Talk:Political Philosophy

Just a thought
You start off with

''Every branch of philosophy can be rooted back to one simple question, in the case of political philosophy this question is "How should a society be organized?" and as an follow-up question "Should a society be organized at all?".''

so, in the first sentence you contradict yourself. Silly pedantic objection but this is RW. How about

''Every branch of philosophy can be rooted back to a small number of simple questions, in the case of political philosophy these questions are "How should a society be organized?" and a follow-up question "Should a society be organized at all?".''

or

Every branch of philosophy can be rooted back to one simple question, in the case of political philosophy this question is "Should society be organised and, if so, how".

Personally I prefer the last option. It makes your 'follow up' question the prime question but, to my mind, it's more important to know whether you should do a thing that how you should do it. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from - and yes in a solely logical sense there's a contradiction. Although I was going for the historical order in which the questions accured - but I get that for most scientists this won't make much sense and look dumb. So yeah, the third one is definitly better. Will put that in right now. --Ullhateme (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)