Somewhere in evolution man started to distinguish self and others, using this talent in the struggle for survival. Take care, interpreting moods as caused by oneself, is totally different from the Enlightenment myth 'understanding'. Running hard results in feeling wind, that means that VERY LOCALLY you as running individual cause and observe different weather.
Understanding or following selfmade rules by consistently using trained skill for other purposes, .

Behind understanding is experience of local conditions, not general TRUTH

In evolution Intuition serves to construct strategies (rituals = logics = conceptual schemes) about how to live together with natural human enemies. This is realized by producing variation, and selecting succesful procedures with good overall energy balance. Human selection by Intuition is called 'common sense'.

Succesful strategies get more and more complex, and finally become religions (like Christian Science). That way what started as exploring reality by counting the size of a hunted herd or of an attacking enemy, developed into the study mathematics. Monks called 'scientist' have 2 choices: (1) greying in their universities, or (2) join the colorful mass. No room for debate. Alpha 'males' are trusted in their leadership.

Start of the 'rational troubles in Social Science: The Cognitive Revolution, from Behaviorism to Psychology and the acceptance of 'understanding' as central to studying human behavior.
Using 'understanding' to explain future experience.

Improving Life

Philosophy is not to be considered only as a method to generate views, BUT as BEHAVIOR developed during evolution to improve life. Only the BEHAVIOR 'meditating' was in the Western World via 'praying' made into the human STUDY (virtual reality created by 'theories') 'philosophy'. 'Theories' are fairy tales used as 'religion'. To follow evolution the goal of the study philosophy should be a return to BEHAVIOR, and this study should aim only at being an open library of common sense. 'Social' is a 'rational word, pointing at the 'rational' part of 'family' BEHAVIOR If for instance a wish of young people is to influence time with their behavior, then realize that the 'rational' CONCEPT 'time' is in your head. As well is 'age'. There is no convincing proof that absolute 'time (measured in an atom clock) causes 'getting older', only showing more experienced BEHAVIOR. Your mind makes you grow old or stay young. Mindspeed might be influencable. Just another example: in Israel-Palestine Conflict I give an original view AND the inherent action. Philosophy should become again 'mother of all sciences'. That means as well assisting infant sciences to grow up. For instance the young science Brain Neurology is urgently in need op help. See my vision on the brain

In the meantime at many Western and also other universities the study philosophy seems degraded to writing and copying complex essays with difficult titles and a lot of references. Maybe such essays are meant for hitting enemies. Mind that there are still philosophers with eye for their purpose, but that is not the general impression that got stung.

A perfect example of brilliant 'deeper' than only rational thinking was shown by Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia (1892-1975). He was not considered a philosopher, but I remember from my youth that when he was on television everybody recognized a great visionary leader. His words touched my 'common sense'. His extreme handicap was that he represented a poor African country.

Amongst others Haile Selassie was the inspiration of admired people like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, who both corresponded with him. And he became the prophet behind Rastafarian Christianity in Jamaica. His original name was Rasta Tafari, what caused the name rasta music. He was the most brilliant representative of Coptic Christianity, a belief closer to Buddhism following from the views of Jesus' disciple Mark, that remained closer to the original message of Jesus than the Roman/Pharisee cocktail of 'animist' ideas (following Aristotle), Hebrew religion and emerging Judean Christianity (Judean Zoroastrianism).
Influential Roman senators (the 'aristocrats' = followers of Aristotle) aimed at saving the EXTREMELY profitable practice of human-animal farming (slavery), and corrupted the Latin version of the gospel in Greek of Paul. .

Sociology is a science about life giving a view on life that as a view is in age many thousands of years younger than meditating. As a science it is only about 100 years old. 'Thinking' sociologically is 'understanding', common sense is 'feeling'. 'Thinking' sociologically is virtual, common sense is sensing reality. Sociology is not only a 'study', but it is based on the IDEA that reality = virtual reality (mind) + material reality (physics). And above all it is an originally Western science, a far from fulgrown sub-religion of Western Philosophy.
Meditating (philosophizing) is one of the typical human traits that settled in our genes, but 'sociologizing' is yet not more than just a job. 'Sociologizing' will never become genetical.

Sociology as (virtual) view can be traced back to Enlightenment and Kant, while 'sociology' as a term is coined after the French Revolution in the 18th century by a Frenchman named Auguste De Comte. He called it 'positivism'. In fact sociology 'was born' in 17th century France, as a pre industrial European view on the world. Something like the present industrializing China producing a new view on life.

