Edited By Dilek Arlı Çil and Nihal Petek Boyaci
The social and technological developments, social movements, scientific discoveries, economic growth or diseconomies give rise to many problems for human beings. Many disciplines such as economics, political science, architecture, sociology and psychology discuss these problems and offer solutions from different perspectives. Philosophy has its own way of dealing with these problems. As opposed to the common belief, philosophy does not only deal with ideals independently of what is going on in real life. The problems of the contemporary philosophy are also the problems of the contemporary world. For this reason, this book aims to present and discuss certain philosophical problems in the contemporary world and to suggest solutions to them.
City as a Contemporary Philosophical Problem
At the beginning of the 20th century “urban-ism” becomes the social phenomenon for the social scientists since the competence of any humanitarian condition cannot be defined free from contemporary city-lifestyle. Urbanism was not so determinant and dominant for social scientists until the contemporary period; it was rather a nomological entity to define the social structure and movement. The rise of urbanism from the field of research objects to a dynamic sense of subjectivity is a methodological issue as much as being a philosophical concern.
According to Henry Lefebvre’s forethought in his book Urban Revolution (1970), the entire heavy majority of the Globe will live in a city; everywhere will be urbanized and there will be no ecology apart from human ecology in our planet (Lefebvre: 2003). After a half of a century, Lefebvre’s exclamation becomes our hardcore reality. This tragic social reality has been taken into granted by many thinkers as “progress” or “revolution”, but here I would like to develop a critical perspective for the “urban-ism” in the scope of philosophical reflection. Here, the philosophical analysis grounds on the conceptual and methodological necessity of “philosophy” itself. I aim to justify the advantages of philosophy for the sake of social inquiry about the city as a phenomenon in three steps; i.e. firstly to enlighten the historical references (signifiers) of the concept of the metropolis; secondly following the contemporary practices of social explanations; and thirdly to criticize the philosophy-less methodology of Urban Studies. I...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.