Tayabas Western Academy

Founded 1928
Candelaria, Quezon

SELF LEARNING MODULE 2

Name of Student

Course and Major

Course Code GEL 2
Course Description Social Sciences and Philosophy
Module No. 2
Duration 2 weeks
Instructor Glenda C. Rayos
Topic/Lesson An Overview of the Social Sciences

Lesson Objectives
By the end of this module, students will have completed the following objectives:
1. Trace the social conditions which brought about the development of social sciences
2. Identify the areas of social sciences and how they address the needs of the individual;
and,
3. Explain the nature of the human being in the society.

Lesson Proper
A. WHAT ARE SOCIAL SCIENCES?
Social sciences are the fields of study that deal with interactions among people, human
relationships, how people act in social settings or societies, and how societies function. The social
sciences essentially encompass any scholastic discipline that is concerned with the social or cultural
elements of human behavior.
The list of social science disciplines includes sociology, psychology, anthropology,
economics, political science, religion, management, archaeology, environmental science,
and marketing. The fields of history and geography are also sometimes considered as being part
of the social sciences.
People study social sciences to better understand how a given society or social environment
functions, why people act the way they do in a society, and how social and cultural elements of a
society influence people’s behavior. The information obtained from studies conducted within various
social sciences can be a valuable aid in decision making for companies and non-profit
organizations, governmental agencies, community leaders, and legislative policymakers.
Summary
 Social science refers to all the various fields of study that are concerned with
interactions among people, human relationships, and how societies function.
 Social science is a relatively new field of scientific study, only coming into existence on
the cusp of the 20th century.
 Primary areas of social scientific study include sociology, psychology, economics, and
education.

The DEVELOPMENT of SOCIAL SCIENCES

The development of social sciences is a relatively recent one in the overall field of scientific
inquiry. The term “social science” did not formally exist before the 19th century and did not
become a generally recognized category of study, science, or education until the 20th century.
Social sciences rely heavily on both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.
Therefore, it was difficult to conduct sound, structured scientific inquiry into human social behavior
until statistical analysis became a recognized field within applied mathematics during the early part
of the 20th century.
Social sciences are concerned with the things that lie outside the view of natural sciences,
such as biology and chemistry. Whereas natural sciences are focused on understanding the
properties of the physical world, social sciences are focused on understanding relationships and the
ways in which people interact with each other.
The primary foundation of social science is philosophy – the general and theoretical study of
the nature of existence, knowledge, reasoning, and moral values. However, the study of philosophy
is largely a theoretical endeavor. On the other hand, social science has taken philosophical theories
and has attempted – by gathering and analyzing data and conducting experiments – to discern
more clearly, and for more practical purposes, how and why people interact with each other and
function within social groups.
For example, the disciplines of sociology, psychology, political science, and marketing, in the
past, all conducted inquiries and experiments with the goal of determining what motivates people to
vote for a specific candidate or to support a specified social or political cause.

Major Social Science Fields

As noted, there is a long list of fields of academic study that generally fall under the umbrella
of “social science.” The following disciplines, however, are considered the primary fields for social
science inquiry.
1. Sociology
If there is a single social science, the field of sociology is it. Sociology is the study of
characteristics of different societies, how individuals relate to the society that they live in, and,
generally, the nature of social interactions.
Within the overall field, there are various areas of study, such as criminology, social class
structure and inequality, and demographics, which analyzes the characteristics of various
population groups. Gender studies is one of the fastest-growing areas of study in sociology.

2. Psychology
Psychology is the discipline that is first and foremost concerned with gaining an
understanding of how people think and why they behave in certain ways. Although psychology is
largely focused on individuals, there is a specialization within the field that is known as “social
psychology.” Social psychology is more directly aimed at understanding group and social dynamics
and how societal norms and influences affect the behavior of people.
3. Education
 Education is inexorably intertwined with the study of society, as one of the main purposes of
education has always been the socialization of students – teaching them the norms of the society
that they live in and communicating the society’s cultural history.
However, that process has become much more complicated in recent years, as many liberal
educators in the West have challenged the very idea of socialization as being “evil” because it –
allegedly – perpetuates the existence of a patriarchal society that is fundamentally flawed.

4. Economics
The study of economics might, at first glance, appear to have little to do with social issues
and mostly concerned with cold, mathematical calculations of supply and demand and prices. But
economic systems are an integral part of social systems, and they tend to reflect the nature of the
societies in which they exist. For example, capitalism and Marxism are economic systems that are
based on fundamental beliefs about the nature of people and what motivates them.