It is good to remember though that Comte's ideas about altruism were completely the reverse of those now dominant in American capitalism

BUT Sociology doesn't 'get going' however as institutionalised and professional discipline until the end after WWII in the 20th century. Following American culture 'Sociology' is a typical 'rational' product, and as such one of the consequences of the paradigm shift triggered by the priest-scientist Descartes that resulted in this machine like way of thinking. And the use of this digital thinking lead to religious practices like 'calculus', 'sociology', 'psychology' (considering discrete reality as continuous). And finally to unscrupulous multinationals like IBM and Microsoft.

A 21st century critic in the Social Sciences can adopt a 19th century theory of industrialism, or take Marxism as an explanation for behavior called 'economical'. But he/she studied at university (Enlightenment invention) WITHIN the locally dominant overall paradigm (reality design).
Begin 21st century in large parts of Planet Earth the VERY dominant Reality Design is the Western Paradigm (other names: the Catholic Paradigm, the Aristotelian Paradigm). The view that life is virtual (creationism = made in heaven), 'continuous', and 'dual' (good versus evil).

An example: societies like on Hawai and The Philippines are based on the Polynesian culture. Polynesian navigator already thousands of years ago showed precision in navigation that is more precise than the technology around the compass. Most likely based on expert use of all human senses, and probably perfect insight in the migration routes of animals with more precise electromagnetical senses (fishes and birds) Not result of talent in virtual 'science' (IQ-worship) at all, just common sense trainable 'skill'. Such behavior based on thousands of years experience with extreme tidal waves made Thai 'sea gypsies' predict the Asian Tsunami at least 2 hours before it wiped away coastal areas. The 'sea-gypsies' survided, they had fled landinward

Sociology warns: common sense is 'feeling' that misguidingly "everyone takes for true" . Henk Tuten: 'Sociology' is using 'rational' magic to produce fog. Common Sense is the until now by evolution selected most adequate behavior. Common Sense feeling is 'structured chance' but it is unwise to replace it with the religion 'understanding' of the teeny weeny logic 'rationality'.

Picture of Reality

Sociology is an in essence mathematical view, in which one tries to construct a picture of reality by puzzling with known small pieces. The resulting image is supposed to be a substitute for reality. It was already the elder Ludwig Wittgenstein who rejected his own view as a young soldier in the first World War that a construct is ALWAYS a picture of reality. Virtual views can take any shape.

They might BECOME reality (i.e. slavery, Nazism or Apartheid, 'Indivualism/Independence', capitalism, rationalism), but as well may vanish. It doesn't help at all to see users of such a virtual view as criminals. Their behavior is totally consistent, only they use an in common sense (majority) disapproved ethics. Mind, the science Sociology can be quite usefull, but remember that it gives a shattered only rational VIRTUAL view. Nothing more than a good guess.





Beginning 21st century the dominant but mistaken blueprint of reality (social paradigm) has at least 3 pilars:
Technology Worship (every new problem just takes a higher level of technology)
The infinite growth solution (progress fixes all problems)
Law and Order( all problems can be solved with rules and laws)

Rational Logic

Sociology is largely a mutiple choice version of common philosophy. There a few cases where a sociological approach proves fruitful, in general this cutting into discrete rational pieces is EXTREMELY simplifying and discriminating. It is this way of observing that creates divisions like white and black. (are you a white? , O Yes I am or O No I am negro). Maybe it's rational to see the property 'skin color' of people as discrete and as important, why not just see them as people? When applying this view you only look at the rational part of phenomena. It is the the same view that creates the division in the rational values 'good' and 'bad'. Essentially the Roman split between mind and body. If Jane Goodall would have made such a split, then she never would have revolutionized human intuition about life by making probable that gorilla behavior only slightly differ from human behavior. The difference in quality is found in in the ability 'fantasizing'. But it also supplies humans with the ability to produce a fantasy logic like 'rationalism', defending the dubious behavior 'slavery'. Her intellectual mentor dr. Leaky someway must have realized this, and he preferred for her job someone without university background and being female. By the way Leaky's background was that of someone being raised in tribal Kenya. To see things as IF NOT 'good' THEN 'bad' is rational!!!

