I'm sure philosophers can use some sociological insight as well! Welcome.

Sociology and Philosophy share many areas in common, even in the way certain questions are approached. While terminology might differ, that can be overcome rather easily.
Welcome to Philforum!
Regards,
John

Welcome to the Forum

I wonder if you are familiar with Peter Berger? He is a very philosophical sociologist. Also Peter Singer. He is a philosopher who has written a lot on animal rights.

I've read some of Berger's work regarding religion but I've never taken the time to read his infamous Social Construction of Reality yet (I've heard it's quite a doozy!)
Peter Singer's Animal Liberation was the first philosophical work I ever read and is still very close to my heart.
The best sociologists have always been philosophers. Marx and the Frankfurt Schoolers being shining examples. Critical theory is central to much of my academic endeavor but I must admit I still have trouble with much of the philosophical terminology. What I'm trying to develop is a critical social theory of human-animal interaction. Max Horkheimer's early writings made some references to Schopenhauer's insight on animals but this theme was never properly explored.
I have posted question about Schopenhauer and Marx (in the Schopenhauer section) if anyone is interested in checking it out and helping me out. It would be much appreciated!

Along with Berger, you will find Alfred Schultz and many of the post-Heideggerian "lebenswelt" philosophers holding very similar positions about the social construction of reality. Modern hermeneutics owes much to Dilthey.

Hegel and sociology are interesting in that two of the biggest schools in sociology are rooted in much of Hegel's thinking. Symbolic interactionism and conflict theory are both founded by people influenced by the man.

Hello and welcome to the forum. If you are developing a theory, philosophy often helps. The members here would are more than willing to discuss.

You do not have a society if you cannot conceive of society...Until it can be considered as an object it is no more than nature which casts all in the role of victim...

Interesting. Are you proposing that animals have no society because they cannot conceptualize it as humans do? Please explain.

Absolutly true... What they have is natural groups, extending out of their navels as all nations once were...Animals have no forms of any sort, so none of their actions can be considered as reational...

We do have that much in common with animals, that very little of human behavior is rational, and that part which is rational is very often anti societal, inhuman, and anti natural...But underlying rational behavior is irrational impulse, or plain old ignorance...

Welcome to the forum. IMHO everyone has a philosophy so philosophy is for everyone. From the philosophy of putting your socks on before or after your underwear to social philosophy to philosophy applied to driving habits. Good of you to be here.

Fido - This isn't a discussion forum it's for the purpose of introductions. :whistling:

Ryang:
It will be nice to have some other social science backgrounded people in here.

Cheers and Welcome,
Russ

Hi ryang
I have just joined the forum and I am very happy to find a psychologist here.
I have some theories about order of needs (The last 2 mysteries) that need a psychologist.

I am keen to hear your opinion on the matter.

Cheers

Answering a question...

Whoops! Forgot to even create a thread regarding animals. Got too excited talking about Marx over in a different thread!

Excited talking about Marx...Isn't that amazing...

Yep! And why not? Oh, I forgot, poor ol' self-absorbed Fido doesn't believe in anything...Life is just so miserable and there are no solutions...:sarcastic:

Don't go off half cocked mr. chicken... All human progress requires a change of forms...But in spite of this, the form is not the solution, but the problem since they are difficult to change and often destroy their societies, or relationships, if you prefer...

Idealism has to date been the greatest single tyranny people have had to face and we are not yet free of it...So, if the form of our economy does not work, then, by all means, change it.. Just as if we were changing our form of apparel, or dwelling, try to make it accomodating of movement and growth because relationships, the living part of any form is dynamic, while the form is static, and either ther form will suffer or the people constrained by it will suffer and usually it is the latter...

The form of the US government was given room to grow to accomadate a rising population, and now that change has been removed, constitutionally and extra constitutionally, and since Jefferson, for one, understood forms clearly from his references in the Declaration, it is possible that change was built in with intent...But taking a more or less static form, which people desire because people hate change, and ossifying it beyond understanding is foolish...And it always occurs sooner or later... Socialism as a form of social organization and economy was extremely effective in its time, but the conditions were far different...When the conditions make socialism unavoidable is when we will have it again, philosophy or not, because only need made socialism seem advisable to the ancients...We have the philosophy of the individual, but they were individuals... Social organization was almost their sole technology... And they were more thoughtful and political than we can normally imagine...

In any event, the problem is not what shall we become, but how do we trash the old so that whatever we may then desire is possible... Tearing down the old is the most difficult and dangerouus part of any change, and then people should burn their boats, and never look back... Such courage is rare...

Half-cocked and chicken, eh?