophy. He says that, 'in times of liquid modernity, artificial intelligence', historical and science act 'as anchors which allow us to keep in touch with the real world.'

So, I am asking how do you think, from a philosophical perspective, that sense can be made in the maze of pluralism? Also, how much is a matter of reason, personal meanings, or related to situational contexts within social structures and, power balances and imbalances? What do you think about all these issues in relation to the nature of philosophical understanding?

[JackDaydream]

To david james 15320:
I think that you tried to reply to my thread but what has appeared on site is simply a copy of my introductory outpost with nothing of a reply included. I would have sent you a message instead of writing here but as you have only just joined I don't think that you can receive messages straightaway.

It took me a while to master how to lay out replies. If you press the quote button and at the end of it write your reply the quote comes in a box, with your response after that. Of course, it is possible that it was not you who did the layout wrongly but that what you wrote got lost by whoever put your post on the site.

Anyway, I would definitely like to read any reply or post you do write and look forward to interacting with you.
Best wishes,
Jack

[Agent Smyth]

Diversity is an euphemism for difference which as we all know is the basis of inequality (discrimination). The challenge for philosophy is ethical (justice & morality) - how do we unify culturally, religiously, politically, etc. distinct groups?

[JackDaydream]

Diversity is an euphemism for difference which as we all know is the basis of inequality (discrimination). The challenge for philosophy is ethical (justice & morality) - how do we unify culturally, religiously, politically, etc. distinct groups?

You capture the political aspect of this philosophy problem and how it is leading to so much controversy. On one hand, many organisations express the embracement of diversity, ranging from acceptance of all racial groups, religious viewpoints, gender and sexuality, as well as other aspects of difference, such as mental illness and neurodiversity. There is some outward compliance with this but the practice of this another matter completely. Many see such idealism as being about wokism and political correctness.

Even within philosophy where people are expected to base ideas upon reason, there is so much dispute, especially on philosophy sites. For example, people get extremely heated over transgender and issues as to what is a 'real woman'? This shows how complicated rational discourse is with cultural wars and competing sets of values. Similarly, there are major conflicts between those who hold religious views and those who come from secular backgrounds. All of this is also played out in organisations, with people having to show compliance with policies but what really happens may involve great levels of conflict festering in the unconscious of organisations and social structures.

[Agent Smyth]

Diversity is an euphemism for difference which as we all know is the basis of inequality (discrimination). The challenge for philosophy is ethical (justice & morality) - how do we unify culturally, religiously, politically, etc. distinct groups?

You capture the political aspect of this philosophy problem and how it is leading to so much controversy. On one hand, many organisations express the embracement of diversity, ranging from acceptance of all racial groups, religious viewpoints, gender and sexuality, as well as other aspects of difference, such as mental illness and neurodiversity. There is some outward compliance with this but the practice of this another matter completely. Many see such idealism as being about wokism and political correctness.

Even within philosophy where people are expected to base ideas upon reason, there is so much dispute, especially on philosophy sites. For example, people get extremely heated over transgender and issues as to what is a 'real woman'? This shows how complicated rational discourse is with cultural wars and competing sets of values. Similarly, there are major conflicts between those who hold religious views and those who come from secular backgrounds. All of this is also played out in organisations, with people having to show compliance with policies but what really happens may involve great levels of conflict festering in the unconscious of organisations and social structures.

The complexity of the problem isn't lost on me mon ami. However ... for what it's worth and at first glance it does seem to the point ... black peeps are just white peeps in a hot place and white peeps are just black peeps in a cold place with yellow folks in a category of their own, standin' quite outside the solar race theory. Feel free to correct/educate me.

[barata]

why bother ? when you already achieved entire worlds ruling affairs.

[JackDaydream]

Diversity is an euphemism for difference which as we all know is the basis of inequality (discrimination). The challenge for philosophy is ethical (justice & morality) - how do we unify culturally, religiously, politically, etc. distinct groups?

You capture the political aspect of this philosophy problem and how it is leading to so much controversy. On one hand, many organisations express the embracement of diversity, ranging from acceptance of all racial groups, religious viewpoints, gender and sexuality, as well as other aspects of difference, such as mental illness and neurodiversity. There is some outward compliance with this but the practice of this another matter completely. Many see such idealism as being about wokism and political correctness.

Even within philosophy where people are expected to base ideas upon reason, there is so much dispute, especially on philosophy sites. For example, people get extremely heated over transgender and issues as to what is a 'real woman'? This shows how complicated rational discourse is with cultural wars and competing sets of values. Similarly, there are major conflicts between those who hold religious views and those who come from secular backgrounds. All of this is also played out in organisations, with people having to show compliance with policies but what really happens may involve great levels of conflict festering in the unconscious of organisations and social structures.

The complexity of the problem isn't lost on me mon ami. However ... for what it's worth and at first glance it does seem to the point ... black peeps are just white peeps in a hot place and white peeps are just black peeps in a cold place with yellow folks in a category of their own, standin' quite outside the solar race theory. Feel free to correct/educate me.

