answers1: Social and political philosophy do not exist in a vacuum -
they are largely made up of ethics. Socrates seemed to put first
priority to ethics, and many attributed aesthetics and even
epistemology to a certain extent to ethics. We don't exist as monads
(no matter what Leibniz might think) and thus we interact; how we
interact is largely an ethical construct, but as we interact in groups
which form societies and cultures and polities, this would then seem
to dictate that this will become the more important element in
determining how and why we might then work on other areas of
philosophy, from a practical standpoint.
answers2: I doubt I have the ultimate answer, but I seem them as less
developed, and to me I see more potential for breakthroughs and
advancement, since they need more of it. We seem to have more problems
in those areas, but I see the biggest problem from not a broad enough
background in everything, including language. Interdisciplinary
studies never took off like I think it should have. I think we need
great depth in one area and a real broad background in every area to
make much progress in any particular one. <br>
It's because we haven't developed the area of the brain that handles
complexity and complexity is what we are having the most problem with.
That is to say, we are not using, well, that part of the brain, the
part we need for all we have to handle today. Intuition is the
connection with that part or ability to handle complexity that we so
need. I think in philosophy they call it empirical intuition or
philosophical intuition. Maybe this will give you a hint on
intuition's importance. <br>
<a href="http://intuition.viviti.com"
rel="nofollow"class=Clr-b>http://intuition.viviti.com</a> <br>
In other words, the areas of political and social philosophy are huge
needs right now, especially in getting advances and good ideas out to
the public, but, if people don't learn how to use their minds,
specialization is only part of the answer. None of the disciplines can
be left out, even while studying just one. It can be done, if we learn
to use intuition to handle all that. Does that make any sense to you?
<br>
I mean the question is a bit flawed so the answer to it will be flawed
and not the proper question. Why not attack the question? That seems
as realistic as accepting it at face value. At least that would lead
to some creative thinking for sure, unless you have an ignorant
teacher, which seems all too likely. Blow their mind. Why not? At
least you'll get their blood boiling and they'll have to acknowledge
that you have some points they hadn't thought of. If you make them
think, they have to have some appreciation of that. Maybe run it past
them to see if they are at all open minded.
answers3: Neither social or political philosophy can actually have
priority over epistemology, since they are both founded upon
epistemological notions. <br>
<br>
When we try to subvert any sort of aesthetic, 'meaning', logic, or
ethic under political or social terms, that's ideology, not
philosophy. Ideology is usually defined as the promotion of a
particular worldview based on one's philosophic beliefs. Since
political philosophy, for instance, is entirely founded around what we
believe about human nature, you'll get into a tautological argument if
you try to assert philosophic ideas based on those same philosophic
ideas; if your political philosophy is based around the conception
human nature is inherently evil, then an attempt to build another
philosophy off of that political philosophy will always conclude that
yes, human nature is evil. You'll just go in circles. <br>
<br>
I think that you could make an argument that there's a practicality to
social and political philosophy, since they are subjects of
immediacy--- there's a moral imperative to solve immediate political
and social issues before resolving big abstract ones. A debate over
what political system should be adopted by a collapsing state is a
much more pressing issue than what the meaning of beauty is, since
lives are at stake in the former case. However, such an argument is
still reliant on ethics. <br>
<br>
The only other case I can think of off hand is one which is a bit
weak, but may work. Since politics and society determine the access
and availability to other areas of philosophy (some societies oppose
certain ideas), it follows that without certain political and social
philosophies, other ideas could be wholly lost --- which means the
interpretation of the subject, but not the subject itself, could be
lost. Of course, this too may be somewhat subject to our
epistemological conceits about what is worth knowing. <br>
<br>
As it stands, I'm unaware of any solid, convincing argument of the
sort you're looking for --- it seems kind of like asking for a
prioritization of the novel over the alphabet. But philosophy can
often make obvious the things that people have overlooked for a long
time, and shift about all our concepts --- so good luck with your
work. If you can get around the basic tautology of the proposition,
and avoid ideology, then you'll definitely be on to something
interesting. <br>
<br>
<br>
Hope that helps.
answers4: Ehtics is prioroty over all other branches. Social and
political philosophy must be studied with ethical basis.
answers5: I believe no branch of philosophy should have a priority
against others. For instance, if a metaphysical doctrine has unsound
ethical implications, one may abandon it (this happened with moral
objections to David Lewis modal realism). If an ethical theory has
unsound metaphysical implications it might also be abandoned.
answers6: They don't. Social and political philosophy are merely
branches on an equal footing with other branches of philosophy. If
anything, epistemology, historically, has had priority over the other
branches. I'm not saying this is justified but most trained
philosophers would agree that it has dominated other issues in
philosophy
answers7: You have some decent answers, but there is no absolute
answer. While ideas from others are helpful, you should put your paper
in the conext of your own beliefs and establish your own logical or
rational (or even irrational) priority. Absolutely everything you have
an opinion about is a philosophy of one sort or another. Some opinions
are based on little thought, and others are based on deep
contemplation. Some are trivial (like, is soccer better than tennis?)
and some are important (how do you view lying?). So list your most
important issues (truth, justice, morality, god, war, love, abortion,
responibility, or whatever) and look at each from the viewpoint of the
major philosophical disciplines. It isn't too hard to priortize in
this fashion. This takes work, of course, but it will help establish
in your own mind who you are and why you are you. There's no right or
wrong priority, only the one that works best for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment