Searle's Argument: Philosophy Of Multiculturalism

Philosophy of Multiculturalism

Student’s Name

University Affiliation

Date

Philosophy of Multiculturalism

Searle’s Argument

Searle believes that the rational tradition of the Western world intellectualization will be affected with the spread of multiculturalism (Nicholson, n.d). He calls the present developing behavior of man postmodernism subculture. The words connote that he does not augur with the current integration of the cultures in a culture that was once superior to the others in the world. Searle argues that to reject the very research that the fore fathers did and the previous researchers carried out meant doing away with the foundation that built the education system; the system that fostered the majesty of the

He explains the importance of multiculturalism through concepts widely understood, making them as pragmatic as possible. He defines the idea of man to reside on two political and sides with regards to the curriculum; those that advocate recognition and those who endorse equal respect (Nicholson, n.d). He argues that while these factions might be different, former relies on the concept of equal respect for it to manifest. Using values that define man as the grading points to determine the presuppositions of postmodernism and the eradication of Western Rationalistic Tradition is not the most mature of ways to use. Although he understand the culture of man to be ‘diagonal’ he states that they should not be biased to favor one side at the expense of the other. In his conclusion, the mentions that people have to be open minded in case they want to learn from a society that has been existing for a defined time no

He gives several reasons to ascertain people of his claim. The arguments are based on the issue of presupposition, since the multiculturalism has not yet spread widely in the country. However, his argument does not show substantive evidence when compared to the other opposers of his view, as already seen in this paper. The only strength of his argument is the fact that he mentions some of the prominent people in the society, whose foundations built the current education system. He shows how embracing of new ideas will act as a demonstration of their work. As a curriculum that has been successful over the years, implementing other ideas are challenges, which might render the foundation irrelevant. He mentions that the central principle, which defines the Western world will, as a result, die. His weak points is the suppositions he places on ideas that are aimed at improving a stagnant curriculum. He talks about philosophies yet the same teachings encourage the act of being inquisitive at the higher education level (Sweet,