Ejup Rustemi1* Mefail Tahiri2
1University of Tetova, North Macedonia
2University of Tetova, North Macedonia



When it comes to philosophy, assumptions about unification are helpful in determining the kinds of philosophical problems to pursue and the different areas of focus to investigate. In the case of fundamentalist assumptions, for instance, one is often led to discuss epistemological and metaphysical concerns in terms of solely the outcomes and interpretations of foundational levels of disciplines. Assumptions of this kind contribute to the definition of what constitutes scientific research and help form programs that are either naturalized or scientific in nature. In this sense, they decide, or at the very least strongly indicate, what scientific discourse is appropriate and authoritative in the context of philosophical debate. This paper will give an overview of how the generalisation approach can or cannot achieve what it strives to.

Keywords: sytems, theory, approach, generalisation, scientific.


There have been many different arguments for adopting stances on problems of unification throughout history, ranging from the metaphysical and theological to the epistemic, sociological, and pragmatic. These justifications have been used from Greek philosophy to current disputes. Whether it is a matter of truth or consequence, perspectives on issues pertaining to unity and unification have an impact not only on the fields of science and philosophy, but also on society as a whole on account of their application. Not only do they offer robust heuristic or methodological direction, but they also provide justification for hypotheses, projects, and particular objectives in the scientific community. Various rallying cries and idioms, such as simplicity, unity, disunity, emergence, or interdisciplinarity, have acquired a normative connotation in this context.. The extent of their responsibility as evaluators is extensive. In social contexts, particularly in circumstances involving sources of finance and profit, they are utilized to establish legitimacy, even if it is only in a rhetorical sense. They are the ones who establish a benchmark for what constitutes the authority and legitimacy of what it means to be scientific. For this reason, they have a significant impact on the evaluation, management, and implementation of scientific knowledge, particularly in public domains such as the decision-making process in the healthcare and economic sectors (Greene, 2000). For example, bringing attention to the complexity of causal structures poses a challenge to the conventional deterministic or straightforward causal approaches to policy decision-making, which involve the identification of known hazards and the unknown impacts of known features. Not the least of the factors that have an impact on science education is the influence that implicit beliefs have regarding what unification is capable of doing.

Volume 9, No.1 (2024): April

ISSN 2661-2666 (Online) International Scientific Journal Monte (ISJM)
ISSN 2661-264X (Print)

DOI : 10.33807/monte.20243103


Full Text: PDF

This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (