Why no "Philosophy of Society"?

[The Voice of Time]

For my understanding, where do you see the distinction between “Philosophy of Society” and fields like Social Sciences or Social Philosophy?

Well science is not philosophy, so that one's already cleared. As for "Social Philosophy", it's not really clear to me what that means, since "social" can be at the macroscopic level of society, or it can be between two individuals. One could however just call it Social Philosophy and thereby include society and anything else social into one package.

[HexHammer]

Imo "Philosophy of Mind" should stay as it is, as Human Nature are a more privitive form of ourselves. We can learn to go beyond our nature with logic and reason and become elevated beings that produces rational actions and thoughts contrary ignorent people who solely relys on primitive instincts.

[The Voice of Time]

Imo "Philosophy of Mind" should stay as it is, as Human Nature are a more privitive form of ourselves. We can learn to go beyond our nature with logic and reason and become elevated beings that produces rational actions and thoughts contrary ignorent people who solely relys on primitive instincts.

You don't understand, we are talking about the forum and not the field of inquiry.

[HexHammer]

Imo "Philosophy of Mind" should stay as it is, as Human Nature are a more privitive form of ourselves. We can learn to go beyond our nature with logic and reason and become elevated beings that produces rational actions and thoughts contrary ignorent people who solely relys on primitive instincts.

You don't understand, we are talking about the forum and not the field of inquiry.

Wasn't you talking about changing the nameplate?

[The Voice of Time]

of the forum, yes, of the field itself, no. The reason to change the forum name is to have a place to put ideas in that can occasionally overlap each other, because of a perceived deficiency of places to put threads that do not fit into currently existing forums. There could of course be made a new forum entirely, but that might make too many forums with to little input in each. Like the Philosophy of Language forum which seldom has new posts and very rarely new threads. So better to have two-in-one and see a bit of life there than some forum which is seldom visited.

[HexHammer]

of the forum, yes, of the field itself, no. The reason to change the forum name is to have a place to put ideas in that can occasionally overlap each other, because of a perceived deficiency of places to put threads that do not fit into currently existing forums. There could of course be made a new forum entirely, but that might make too many forums with to little input in each. Like the Philosophy of Language forum which seldom has new posts and very rarely new threads. So better to have two-in-one and see a bit of life there than some forum which is seldom visited.

I think you should read my post a bit closer, you seems to confuse the situation unessesarily.

[The Voice of Time]

I did read it, but it was only personal preference you wrote about, and there's no argument I can make about your own taste. So I detailed why it was that I thought we should go ahead with it. Your taste wasn't making a difference for or against, except in a pure voting manner.

[Advocate]

Because most of what you're talking about is history, it's an empirical study covered by anthropology and psychology and so forth. That's what IS. What OUGHT is the future - because that requires a method of organizing society, it's political. Political in that sense merely means involved civically in whatever process is available.