I am glad that you appreciate the complexity of the problem because it often seems as if many people stand and defend their own territorial positions, This can be avoidance of the deep seated philosophical aspects of the global levels of interchange. Clashes of viewpoints may have always been the biggest source of conflict and war, going back to the imperialism of Christian values at one time. There may be deep aspects of conflict between Christianity and Islam in the 'war on terror', although there may have been big issues about oil behind this.

However, so much is about the way in which interaction in the world is on such a global level with competing perspectives. In liberal democracy there is so much emphasis on free expression, but this may have given rise to backlashes when people feel threatened by other views. So, it may come down to what is tolerance? Is it about trying to fight for the correctness of one's personal set of beliefs or about respect for different sets of beliefs and values?

This even comes down to aspects of philosophy, such as conflicts over theism and atheism, as well as varying viewpoints of ethics and politics. It may come down to thinking about the nature of mindset itself within philosophy. The nature of philosophy involves personal exploration and discourse. It can be asked how much is about the need for understanding of 'truth' or the need to assert the validity of such 'truth' to others. The need to be able to assert the correctness of one's way of thinking may be about the role of ego in philosophy as a pursuit. To some extent, the need to be able to convince or persuade others of ideas may be due to one's own areas of uncertainty, especially in the gulfs opened up by cultural relativism and pluralism.

It involves both the search for 'truth' in the quagmire of endless possibilities in the information as well as the validation of one's own ideas. There may be different dimensions to this, such as within the academic world and some of even this comes down to popularity. It may be about the politics of knowledge and philosophy.

[Agent Smyth]

Diversity is an euphemism for difference which as we all know is the basis of inequality (discrimination). The challenge for philosophy is ethical (justice & morality) - how do we unify culturally, religiously, politically, etc. distinct groups?

You capture the political aspect of this philosophy problem and how it is leading to so much controversy. On one hand, many organisations express the embracement of diversity, ranging from acceptance of all racial groups, religious viewpoints, gender and sexuality, as well as other aspects of difference, such as mental illness and neurodiversity. There is some outward compliance with this but the practice of this another matter completely. Many see such idealism as being about wokism and political correctness.

Even within philosophy where people are expected to base ideas upon reason, there is so much dispute, especially on philosophy sites. For example, people get extremely heated over transgender and issues as to what is a 'real woman'? This shows how complicated rational discourse is with cultural wars and competing sets of values. Similarly, there are major conflicts between those who hold religious views and those who come from secular backgrounds. All of this is also played out in organisations, with people having to show compliance with policies but what really happens may involve great levels of conflict festering in the unconscious of organisations and social structures.

The complexity of the problem isn't lost on me mon ami. However ... for what it's worth and at first glance it does seem to the point ... black peeps are just white peeps in a hot place and white peeps are just black peeps in a cold place with yellow folks in a category of their own, standin' quite outside the solar race theory. Feel free to correct/educate me.

I am glad that you appreciate the complexity of the problem because it often seems as if many people stand and defend their own territorial positions, This can be avoidance of the deep seated philosophical aspects of the global levels of interchange. Clashes of viewpoints may have always been the biggest source of conflict and war, going back to the imperialism of Christian values at one time. There may be deep aspects of conflict between Christianity and Islam in the 'war on terror', although there may have been big issues about oil behind this.

However, so much is about the way in which interaction in the world is on such a global level with competing perspectives. In liberal democracy there is so much emphasis on free expression, but this may have given rise to backlashes when people feel threatened by other views. So, it may come down to what is tolerance? Is it about trying to fight for the correctness of one's personal set of beliefs or about respect for different sets of beliefs and values?

This even comes down to aspects of philosophy, such as conflicts over theism and atheism, as well as varying viewpoints of ethics and politics. It may come down to thinking about the nature of mindset itself within philosophy. The nature of philosophy involves personal exploration and discourse. It can be asked how much is about the need for understanding of 'truth' or the need to assert the validity of such 'truth' to others. The need to be able to assert the correctness of one's way of thinking may be about the role of ego in philosophy as a pursuit. To some extent, the need to be able to convince or persuade others of ideas may be due to one's own areas of uncertainty, especially in the gulfs opened up by cultural relativism and pluralism.

It involves both the search for 'truth' in the quagmire of endless possibilities in the information as well as the validation of one's own ideas. There may be different dimensions to this, such as within the academic world and some of even this comes down to popularity. It may be about the politics of knowledge and philosophy.

Noted! Veritas, heard of her, never actually seen her!

[JackDaydream]

Diversity is an euphemism for difference which as we all know is the basis of inequality (discrimination). The challenge for philosophy is ethical (justice & morality) - how do we unify culturally, religiously, politically, etc. distinct groups?

You capture the political aspect of this philosophy problem and how it is leading to so much controversy. On one hand, many organisations express the embracement of diversity, ranging from acceptance of all racial groups, religious viewpoints, gender and sexuality, as well as other aspects of difference, such as mental illness and neurodiversity. There is some outward compliance with this but the practice of this another matter completely. Many see such idealism as being about wokism and political correctness.