Criticisms of Social Scientific Studies

In recent years, the lack of rigorous methodology in the social sciences has drawn
widespread criticism. Studies of social science papers have found numerous instances where a
researcher’s results were affected by the researcher’s personal ideology and political biases. By
using things such as how questions are phrased to study participants or how a certain statistic is
calculated, researchers can essentially rig studies to show what they want them to show.
The field of psychology has come under particular scrutiny. In many instances, researchers
have failed to share with other researchers the data they used in a study, despite the fact that the
American Psychological Association (APA) requires them to do so. Another problem – one that
often indicates that the original researcher’s bias has crept into and colored a study’s methodology
and/or findings – is that very few studies can be replicated by other researchers, which is a critical
requirement for scientific validity.
The APA itself is not without fault. In the 1970s, it removed the classification of
homosexuality as a psychological disorder from its diagnostic manual without presenting a single
study to support the major change. The change in attitude was purely a matter of political
correctness rather than the result of any legitimate scientific findings that might reasonably lead to a
reconsideration of the diagnostic status of homosexuality.
Rather than any new research findings, what was presented to members of the APA was a
panel discussion entitled “Gay is Good,” which was presented by a group of gay activists. A 2015
review of the organization’s 1973 decision concluded that “the most significant catalyst for
diagnostic change was gay activism.” (Source: National Center for Biotechnology Information).

B. THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN BEING

An ancient maxim tells us that the proper study of man is man. The problem of man is an
eternal and at the same time the most urgent of all problems. It lies at the heart of the philosophical
questions of man's place and destination in a world that is being discovered and transformed in the
name of humanity, the highest of all values. The main goal of social development is the formation of
human abilities and the creation of the most favorable conditions for human self-expression.

Many sciences study people, but each of them does so from its own particular angle.
Philosophy, which studies humanity in the round, relies on the achievements of other sciences and
seeks the essential knowledge that unites humankind.
 Idealism reduces the human essence to the spiritual principle. According to Hegel,
the individual realizes not subjective, but objective aims; he is a part of the unity not only of
the human race but of the whole universe because the essence of both the universe and man
is the spirit.
The essence of man comprises both the spiritual sphere, the sphere of the mind, and his
bodily organisation, but it is not confined to this. Man becomes aware of himself as a part of the
social whole. Not for nothing do we say that a person is alive as long as he is living for others.
Human beings act in the forms determined by the whole preceding development of history. The
forms of human activity are objectively embodied in all material culture, in the implements of labour,
in language, concepts, in systems of social norms. A human being is a biosocial being and
represents the highest level of development of all living organisms on earth, the subject of labour, of
the social forms of life, communication and consciousness.
If we examine human existence at the organismic level, we discover the operation of laws
based on the self-regulation of processes in the organism as a stable integral system. As we move
"upwards", we encounter the world of the mind, of personality. At the organismic level, the human
being is part of the natural interconnection of phenomena and obeys its necessity, but at the
personal level his orientation is social. From the world of biology through psychology we
enter the sphere of social history.
In ancient philosophy man was thought of as a "small world" in the general
composition of the universe, as a reflection and symbol of the universe understood as a
spiritualized organism. A human being, it was thought, possessed in himself all the basic
elements of the universe. In the theory of the transmigration of souls evolved by Indian
philosophers the borderline between living creatures (plants, animals, man and gods) is mobile.
Man tries to break out of the fetters of empirical existence with its law of karma, or what we should
call "fate". According to the Vedanta, the specific principle of the human being is the atman (soul,
spirit, selfhood), which in essentials may be identified with the universal spiritual principle—the
Brahman. The ancient Greeks, Aristotle, for example, understood man as a social being endowed
with a "reasoning soul".
In Christianity the biblical notion of man as the "image and likeness of God",
internally divided owing to the Fall, is combined with the theory of the unity of the divine and
human natures in the personality of Christ and the consequent possibility of every
individual's inner attainment of divine "grace".
The Age of the Renaissance is totally inspired by the idea of human autonomy, of man's
boundless creative abilities. Descartes worked on the principle, cogito, ergo sum—"I think therefore
I am". Reason was regarded as the specific feature of man. Soul and body were understood
dualistically. The body being regarded as a machine, similar to that of the animals, while the
soul was identified with consciousness.
Proceeding from this dualistic understanding of man as a being belonging to two different
worlds, the world of natural necessity and that of moral freedom, Kant divided anthropology into
"physiological" and "pragmatic" aspects. The first should study what nature makes of man, while the
second is concerned with what he, as a freely acting being, does, can or should make of himself.
Here there is a return to the conception of man as a living whole which characterized the
Renaissance. Unlike that of the animals, man's bodily organization and sense organs are
less specialized, and this is an advantage. He has to form himself, by creating a culture.
Thus we arrive at the idea of the historical nature of human existence. For classical German
philosophy the determining factor is the notion of man as a spiritually active being creating a world
of culture, as a vehicle of reason. In criticizing these ideas Feuerbach achieved an anthropological
reorientation of philosophy centering it on man, understood primarily as a spiritually corporeal being,
as a vital interlock ing of the "I" and the "you
 According to Nietzsche, man is determined by the play of vital forces and attractions
and not by the reason. Kierkegaard gives priority to the act of will, in which the individual, by
making a choice, "gives birth to himself", ceases to be merely a "child of nature" and
becomes a conscious personality, that is to say, a spiritual being, a being that determines
itself. In personalism and existentialism the problem of personality is central. A human being cannot
be reduced to any essence (biological, psychological, social or spiritual). Existentialism and
personalism contrast the concept of individuality (being a part of the natural and social whole) to
that of personality, as unique spiritual self-determination, as "existence".
The point of departure of the Marxist understanding of man is the human being as the
product and subject of labor activity. ". . .The essence of man is no abstraction inherent in
each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations."

