I read an essay called “Making Conversation and The Primacy of Practice” by Anthony Kwame Appiah and I had to prepare it for discussion. I went through the essay highlighting areas where I had questions, terms that needed extended definitions, and what connections I made with the article. Once I found quotes for each section, I provided an explanation on what my take was on the quote (this is provided in black after the quote). This process helped me get use to analyzing important texts and other scientific articles. Below, the questions are in Blue, the definitions are in Red, and the connections are in green.
Outcome lll: Employ techniques of active reading, critical reading, and informal reading response for inquiry, learning, and thinking.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. “Making Conversation and The Primacy of Practice.” Emerging: Contemporary Readings for Writers, 2nd ed., Bedford/St. Martins, 2010, pp. 66–82.
“The cluster of questions I want to take up can seem pretty abstract. How real are values? What do we talk about when we talk about difference? Is any form of relativism right? When do morals and manners clash? Can culture be “owned”? What do we owe strangers by virtue of our shared humanity? But the way these questions play out in our lives isn’t so very abstract‘(pg.73) ( these are questions that I may need to ask myself when working on my essay. What’s the main idea what am I trying to change? I think that it is something that ties into cosmopolitanism and how its not going to form new values but it makes you think.)
‘It’s not surprising, then, that what makes conversation across boundaries worthwhile isn’t that we’re likely to come to a reasoned agreement about values. I don’t say that we can’t change minds, but the reasons we exchange in our conversations will seldom do much to persuade others who do not share our fundamental evaluative judgments already”(pg.75). (it’s about informing people about your opinion and the facts that you withhold. But is also about listening to other people and maybe it may change your mind. Be open-minded.)
“that there are some values that are, and should be, universal, just as there are lots of values that are, and must be, local. We can’t hope to reach a final consensus on how to rank and order such values. That’s why the model I’ll be returning to is that of conversation—and, in particular, conversation between people from different ways of life”(pg.73) ( I think that I would agree with this because there are just some things in many people’s eyes certain values are normative. There are certain things that we as a group have concisely labeled in some way. Everyone going to have different values because of the local tribes they are subject to change but most of the time I feel as through values usually stay the same.)
“Cosmopolitanism is an adventure and an ideal: But you can’t have any respect for human diversity and expect everyone to become cosmopolitan. The obligations of those who wish to exercise their legitimate freedom to associate with their own kind—to keep the rest of the world away as the Amish do in the United States—are only the same as the basic obligations we all have” ( why do so many people get stuck with a fixed mindset when it comes to different issues that don’t naturally involve them? But I think that it best we are still informed about other existing issues.)
“I’ve said we can live in harmony without agreeing on underlying values (except, perhaps, the cosmopolitan value of living together). It works the other way, too: We can find ourselves in conflict when we do agree on values.” ( buy this does Appiah mean that I can be scared to relive you’ve had a change in values?)
“But if there are friends of cosmopolitanism who make me nervous, I am happy to be opposed to cosmopolitanism’s noisiest foes. Both Hitler and Stalin—who agreed about little else, save that murder was the first instrument of politics—launched regular invectives against “rootless cosmopolitans”; and while, for both, anti-cosmopolitanism was often just a euphemism for anti-Semitism,“( I’m not sure if I understand how Hitler and Stalin are an example of cosmopolitanism? It seems to be that they were more of the opposite.)
“Cosmopolitanism is an adventure and an ideal: But you can’t have any respect for human diversity and expect everyone to become cosmopolitan. The obligations of those who wish to exercise their legitimate freedom to associate with their own kind—to keep the rest of the world away as the Amish do in the United States—are only the same as the basic obligations we all have” ( why do so many people get stuck with a fixed mindset when it comes to different issues that don’t naturally involve them?)
“The recent history of America does show that a society can radically change its attitudes —and more importantly, perhaps, its habits—about these issues over a single generation. But it also suggests that some people will stay with the old attitudes, and the whole process will take time.” (people don’t want to change their habits so this can make a change. but I also feel as though many people want to change some of their habits when they think it’s bad for them but we could also think of this for others. )
