College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Political Philosophy/Political Theory
Oh Geez! I have this tendency for self-abuse…..especially mental abuse…….this is one of those times…trying to explain the difference between the two approaches to politics could make a person go completely batty……good thing I suffer from brain worms after years of political analysis and explanation….so I should come out of this a bit better than some one else…..we will see…..
Political philosophy begins with the question: what ought to be a person’s relationship to society? The subject seeks the application of ethical concepts to the social sphere and thus deals with the variety of forms of government and social existence that people could live in – and in so doing, it also provides a standard by which to analyze and judge existing institutions and relationships. Although the two are intimately linked by a range of philosophical issues and methods, political philosophy can be distinguished from political science. Political science predominantly deals with existing states of affairs, and insofar as it is possible to be amoral in its descriptions, it seeks a positive analysis of social affairs – for example, constitutional issues, voting behavior, the balance of power, the effect of judicial review, and so forth. Political philosophy generates visions of the good social life: of what ought to be the ruling set of values and institutions that combine men and women together.
And then we have political theory which basically put, is the political orientation of a group or nation..or more simply an ideology or a specific orientation…… and these include, but not limited to……conservatism, progressivism, radicalism, liberal, fascism, socialism………and on and on…..for example conservatism…which means a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes (Does that sound at all like anything happening today?)…..or centrism, a term you hear more and more…but in a political science thinking it is avoiding the extremes of left and right by taking a moderate position or course of action……..and this goes on and on……
A political philosopher deals with what is best for the country or a society and a political theorist is ONLY concerned with what is best for a specific slice of that society, not the society as a whole and diverse organism but rather a single group or class, if you will.
I realize that I have done little to clear the confusion up….but at least I tried….and that is more than most can say….so sports fans…..what is more important the philosophy or the theory?
Good post and actually pretty good descriptions – as you say, not easy…
The trouble with political philosophy is that it puts society into the position of being basically omnipotent – society is everything – and as you say, it largely considers what society “should” do and what “should” be important to the society in question. Both of which are ENTIRELY subjective questions!
All well and good I suppose as a theoretical exercise, but any society is made up of a group (however large) of individuals and the first question that has to be answered (in my opinion) is: is the society even desirable at all for at least a large majority of the individuals involved. I’m not saying that we may not need society, but most seem to me to be doomed from the start to abject failure on the basis I’ve just suggested.
Can society ever really serve the individual? I doubt it. Most of the time it’s the individual who serves society and THAT almost invariably results in the individual no longer behaving as, or even BEING, an individual. Do ANY of us get what we REALLY want from society? I would suggest that, if you are not wealthy and/or powerful enough (depending on the society itself) to be able to largely ignore the demands of the society, then it will not mostly benefit you overall as an individual.
Confused you? Oh good – I aim to please 😆
Thanx….and it was done BC (before coffee)….LOL
There are so many ways to view society as an organism…..and if I tried to explain those….we would seldom have time for humor because the concepts of justice, equality, etc…….there is NO humor in those concepts……most people confuse theory for philosophy….and yes……confusion is my middle name…..LOL
Part of the trouble with all political philosophy is that it is the philosopher him (or her) self who decides on what is important and valuable from and in society. Yet NO ONE can possibly make judgements as to what will matter to other individuals.
It’s (incidentally) why (IMO) all except the broadest legislation can NEVER work! For instance (although it’s somewhat off topic): With the right controls and protection enshrined within it, I believe in Euthenasia. That’s because it’s like someone else’s f*cking cheek to decide FOR ME that length of life is more important than quality! Just ‘cos one guy wants to hang on to “life” though he may be deaf, dumb, blind and unable to move, that doesn’t mean I should want to, does it?
Nowadays I will agree….but originally, as I have said, the philosopher gives an opinion on a subject but then set5s about asking the listener questions….basically what he do/she does is help people think over what they think they believe without condemning or condoning….at least that is what I try to do…but one will always have a personal view sneak in from time to time….
A subtle difference but an improtant one.
Thanks lobo
You are welcome, lb…..I try to make political philosophy a little more accessible to the average person….the whole subject can be obfuscated beyond recognition….