Methodological Foundations of Social Philosophy

The Object and Subject of Social Philosophy

It can be asserted, without exaggeration, that no new scientific theory can emerge without undergoing a philosophical analysis of previous achievements in scientific thought. This is entirely applicable to the entire spectrum of social and humanitarian sciences, particularly social theories, each of which could not and cannot come into being except from the womb of social philosophy.

The philosophical stance of the thinking subject, who engages in a reflective analysis of the theoretical legacy he has inherited, determines the nature of the emerging theoretical constructs and cognitive models of the real phenomena of social reality. As a result, each of the social and humanitarian theories carries within it the essential traits of the philosophy that spawned it.

However, an excessively prolonged stay in this maternal, that is, philosophical womb is perilous for both the new social and humanitarian theory, as it artificially stifles the factors of its independent development and maturity, and for social philosophy itself, whose structural elements inevitably succumb to the deleterious influence of dogmatism.

In the past, we have already touched upon the fate of scientific sociology, which, as is known, was established by the founders of Marxism through a dialectical-materialist analysis of preceding theories of societal development and their comparison with social practice. It seemed that once the birthing pains were over, sociology should have emerged as a true science. For this to happen, it needed, first, to attain independent existence, and second, to continually undergo social-philosophical analysis, demonstrating the alignment of its theoretical propositions and cognitive models with the evolving social practice. Yet, this process of bifurcating the unity was artificially interrupted. Strange as it may sound, the “child” was returned to its philosophical maternal womb, resulting in an extraordinarily complex and not fully comprehended form known as historical materialism, which was interpreted in our domestic literature as a component of Marxist-Leninist philosophy (one of the historical types of social philosophy) and simultaneously as a general sociological theory concerning the general and specific laws of functioning and development of socio-economic formations.

It is now well-known how, in the struggle for the "purity" of Marxism-Leninism in the USSR, the establishment and development of sociology were artificially impeded, as it struggled tremendously to assert its right to independent existence. However, the development of social philosophy suffered no less damage.

This is particularly evidenced by the fact that we find no articles elucidating the essence of this concept, not only in the philosophical dictionaries that have been published over the years, such as the "Philosophical Encyclopedia Dictionary," the five-volume "Philosophical Encyclopedia," and the multi-volume "Great Soviet Encyclopedia," but also in the Ukrainian edition of the "Philosophical Dictionary" published under the editorship of V.L. Shynkaruk, as well as in other domestic reference works.

Questions about the nature of social philosophy, its object, subject, and structure remain unresolved even today. For instance, the authors of the textbook "Social Philosophy," published in Kharkiv in 2007, assert in the opening chapter titled "Social Philosophy as a Science" that "social philosophy, alongside other branches of philosophical knowledge, occupies a key position in the realm of scientific knowledge." Such an approach is hardly agreeable if we do not wish to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors.

And this danger exists. The authors of the aforementioned edition are compelled to speak of the "relatedness" between social philosophy and sociology. "In understanding their relatedness," they note, "three approaches can be distinguished: 1) 'Social philosophy equals all sociology.' This thesis is primarily based on the identification of social philosophy and sociology, aimed at denying the independent status and significance of applied sociology... 2) 'Social philosophy and sociology are fundamentally different from each other.' Those who believe this seek to artificially distance their subject areas. By opposing them, they emphasize the interpretation of social philosophy as a science that forms the methodological apparatus for studying social problems in other branches of social-humanitarian knowledge, while sociology retains its status as specific knowledge about society that borrows this methodology... 3) 'Social philosophy is the methodological layer of sociology.'"

Of course, it would be absurd to deny the interconnection between social philosophy and sociology. However, one must not forget that they belong to different forms of social consciousness and, as such, differ in certain specifics. If sociology, as one of the social-humanitarian sciences, serves as a theoretical exploration of social reality, then social philosophy, as one of the primary structural elements of philosophy, represents a form of explication, unfolding, and reconstruction of cognitive structures that define the relationship of the individual to the world and the world to the individual, manifested in the interaction of social subjects within a specific social organism with one another and the external environment—serving as an awareness of the forms and methods of this exploration. Thus, social philosophy appears as a reflective system, incorporating the subject of research twice—as both researcher and as an element of philosophical analysis.

Social philosophy and the social-humanitarian sciences, including sociology, share a common aspiration for accuracy and rational explanation of the world. However, this can only be described as a similarity, and in no way an identity, since in social-humanitarian science, it is associated with a pursuit of truth, whereas in social philosophy, this accuracy is complemented by elements of conviction. In other words, there exists a fusion of knowledge with beliefs, which makes the ideological aspect in social philosophy, as in philosophy in general, manifest more strongly than in social-humanitarian science.

The objects and subjects of social-humanitarian science and social philosophy are distinct.

The object of research for a scholar representing a specific field of social-humanitarian science is social reality or certain real and historically evolving phenomena within it. In contrast, the object of study for the social philosopher comprises the cognitive models of social reality or its specific phenomena produced by social-humanitarian science. Thus, unlike representatives of social-humanitarian science, the social philosopher does not engage directly with social reality or existing phenomena; rather, he examines them indirectly, as reflected in consciousness.

The subject of social-humanitarian science involves the cognition of social reality and its structural elements as things-in-themselves, researching the laws governing their formation and development.

Conversely, the subject of social philosophy lies in uncovering the determinants for optimizing the further development of social-humanitarian knowledge, all branches of social-humanitarian science, and consequently all forms of human activity and the processes of social development.

The foundation of social-humanitarian science consists of the laws governing the development of the social organisms under investigation, that is, holistic social systems capable of sustaining independent existence, which allow for predictions about how specific social phenomena will evolve. In contrast, the basis of social philosophy is its principles, upon which the pathways for studying various social phenomena can be forecasted.

The principal fields of social philosophy include those that explore forms of social consciousness—such as the philosophy of scientific, religious, political, legal, moral, and aesthetic consciousness—as well as areas investigating each branch of social-humanitarian science, including history, pedagogy, political science, and others.

It is also essential to note that it would be a mistake to limit the connection of social philosophy solely to social-humanitarian sciences. Drawing on the principles established by social philosophy, one can address specific methodological issues in the natural sciences. This pertains, in particular, to the influence of social conditions on the emergence and resolution of scientific problems, the role of worldview in scientific creativity, the moral responsibility of the scientist, the classification of science, and the transformation of science into a direct productive force of society, among others.

As a factor ensuring the unity of social theory and social practice, social philosophy serves as a crucial means of verifying the truth of propositions from various social-humanitarian sciences, assisting in determining the direction of scientific inquiry in situations where the laws or patterns of societal development previously substantiated by a specific field of science do not seem to apply. By addressing these tasks and enriching itself with new social-scientific knowledge, social philosophy develops in turn.