a. Creationism vs Evolutionism
Creationism

 The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts
of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes
such as evolution.
Evolution
 The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have
developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
 The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more
complex form.
The Basics of Creationism

 Life comes from specific acts of divinity

 Every species was created separately
 Literalists believed that evolution cannot account for diversity on earth
 Beliefs based on Genesis
 4/10 Americans support this theory
 Some religious individuals may believed in evolution but still pick and choose
what parts of the bible they identify with (theistic evolution).
Proof of Creation

 Evolution has yet to be observed, as by it’s very nature we would not notice it
happening.
 Mankind is said to reflect God’s image.
Many proofs of creationism I found missed the context of evolution entirely. The best
example of this was using the intelligent design the man body has that must have been
made by the divine creator. What these people don’t realize is;

 Species evolved based on what works every time.

 Evolution comes from genetic oddities that benefit the species depending on
surroundings
 Species cannot evolve in a way that DOES NOT benefit them, because that branch
will not have enough offspring to continue – they will die off because they are ill-
suited to their environment.
Creationism comes from a complete sense of trust and faith the written word handed down
for thousand years.
 The Basics of Evolution

 A change in traits over large period of time through sexual reproduction.

 Species that do not benefit from mutations often die out
 95% of scientists supports evolution
Evidence

 Comparative anatomy
 Embryology and development
 Fossil record
 DNA Comparison
Evolutionism vs Creationism
There are really much of a contest. Evolution currently has more evidence just from looking
at one species, imagine all we could discover from the 8 million total species alive today.
C. WESTERN VS EASTERN VIEWS OF THE HUMAN BEING
The similarities between eastern and western philosophy are greater than any differences
cited by modern-day writers and lecturers on the topic. The most often cited difference is that
western philosophy is 'fragmentary' while eastern philosophy is 'holistic'. The popular writer Sankara
Saranam, author of the book God Without Religion, is one example of this when he claims that
eastern philosophy is concerned with general knowledge while western philosophy aims at specific
knowledge. This refers to the popular understanding that eastern philosophy - specifically Chinese
philosophy - addresses the whole of human existence while western philosophy - beginning with the
Greeks - only focuses on certain aspects of the human condition.
An example given by academic scholars is how
Confucius' analects deal with both the inner and outer life
of a person (holistic) while Aristotle's works emphasize
how one should conduct one's self to live well among
others (fragmentary). Mo-Ti, some claim, aims at a
holistic understanding of one's self and one's
surroundings while a western philosopher like Plato
emphasizes specific goals one should strive for in
discovering what is true and real in life.
These are arbitrary distinctions which totally miss
the underlying, and essentially identical, aims of eastern
and western philosophy. Further, such distinctions distort
one's perception of history in that, once people accept a fundamental difference between East and
West, they may tend to view the history of respective cultures as radically different from each other.
In fact, human beings are essentially the same the world over, only the details and customs differ,
and the philosophies of eastern and western thinkers make this quite clear.
One could compare the fundamental ideas of the great Chinese philosopher Confucius (l.
551-479 BCE) with those of the Greek philosopher Aristotle (l. 384-322 BCE) and find they are
presenting the same basic concepts. Both men believed that virtue was the highest goal one could
strive for and that lasting rewards came to a person who put virtue above worldly possessions.
The Korean philosopher Wonhyo (l. 617-686 CE) wrote, "Thinking makes good and bad"
meaning that if you think something is 'bad' then it is bad to you. The Greek philosopher Epictetus (l.
c. 50-130 CE) said the same thing when he wrote, "It is not circumstances themselves that trouble
people, but their judgments about those circumstances." (Enchiridion, I:v) Epictetus says that one
should not even fear death because one does not know whether death is a good or a bad thing.
Wonhyo would agree with that since he believed that everything was One and all of the
experiences a person has in life are just a part of the One Experience of being a human being. The
relativist philosophies of the Chinese sophist Teng Shih (l. 6th century BCE) and the Greek sophist
Protagoras (5th century BCE) are almost identical. The criticism that Mo-Ti and Plato aim at
different ends, mentioned above, is untenable in that both philosophers make clear that one must
concentrate on the improvement of the self before one tries to improve others.
The best example, however, of the fundamental sameness of eastern and western thought is
epitomized in the works of two of the best-known philosophers from their respective hemispheres:
Plato (l. 428-348 BCE) of the west and Wang Yangming (l. 1472-1529 CE) of the east. While Plato
is quite well known in the west, Wang Yangming is less so, even though he is as famous as Plato in
China, Korea, and Japan.
Both of these philosophers have exerted an enormous influence through their works, and
both argue for the existence of innate knowledge; that human beings are born knowing right from
wrong, and good from bad, and need only be encouraged to pursue goodness in order to live a
fulfilling life. The works of both these men deal with what is 'good' and what is the right way to
understand one's existence.

References:
Social Sciences - Overview, Development, Major Fields (corporatefinanceinstitute.com)

Similarities Between Eastern & Western Philosophy - World History Encyclopedia