{"title":"Introduction: Rationalization in Religions","authors":"C. Markschies","doi":"10.1515/9783110446395-002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Philosopher Carl Friedrich Gethmann, a member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, has described rationalization as the “targeted, structured and reproducible operation of optimization.”1 Gethmann’s broad definition covers rationalization across a range of very different areas – in the economy, in society, even in the mind of the individual. In our own field of religious studies, the first scholar who comes to mind in this context is the philosopher and sociologist Max Weber, who introduced the term “rationalization” to the field.2 Maintaining that religious rationalization preceded social rationalization, Weber identified rationalization structures within the Judeo-Christian tradition that, as Gethmann puts it, “encouraged the establishment of rational conceptions of the world and the emergence of a modern consciousness.”3 In his studies of the “economic ethics of the world religions,” Weber developed the notion of a universal historical process of “disenchantment” (Entzauberung4) of the religious-metaphysical conceptions of the world and argued for a “unidirectional rationalization of all world religions.” According to Weber, all paths of religious rationalization lead towards an understanding of the world that is purified of magical notions. Only the occidental path of development, however, leads to a fully decentralized understanding of the world.5 It is not my intention, at this juncture, to provide a full recapitulation of Weber’s view of the rationalization that is inherent in all world religions. His basic assumptions concerning an occidental rationalism, and thus a particularly marked rationalism in the occidental religions, which he set against the Orient and its religions,6 appear highly problematic to us today. In view of the obvious problems in Weber’s conceptualization, I believe it makes more sense, in talking about “rationalization in religions,” to stick with Gethmann’s definition of rationalization and to speak of an optimization of the “rationality” of religion. But what is rationality? I turn again to Gethmann, who defines “rationality” as “developing processes for the discursive upholding of claims to validity, to follow these and to","PeriodicalId":266198,"journal":{"name":"Rationalization in Religions","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rationalization in Religions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110446395-002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Philosopher Carl Friedrich Gethmann, a member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, has described rationalization as the “targeted, structured and reproducible operation of optimization.”1 Gethmann’s broad definition covers rationalization across a range of very different areas – in the economy, in society, even in the mind of the individual. In our own field of religious studies, the first scholar who comes to mind in this context is the philosopher and sociologist Max Weber, who introduced the term “rationalization” to the field.2 Maintaining that religious rationalization preceded social rationalization, Weber identified rationalization structures within the Judeo-Christian tradition that, as Gethmann puts it, “encouraged the establishment of rational conceptions of the world and the emergence of a modern consciousness.”3 In his studies of the “economic ethics of the world religions,” Weber developed the notion of a universal historical process of “disenchantment” (Entzauberung4) of the religious-metaphysical conceptions of the world and argued for a “unidirectional rationalization of all world religions.” According to Weber, all paths of religious rationalization lead towards an understanding of the world that is purified of magical notions. Only the occidental path of development, however, leads to a fully decentralized understanding of the world.5 It is not my intention, at this juncture, to provide a full recapitulation of Weber’s view of the rationalization that is inherent in all world religions. His basic assumptions concerning an occidental rationalism, and thus a particularly marked rationalism in the occidental religions, which he set against the Orient and its religions,6 appear highly problematic to us today. In view of the obvious problems in Weber’s conceptualization, I believe it makes more sense, in talking about “rationalization in religions,” to stick with Gethmann’s definition of rationalization and to speak of an optimization of the “rationality” of religion. But what is rationality? I turn again to Gethmann, who defines “rationality” as “developing processes for the discursive upholding of claims to validity, to follow these and to
柏林-勃兰登堡学院成员、哲学家卡尔·弗里德里希·格斯曼(Carl Friedrich Gethmann)将合理化描述为“有针对性的、结构化的、可重复的优化操作”。盖斯曼宽泛的定义涵盖了一系列非常不同领域的合理化——在经济领域、在社会领域,甚至在个人思想领域。在我们自己的宗教研究领域,在这种背景下想到的第一个学者是哲学家和社会学家马克斯·韦伯,他将“合理化”一词引入了这个领域韦伯认为宗教合理化先于社会合理化,他认为犹太教-基督教传统中的合理化结构,正如格斯曼所说,“鼓励了世界理性观念的建立和现代意识的出现。”在他对“世界宗教的经济伦理”的研究中,韦伯提出了对世界的宗教形而上学概念“祛魅”(Entzauberung4)的普遍历史过程的概念,并主张“所有世界宗教的单向合理化”。根据韦伯的观点,所有宗教合理化的道路都指向一种对世界的理解,这种理解是净化了魔法观念的。然而,只有西方的发展道路才能导致对世界的完全分散的理解我的意图不是,在这个节口,提供一个完整的概括,韦伯的观点,理性化,是所有世界宗教固有的。他关于西方理性主义的基本假设,以及因此在西方宗教中特别明显的理性主义,是他用来反对东方及其宗教的,这在今天看来是非常有问题的。鉴于韦伯概念化中存在的明显问题,我认为,在讨论“宗教中的理性化”时,坚持格斯曼对理性化的定义,并谈论宗教的“合理性”的优化,更有意义。但什么是理性?我再次求助于Gethmann,他将“理性”定义为“对有效性主张的话语支持的发展过程,遵循这些并