White Collar Crime

Not sociology is to blame for this phenonomen, but especially in civil law the abrupt split between 'guilty' and 'not guilty' created a vast circuit of 'white collar crime'. Because the addition that guilt must be without doubt sure is ridiculous in cases where not the proving of 'guilt' is of essence, but the level of guilt. This way many white collar criminals use the created gray area that is translated in 'not guilty'

Another paradigm shift could make sociology as virtual logical view disappear as well. Philosophy seen as product of evolution until now survived all paradigm shifts, because it is more than only a virtual view.

When I studied math in the 1970's the growing use of Mathematical Analysis (Differential Calculus) as 'functional analysis' in Sociology was by talentful math students seen as an temporary unharmful abberration of social science. In our view this rigid tool was totally unfit for describing most very lively social phenomenons.

History proved us partially wrong, because indeed sociology proved to be unfit, but that also appeared no reason at all for this study not to become very powerful. Sociology became a paradise for second rate mathematicians (sorry, no offense. Humans are more than their IQ). Critical mathematicians were worked out, and returned to technology. Critical philosophers vanished to either industry or education.
Within 5 years the very first studies popped up using the word 'manager'. Their students excelled in taking most organizational jobs in the student society. For them that was consired as education.
First this were real educations, but more and more only to validate giving power to managers. Nobody was to blame, it was just a matter of invasion of available cultural space.
Through the years studying was made more expensive and exclusive therefore and also a lot of multinationals started creating ambitious manager courses resulting in topmanagers with weird titles.

Sociology became a fine example of the horrible consequences of using mathematical analysis for describing social phenomenons. But the real problem is deeper, that is dominant using of rational logic for social behavior. Luckily only yet by a top-layer in Western Society, that's why Marcuse as one of the few common sense thinkers of 20th century philosophy already like a visionary spoke about the Web of Reason

As well as humans used with photo camera's to take black and white pictures and later color pictures , sociology is a tool for making pictures.
A sociological picture displays traits of SOME culture, in a logic understood by some group of other cultures.
For instance it might picture cannibalism as a inventive way to show dominance. Indeed people are not much use without heads.

In the 20th century in Europe there was an in the beginning quite rational philosophical group called Critical Theory (though in the end it realized very well the limits of rationalism). It gave unwillingly an enormous swing to Sociology, which before only existed in scientific circles.
Though the members of this (mainly German) philosophical stream said that they only analyzed, and didn't draw political solutions. That's exactly what should be the difference between and sociology and philosophy. Philosophy should prescibe with common sense when to use which (relative) logic , and Sociology should do the analyzing using this logic. Only in practice these 2 studies unfortunately largely overlap
'Social Science' 'rationally' analyses, 'rationally' evaluates and puts the 'rational' pieces of its own reality together. Like making 'rational' movies.

Without touching controversial issues, one can say:

The goal of sociological theory is to both explain and predict major changes in politics, economics, and cultural values that have a direct impact on the individual.
Technological tools for analyzing might be used, BUT:
1) Analysis covering more than one total paradigm certainly is not 'continous'. Using the same model before and after Christ is ridiculous.
2) Sociology should not play the role of philosophy, and stick to the usage of proven READY MADE philosophical tools.

Since all human behavior is social, the subject matter of sociology covers the whole system of thought

Back to Philosophy. And taking it as more than only Western Christian Philosophy. The definition of Sociology is only a side product.

That's one point I want to make. The second question about philosophy is: has philosophy any immediate use? (without looking at the present misery)

Yes and no. Not very short term but it should return to studying problems of daily life and within say a year give some answer. That time is needed because a proper discussion needs time.

During the war in Iraq both philosophers and sociologists (i.e. most of them) in this definition practiced sociology, i.e. they gave predictions on the topic 'War in Iraq' (called opinions) based on established philosophy. Next to that they often engaged in protest.

I myself instead tried to give an answer to two burning questions (i.e. burning in me).For instance concerning the war in Iraq I asked myself how rationalism influences the decisions made by American leaders.  The U.S.A. and the U.K. are originally based on an empirical kind of rationalism. The U.S. was founded in 1775, when empiricism was developing. The present influential families often have their roots in the first hundred years of this nation. Western Continental Europe (without Germany) for a long time favored the French type of rationalism. For this reason I started studying the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was only enlightening because it caused an explosive growth in skill. Descartes invented rational thought, finally Immanuel Kant made this way of thinking into the Western Standard, and afterwards Industrialism did the finetuning. In Ethics rational thought realized a standstill in the Western World.
My dissident view finally resulted in 15 articles about Enlightenment.

