Swingset Philosophy: An Allegory

Phil and Josh were friends. Phil was older than Josh, but they were introduced by their mutual friend Tommy. After that, they became really good friends and did a lot of things together. Josh liked Phil because he said a lot of smart things, and Phil liked Josh because he sometimes answered his really hard questions.

Like any friendship, Phil and Josh's had had some rough spots. One time Josh started hanging out with some kids named Marty and Johnny. Marty and Johnny said some really smart things, just like Phil, but some of the things they said sounded really strange to Phil, and Josh didn't like it when Phil said this to him.

Another time, a new kid named Freddy moved to town. Freddy became friends with Phil, but he would always tell other people that he wasn't Phil's friend. To make things worse, Freddy said some really mean things about Josh and told people that Phil said them. Even though Freddy moved away, Josh was still kind of mad at Phil because of the things Freddy said.

One day, Phil and Josh were at a playground. Josh was talking to Phil about all the cool things he could do. Phil liked to listen to Josh talk about these things, but he still had to ask him questions about them. That's just the way Phil was. He asked questions all the time; he asked his parents questions, his teachers questions, and all of his friends questions.

At the playground, Josh and Phil were playing on the swingset. They kept swinging higher and higher. Finally, Josh told Phil that he could swing so high, that he could touch a branch on a nearby tree with his foot. Phil, just being himself, asked Josh if he could really do it, and said that he thought it would be really hard. As soon as Phil said this, Josh got really mad and ran to his mom. He told her that Phil was being really mean to him and called him stupid. Josh's mom usually believed everything he said, so she got really mad at Phil too.

Josh's mom doesn't let him play with Phil anymore.

The Ideal Internationalist

The other night, my roommate and I got to talking about a universal government. He made some excellent points to the detriment of the idea, namely, that it would spell the end of cultural diversity and lead to a genetic equilibrium. Nevertheless, if the only options are between cultural assimilation and cultural isolation (though I certainly don't think that these are the only choices), which would be the more preferable of the two?

It seems to me that cultural assimilation would be of more desirability, but if this assimilation is imposed upon humanity by a universal form of government, and thereby leads to the aforementioned results, how should we approach this?

First of all, allow me to paint a picture of the forced assimilation that would come from universal government. With the multiplicity of culture that exists in the world, a combination of these cultures seems impracticable. Therefore, one culture would have to be imposed upon the world's population. This culture may be taken from the existing multiplicity, or be a "synthetic culture" that is devised by anthropologists with the intention of creating a culture that contains the "best of all worlds." It follows, though, that no matter what, this would lead to the exclusion of some cultures, and thereby their demise.

It should be added that it seems fair to say that some, if not most, would simply not want to have a "universal culture" imposed upon them.

This said, I think it logical to say that my roommate was dead-on. A universal government would necessitate the abolition of a multiplicity of cultures.

What, then, should be done in order to avoid a state of cultural isolation? Rather than try to impose a synthetic culture upon many that do not want it, I view the best path of action to be one taken up by individuals. These individuals would do all they could to assimilate the multiplicity of culture into themselves. Much like Nietzsche's Overman, these individuals would not be bound by convention, although in this case, they would transcend cultural norms, rather than moral ones. (This, of course, opens up an investigation into the ways in which culture influences morality, but that discussion must be saved for later.)

The development of this "Cultural Overman" is a task which I've taken upon myself. To discover the world, to experience new things, to constantly expand my lexicon of knowledge as regards culture, language, and societies - this is my goal. I wish to become "The Ideal Internationalist."