Three views of political philosophizing and the idea of state neutrality
This thesis is an attempt to understand the Neutrality Debate, in the light of two basic distinctions: a distinction between political philosophy and politics, and a distinction between three different views of political philosophizing, which I call foundationalism, explanationism and interpretivism. According to foundationalism, the political philosopher starts with an account of what is essentially human and deduces from it moral/political principles, which should govern every human society. According to explanationism, the political philosopher seeks to understand a particular society (e.g. the Western state) sub specie aeternitatis, i.e. as an immutable, autonomous, self-sufficient world of ideas. Similarly, interpretivism focuses on a particular society (e.g. the Western state), but understands it as an ever-changing world of shared conceptions, understandings and self-perceptions, which are unearthed by the political philosopher. Of the three meta-theories only foundationalism and interpretivism are normative (regulative), whereas explanationism is an intellectual exercise. What is commonly known as ~state neutrality~ is actually three different philosophical positions each corresponding to a different
Sofianopoulos, Christos
Philosophy
Three views of political philosophizing and the idea of state neutrality. This thesis is an attempt to understand the Neutrality Debate, in the light of two basic distinctions: a distinction between political philosophy and politics, and a distinction between three different views of political philosophizing, which I call foundationalism, explanationism and interpretivism. According to foundationalism, the political philosopher starts with an account of what is essentially human and deduces from it moral/political principles, which should govern every human society. According to explanationism, the political philosopher seeks to understand a particular society (e.g. the Western state) sub specie aeternitatis, i.e. as an immutable, autonomous, self-sufficient world of ideas. Similarly, interpretivism focuses on a particular society (e.g. the Western state), but understands it as an ever-changing world of shared conceptions, understandings and self-perceptions, which are unearthed by the political philosopher. Of the three meta-theories only foundationalism and interpretivism are normative (regulative), whereas explanationism is an intellectual exercise. What is commonly known as ~state neutrality~ is actually three different philosophical positions each corresponding to a different
view political idea state neutrality attempt neutrality debate light two_basic distinction distinction political_philosophy politics distinction three_different view political call foundationalism according foundationalism political philosopher start account essentially human moral_political principle_govern every human_society according political philosopher seek particular society western state sub specie autonomous self_sufficient world idea similarly focus_particular society western state understand ever changing world share conception understandings self perceptions political philosopher meta theories foundationalism normative regulative whereas intellectual exercise commonly_know state neutrality actually three_different philosophical position correspond different