My second question relating to the war in Iraq was: 'And what should make democracy attractive in general'.  I studied democracy from Socrates till the present.

The Athenian Greek freethinker Socrates was teacher of the freethinker Plato, who in turn educated the first fulltime 'philosopher' Aristotle. The common sense view on life of Socrates and Plato, was essentially different from the virtual of Aristotle. Things like the power thinking behind the death sentence of Socrates made Plato decide to spend a useful and respectful life outside Greek power influence. In fact the arrogancy of Aristotle that nature obeys laws given by eternal spirits (souls) was the root of the misery in the present Western World. This hallucination started a fanatic chase of THE Laws of Nature, and after many ages resulted in cultures (like the US empire) that with ALL means defended their individual view of the Law and Order behind THE LAWS OF NATURE. If necessary with a War on Terrorism. And where in leading circles people think that TALKING about acting is enough (living 'good'), and that fighting for values is bad (living 'evil'). And where young people live in virtual worlds playing agressive games on 'game boxes' while elsewhere people are dying.

I did put the resulting two of my articles on Internet for discussion. During the war they were read quite well (and still are), but nobody reacted, while sites about political aspects got thousands of reactions. But anyway that is what philosophy should do, trigger debate.

During the war (television was boring) I wrote several articles..

But generally philosophers do a fairly good job. Only I personally don't see the use of detailed questions to beginners of philosophy about an unknown Whoever who lived 3 ages ago. Leave that to specializing philosophy masochists.
Right now people are negative about the study philosophy because too much internal debate leaks out, and the study sociology in all it specialisations has much more to say about daily life.

On top of that the sub-religion 'philosophy' is the 'divinity school' of master-religion Christian Science. Often 'philosophers' like most priests attend most time to debate about Aristotelian basics, while (certainly for outsiders) the overview is missing (inherent question: do those basics make sense?).
Professional philosophy as a whole drowns in selling details and provides no overview.

Maybe philosophy as a study should show more that indeed it provides means that can be helpful.

Creativity in itself can be a destructive force. It has to be tamed by a moral system, made up of ethical rules. That gives a 'natural' role for philosophy. That is maintenance of the ethical rules. Because philosophy studies all the essential problems of life, it is ideally suited.
Sociology can be useful if it sticks to checking hypotheses and stays away from the creating of myths. The Western World paradigm behind the rational fantasies of 'sociology' did an awful lot of harm. And if should start using a lot more logics methods than mainly rationalism. My guess is that for 95% of the present Western sociologers that is asked to much (I don't have a clue about the Buddhist ones).
Take say 10 years to find a more innocent occupation for this evolutional 'waste'. Philosophy also became severily infected with rational thinking. Still in many cases this study just like sociology does a good job. My proposal: leave education to a younger generation, and remove ALL rational thinkers from advisory functions (better too many than not enough). BUT: it also means a clean-sweep of ALL present politicians (local, national and international), and practically replacing all managers of large firms. Anyway 3 out of 4 management jobs can easily be combined with more energy consuming labor. The most practical method is mercilessly making a fresh start with the first generation that still shows flexibility in thinking(between 20 and 25 years of age).

Why not from university, but this time young energetic beautiful people with a challenge. And with initiative and natural common sense, instead of ambituous rational 'gray mouses' infected with the rational doctrine.
AND basing all educational institutions on a new view of the brain. Education should be cleaned from dominance of rational thinking. My experience is that engineers in technology understand quite well the restrictions of rational logic (and of differential calculus). That might be a help, although their believe in consciousness and understanding became awfully fundamental. Revive Discrete Math and give a chance to new logics.


Jesus already heavily attacked the Pharisees. But his message nevertheless was immunized by the Romans and this resulted in the Roman Catholic Church. This time there is no room for failure. The mind infection has spread to circles of power. And maybe an even bigger obstacle is that within Western society developed an upper middle class that is wealthy, awfully spoiled, and not having much surviving talents. Rational and spoiled behavior should be removed with the roots.

Sexy People are Inspirating Terrorists

All my sources were on Internet. But they were only used to check and double-check my views, never to copy. Study of definitions of Sociology was one part, study of Enlightenment and Democracy others. Anyway  I hate articles with miles of references. If any questions are left, just send an e-mail.
Visitors to this site:
1. USA 30%
2. Asia 25%
3. Europe 15 %
Rest 30%.

Henk Tuten, April 2003,

Overview Articles