Even within philosophy where people are expected to base ideas upon reason, there is so much dispute, especially on philosophy sites. For example, people get extremely heated over transgender and issues as to what is a 'real woman'? This shows how complicated rational discourse is with cultural wars and competing sets of values. Similarly, there are major conflicts between those who hold religious views and those who come from secular backgrounds. All of this is also played out in organisations, with people having to show compliance with policies but what really happens may involve great levels of conflict festering in the unconscious of organisations and social structures.

The complexity of the problem isn't lost on me mon ami. However ... for what it's worth and at first glance it does seem to the point ... black peeps are just white peeps in a hot place and white peeps are just black peeps in a cold place with yellow folks in a category of their own, standin' quite outside the solar race theory. Feel free to correct/educate me.

I am glad that you appreciate the complexity of the problem because it often seems as if many people stand and defend their own territorial positions, This can be avoidance of the deep seated philosophical aspects of the global levels of interchange. Clashes of viewpoints may have always been the biggest source of conflict and war, going back to the imperialism of Christian values at one time. There may be deep aspects of conflict between Christianity and Islam in the 'war on terror', although there may have been big issues about oil behind this.

However, so much is about the way in which interaction in the world is on such a global level with competing perspectives. In liberal democracy there is so much emphasis on free expression, but this may have given rise to backlashes when people feel threatened by other views. So, it may come down to what is tolerance? Is it about trying to fight for the correctness of one's personal set of beliefs or about respect for different sets of beliefs and values?

This even comes down to aspects of philosophy, such as conflicts over theism and atheism, as well as varying viewpoints of ethics and politics. It may come down to thinking about the nature of mindset itself within philosophy. The nature of philosophy involves personal exploration and discourse. It can be asked how much is about the need for understanding of 'truth' or the need to assert the validity of such 'truth' to others. The need to be able to assert the correctness of one's way of thinking may be about the role of ego in philosophy as a pursuit. To some extent, the need to be able to convince or persuade others of ideas may be due to one's own areas of uncertainty, especially in the gulfs opened up by cultural relativism and pluralism.

It involves both the search for 'truth' in the quagmire of endless possibilities in the information as well as the validation of one's own ideas. There may be different dimensions to this, such as within the academic world and some of even this comes down to popularity. It may be about the politics of knowledge and philosophy.

Is 'truth' the elusive 'her' of which you speak? Of course, she is hard to find, like a mystical soul mate or muse in the broken down forest of uncertainties. It may be that this is where the notion of 'post- truth' comes in, with so many fictive possibilities and fabrications, or it can be about the pursuit of the superficial or trivial. For example, as Wittgenstein spoke of language games. This may be evident when people get into tangenital arguments over the meaning of word. It may come down to the face to face meeting with absurdity and lack of meaning, or what TS Eliot refers to as 'The Wasteland'.

I am certainly not wishing to think of 'truth' in the way of absolutism of past eras, although even the philosophy of realism is sometimes presented as such, even though quantum physics shows the lack of 'solidity' of reality. It is more about trying to build up systems of knowledge, like philosophy jigsaw puzzles.

In the February-March 2023 'Philosophy Now' on reason there is one important article which has bearing on the problem of pluralism. It is, 'Bricolage: Natural Epistemology', by DE Tarkington. It draws upon the idea from Claude Levi -Strauss. The idea of bricolage means "to tinker' and Tarkington argues that, 'most creative endeavours involve some elements of tinkering, as well as the chance and spontaneous aspects that Levi-Strauss also associated with bricolage. Personally, I find the idea of bricolage to be helpful for thinking about creative construction. It may be a way of reconstruction in the aftermath of postmodern deconstruction.

[Pattern-chaser]

The challenge for philosophy is ethical (justice & morality) - how do we unify culturally, religiously, politically, etc. distinct groups?

I don't think we do ("unify" them). Instead, surely we must aim for mutual acceptance and tolerance? Is there another practical alternative to this, apart from outright war between disagreeing groups?

[Agent Smyth]

The challenge for philosophy is ethical (justice & morality) - how do we unify culturally, religiously, politically, etc. distinct groups?

I don't think we do ("unify" them). Instead, surely we must aim for mutual acceptance and tolerance? Is there another practical alternative to this, apart from outright war between disagreeing groups?

That's a really good point you make there. Kudos.

[JackDaydream]

The challenge for philosophy is ethical (justice & morality) - how do we unify culturally, religiously, politically, etc. distinct groups?

I don't think we do ("unify" them). Instead, surely we must aim for mutual acceptance and tolerance? Is there another practical alternative to this, apart from outright war between disagreeing groups?

If only 'tolerance' was that easy to achieve. I am sure that you are very tolerant and I seek to be but many are fairly narrow in their focus. Within cultural studies and social science there is the area of the study of intersectionality. This involves looking at the way in which the competing factors of difference come into play, including the way in which perception itself is bound up with the nature of being within specific categories in the social and cultural contexts of experience.