<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>im_not_a_rapper (npub1g0…3z6rs)</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1g0qv8k55c04ud8htdedxr88xjr4v0jz55tpl9ujeqsjrxth8exdsu3z6rs</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>&#34;DO THE &#39;SOLUTIONS&#39; PROPOSED BY NON-MUSLIMS GO AGAINST REALISM?&#34;&#xA;&#xA;&#34;The &#39;solutions&#39; that non-muslims have proposed in response to modernity involves an element of diversity and decentralization. The question arises though is that are these &#39;solutions&#39; compatible with realism? One of the assumptions of the realists is that he assumes the nation-state seeks to maximise his own self-interest. One of the interpretations of this assumption is that the nation-state seeks to maximise centralisation as much as possible. We&#39;ve already seen the extent to which the nation-state seeks to control media, finances, schools and even businesses. Yuk Hui proposes techno-diversity yet the realist argues that the multiple nation-states do not seek such diversity of technologies where they rather seek the homogenization of technology which is under their control. &#39;Dugin&#39; who is a russian philosopher, he seeks multipolarism whilst the realist argues that the nation-state seeks unipolarism and &#39;Srinivasan&#39;, he believes in the network state which is geographically decentralized whilst the realist believes in geographical centralization.&#34;</html></oembed>