Historically “philosophy" encompassed any body of knowledge, but in modern and contemporary practice, philosophy has branched out into separate academic disciplines, including psychology, sociology, linguistics, and economics. So today, when someone says philosophy – they in most cases refer to metaphysics or general philosophy, as it is sometimes called. One of these separate disciplines – is political philosophy.

​

 

There are a few things with our project that has me somewhat anxious, and it mainly has to do with political philosophy – a branch of philosophy, that is concerned with, at the most abstract level, with the concept and arguments of political opinion. This branch of philosophy is already quite widespread in schools today, from what I can gather. One way or another, being either in subjects like history or social studies – the different theories of politics are explored. Of course, in most western countries, it has a strong free market and representative democratic biased. The point is, that it’s being taught – maybe a little too shallow, biased or unnuanced, but I don’t know if an increased appliance will benefit the pupils or in which way.

​

 

Political philosophy is a normative discipline concerned with how things ought to be – as opposite to general philosophy, a discipline simply concerned with how things are. It is this word, ought, that brings me such uneasy. Being told how we ought to be – in my opinion – is the polar-opposite of asking oneself how things are. I feel anxious, because I’m not sure if I am comfortable with spreading the use of “ought to be” thinking. But maybe the world doesn’t need more thoughts, but more people following and abiding by the existing ones. I do not know, and right now there is no way for me to know.

​

 

What I do know, is that I like general philosophy (metaphysics), because it doesn’t say what I should or ought to be doing – it simply “reveals the absurd”, as Albert Camus so elegantly puts it. Of course, there are both practitioners and scholars of philosophy – that would disagree with Camus, regarding the purpose of philosophy (and I will have to write more on other views). But as someone who ascribe to the existentialist approach to meaning, revealing the absurd – is exactly what philosophy does. To use another of Camus analogies – life is like Sisyphus, doomed to roll a rock up a hill, only to have it roll back down again. There is no purpose to any of it, philosophy simply point’s out the fact of the matter. Now, from here – one can learn to live with the absurdity of life, hell one might even start to enjoy it. Watching that rock roll back down again with a smile on your face. I think it’s how and what you do – in coming to terms with this absurdity – that either makes or breaks a human being. Now, of course this is given that you know and accept the absurd. I not quite sure, but I think a life in unawareness – of this absurdity – might just as well be a good or even better life. So, something that I have been contemplating – from a consequentialist perspective, focusing on the outcome – is whether it’s right (good) to wish such an awareness upon one’s fellow human. What’s the purpose, if it does not inherently make them happier or more equipped for journey through this void that is life.

​

 

For now, leaving metaphysics out of the equation –– we’re left with political philosophy, or political theory as it is often called. In the grander strategy of creating more active citizens and a more equitable world – maybe teaching more political theory, is proper response. But, is that what we are working with, trying to increase the use of political theory to Catalan schools. With that, do we then mean better, more nuanced or unbiased elaboration of political theory?