Political philosophy is neither a practical tool of
any chain ring of the systematic thought; nor is it the daily routine of
politics through which society becomes able to notice policy of a government,
namely that which is nothing other than the spurt of a government. Thus,
political philosophy is the realm in which it is possible to explicate the enthusiasms
of different political groups which unveils themselves to take over the
political decision-making entity. As a result, it might be claimed that this
sort of explication and clarification on conflict basically constitutes the
skeleton of political philosophy. In this context, as Ertan Kardeş (2019, p.
397) strictly emphasises, philosophy has already been political and political
philosophy is nothing but philosophy itself as it unfolds its subject-matter
throughout modern era. Henceforth, assuming that political philosophy is a
practical sub-division of philosophy does clearly turn out to be pathological
in regard to rejecting philosophy be political in itself.
Any endeavour to found a systematic philosophy, to
turn political philosophy into a metaphysics, and to let it turn out to be the
thought of rational action is indispensably deprived of the plasticity of
political philosophy, and, thus, obliged not to be paradoxical. Political
philosophy, in its very essence, is paradoxical and has to be developed by this
paradoxical difference in itself.
If political philosophy needs to be considered as a
subdivision of philosophy, it is undoubtedly limited to the abstraction of
concepts deriving from an essence excluding both historical and social
background of those which are completely located outside of the politics. On
the other hand, if political philosophy is to be taken as a mere reflexion on
the politics, then, it becomes unable to generate its conceptualisation and
abstraction. Thus, political philosophy is neither a subdivision of philosophy
including only theoria, nor is it a subdivision of politics encompassing
the realm of praxis. In this sense, Kardeş (2019, p. 398), by quoting from
Cornelius Castoriadis, there are four basic components of the humankind, Psyche,
Koinouia, Logos and Polis. Thus, the realm of the
existence cannot, of necessity, be limited to one or two components of those. Polis
and Koinouia, which are the political and historical realms, are
necessarily to be there, if it is the aim for philosophising. Consequently, the
realm of political philosophy does seem to highlight the concept of plasticity
through which the conceptualisation of Grenze becomes possible in it,
and does immediately assume that Hegel’s system of philosophy should be the
main domain for its flexibility, even if he might once in a while be considered
as the last philosopher having a systematic philosophical thought.
The political, in this context, differentiates itself
from the very essence of politics, and political philosophy is absolutely based
on the concept of the political. Obviously, there are different approaches to
political philosophy; however, the concept of the political is the main domain
of conflict rather than consensus. Through this kind of separation in political
philosophy, it becomes unveiled and visible that the political represents
uncertainty and grouping in political philosophy rather than guaranteeing or
pledging the consensus. Thus, political philosophy does suddenly refer to the
becoming rather than being given, to differentiation and tension than stability
and consensus. To sum up briefly, political philosophy might easily be seen as
the enthusiasm of the political to destruct philosophy and politics to
re-establish them in a new way of thinking, in a way in which the whole does
destroy itself, and unlike Hegelian philosophy, it is never to be able to make
this to encompassing itself due to its fragmentation.
Reference
Kardeş, M. E., (2019), What is Political Philosophy?,
in Archives of Philosophy, Issue: 51, pp. 393-410.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder