In Turkish, the equivalent of the word “people” is “insan,” which comes from Arabic, meaning “to forget.” …

The past is the mirror of the future. This profound concept experiences the agony of truth, especially during the world’s darkest days. As we assume that things are not getting worse, we feel guilty due to various problems such as war crimes, hunger, poverty, economic anxieties, and concerns about the future. We have forgotten Africa, leaving them to hunger and misery. The reason for this is the sudden onset of the pandemic, causing everyone to focus only on their own lives and problems.

In Turkish, the equivalent of the word “people” is “insan,” which comes from Arabic, meaning “to forget.” What a meaningful situation; unfortunately, humans forget, get used to, and turn a blind eye. Sadly, as Dostoyevsky said, the inferior human adapts to any situation.

At this point, we see that many international organizations (U.N., E.U…) have taken significant steps, but deficiencies exist, and the problems requiring assistance have reached enormous proportions. Soon, we will face the destructive effects of climate crises and the issue of water scarcity. While we try to keep up with the transformation of technology at an incredible speed, this transformation unfortunately does not provide a clear solution to issues crucial for the continuity of our lives. I am not inclined to approach life negatively, but being realistic is a necessity for me because Pollyannaism is a great folly, much like the Tulip Period in the decline of the Ottoman Empire. I believe that all countries worldwide should turn away from this attitude and approach; the 21st century must be better than the previous century. This course must be changed, and it must be interpreted positively.

Now, let’s examine together the important philosophers who critically analyze life, starting with the Frankfurt School.

FRANKFURT SCHOOL

We will now discuss the last living representative of the Frankfurt School and a thinker who has, to some extent, expanded this school – Jürgen Habermas.

TRADITIONAL THEORY AND HORKHEIMER Our author begins by discussing Horkheimer, who distinguishes between traditional theory and critical theory. Traditional theory, according to Horkheimer, is a series of hypotheses developed about empirical facts. In traditional theory, influenced by a positivist understanding, facts exist independently of theory. However, it is known that traditional theory is not entirely independent of sociality. As both a researcher and a producer of science, the researcher is integrated into the social order, contributing to the reproduction of the order through their research. Horkheimer’s remarks on traditional theory revolve around these points.

CRITICAL THEORY/FRANKFURT SCHOOL FOUNDER THINKERS Critical theory aims to create a relationship and harmony between the researcher’s scientific action and their role as a citizen in social life. Unlike positivist or traditional science, which claims neutrality, critical theory prevents the instrumentalization of science by fundamentally criticizing the root of reason becoming a tool for certain interests. Now, stepping back a bit and maintaining our scientific composure, we should pose another question: Can the criticisms made by the Frankfurt School against traditional theory also be made against itself? Is it valid? In other words, is critical theory immune to the different and conflicting interests within society? Does it not fall into the same trap? Of course, it does have a basis in interests, but at least acknowledging that there is a relationship between scientific action and production and political attitudes is a more advanced approach. When we delve further into this, we encounter Habermas, who has been influenced by Horkheimer.

HABERMAS AND THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND POLITICS Habermas develops his thoughts by considering how to reconcile the scientific action of the researcher with their civic life. He grapples with how to align the researcher’s scientific action with their social life and discusses how scientific action is imbued with values, necessitating its integration with political action. According to Habermas, there must be a dialogue between science and politics, and communication links must be established. This dialogue should be open to everyone in society, taking place in the public sphere. However, in a capitalist society, the dominant ideology seeks to keep the public away from politics and maintain apolitical attitudes. Thus, according to Habermas, the role of scientists becomes crucial. For a fruitful dialogue on the effects of scientific findings on society, scientists must take the initiative, fostering critical discussions with an honest approach. The importance lies in recognizing the relationship between scientific findings and the various layers of society, reflecting the multidimensionality of the social reality and preserving this diversity.

SIYASET SOSYOLOJISI VE FELSEFE (POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY) Political science and political sociology have always avoided speculative interpretations to maintain the status of positive sciences. The scientific object of political sociology is not specific to a single society; it has examined various structures. For example, Durkheim examined the formation of city-states in ancient Greece to understand the intense relationship between political and economic life. Marx studied the Incas and ancient German communities. Weber also focused on non-Western societies. Although the concepts developed by sociologists may seem abstract and unbiased, Nisbet argues that none of them are entirely independent of moral roots. Nisbet emphasizes that behind the major ideas in social sciences, there is always a specific philosophical or moral concern.

PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIOLOGY ACCORDING TO WEBER Weber argues that science has no meaning for us because what matters is our response to the crucial question: “What shall we do? How shall we live?” The ultimate goal of scientific work, according to Weber, is, in the best case, to provide some clarity on the meanings we attach to these questions and the worldviews behind them.

PHILOSOPHY-FREE SOCIOLOGY: A DELUSION? / WEBER Aristotle and Machiavelli are not considered political sociologists for two reasons: First, there is a preconception we have acquired about science, deeply embedded in the subconscious of the social science community. Just as the natural sciences can overcome nature, social sciences should be able to “know” and establish a certain dominance over societies through knowledge. Second, political sociology shies away from philosophy because explanatory accounts based on specific and total philosophies have, in reality, gained an ideological content.

HORKHEIMER There is a real resemblance and connection between philosophy and sociology, according to Horkheimer. The whole issue is to be able to adopt this resemblance and convergence in the direction of phenomenology.

PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIOLOGY COMPANIONSHIP / HABERMAS Habermas initially states that it is the task of philosophy to establish the social sciences. Later, he suggests that there should be a connection, especially a collaboration between philosophy and social sciences. Thirdly, he aims to lay a new foundation for the relationship between philosophy and sociology.

Habermas argues that political sociology has served an important function by exposing the flaws and distortions in contemporary democracies. Political sociology is not a period of settling into stable societies; rather, it is a period of understanding the new socio-political reality taking shape. The need for new concepts is emphasized to comprehend and predict this new situation. Habermas sees the collaboration between philosophy and sociology as inadequate and believes that there is no reason for philosophy