对“资本主义精神”的第一次反批判

M. Weber
{"title":"对“资本主义精神”的第一次反批判","authors":"M. Weber","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-85-107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A polemical article by the classic of sociology Max Weber in the genre of “anti-criticism” contains his response to a series of critical publications by the principal German historian Felix Rachfahl. As a specialist in the history of the Dutch Revolution in the second half of the 16th century, Rachfahl wrote five articles under the general title “Calvinism and Protestantism” that he sought to rebut Weber’s views on the genesis of capitalism from the spirit of the Puritan work ethic. In a rather harsh retort, Weber in turn tries to show the reader the entire inconsistency of Rachfal’s criticism. On the whole, he assesses the discussion as unfair on the part of his opponent and, therefore, as insufficient from the point of view of the subject itself — the cultural significance of the Protestant economic ethics for the emergence of the capitalist economy of the modern type. He accuses Rachfal of deliberately distorting both Weber’s own argument and the views of his friend and colleague, the eminent theologian and church historian E. Troelch. In attempting to defend his arguments advanced in the articles in the series “Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Weber rhetorically chooses an extremely aggressive tone, while allowing a number of insulting epithets to the recognized expert in his field. His general strategy in the polemic is aimed at discrediting the criticizing historian himself as a typical representative of a related academic discipline, clearly exceeding the limits of his competence. At the same time, Weber assigns the role of objective arbiter in this dispute to his reader, urging him to perceive the arguments put forward impartially. Weber concludes by claiming that Rachfal’s lengthy critique is so off-target that he need not change a single word in his writings.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The First Anti-Criticism on the “Spirit of Capitalism”\",\"authors\":\"M. Weber\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-85-107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A polemical article by the classic of sociology Max Weber in the genre of “anti-criticism” contains his response to a series of critical publications by the principal German historian Felix Rachfahl. As a specialist in the history of the Dutch Revolution in the second half of the 16th century, Rachfahl wrote five articles under the general title “Calvinism and Protestantism” that he sought to rebut Weber’s views on the genesis of capitalism from the spirit of the Puritan work ethic. In a rather harsh retort, Weber in turn tries to show the reader the entire inconsistency of Rachfal’s criticism. On the whole, he assesses the discussion as unfair on the part of his opponent and, therefore, as insufficient from the point of view of the subject itself — the cultural significance of the Protestant economic ethics for the emergence of the capitalist economy of the modern type. He accuses Rachfal of deliberately distorting both Weber’s own argument and the views of his friend and colleague, the eminent theologian and church historian E. Troelch. In attempting to defend his arguments advanced in the articles in the series “Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Weber rhetorically chooses an extremely aggressive tone, while allowing a number of insulting epithets to the recognized expert in his field. His general strategy in the polemic is aimed at discrediting the criticizing historian himself as a typical representative of a related academic discipline, clearly exceeding the limits of his competence. At the same time, Weber assigns the role of objective arbiter in this dispute to his reader, urging him to perceive the arguments put forward impartially. Weber concludes by claiming that Rachfal’s lengthy critique is so off-target that he need not change a single word in his writings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":102221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-85-107\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-85-107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社会学经典马克斯·韦伯的一篇论战性文章,以“反批评”的形式,包含了他对德国主要历史学家菲利克斯·拉赫法尔的一系列批评出版物的回应。作为16世纪下半叶荷兰革命史的专家,拉赫法尔以“加尔文主义和新教”为总标题,写了五篇文章,试图从清教徒的职业道德精神来反驳韦伯关于资本主义起源的观点。在一个相当严厉的反驳中,韦伯反过来试图向读者展示拉赫法尔的批评完全不一致。总的来说,他认为对手的讨论是不公平的,因此,从主题本身的角度来看——新教经济伦理对现代类型资本主义经济的出现的文化意义——是不够的。他指责拉赫法尔故意歪曲韦伯自己的观点,以及他的朋友和同事,著名神学家和教会历史学家E. Troelch的观点。在试图为他在“新教伦理与资本主义精神”系列文章中提出的论点辩护时,韦伯在修辞上选择了一种极端激进的语气,同时允许对他所在领域公认的专家使用一些侮辱性的绰号。他在这场辩论中的总体策略是,诋毁批评历史学家本人是相关学科的典型代表,显然超出了他的能力范围。同时,韦伯将这场争论中的客观仲裁者的角色赋予了读者,敦促他公正地看待所提出的论点。韦伯的结论是,拉赫法尔冗长的批评是如此偏离目标,以至于他不需要在他的作品中修改一个词。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The First Anti-Criticism on the “Spirit of Capitalism”
A polemical article by the classic of sociology Max Weber in the genre of “anti-criticism” contains his response to a series of critical publications by the principal German historian Felix Rachfahl. As a specialist in the history of the Dutch Revolution in the second half of the 16th century, Rachfahl wrote five articles under the general title “Calvinism and Protestantism” that he sought to rebut Weber’s views on the genesis of capitalism from the spirit of the Puritan work ethic. In a rather harsh retort, Weber in turn tries to show the reader the entire inconsistency of Rachfal’s criticism. On the whole, he assesses the discussion as unfair on the part of his opponent and, therefore, as insufficient from the point of view of the subject itself — the cultural significance of the Protestant economic ethics for the emergence of the capitalist economy of the modern type. He accuses Rachfal of deliberately distorting both Weber’s own argument and the views of his friend and colleague, the eminent theologian and church historian E. Troelch. In attempting to defend his arguments advanced in the articles in the series “Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Weber rhetorically chooses an extremely aggressive tone, while allowing a number of insulting epithets to the recognized expert in his field. His general strategy in the polemic is aimed at discrediting the criticizing historian himself as a typical representative of a related academic discipline, clearly exceeding the limits of his competence. At the same time, Weber assigns the role of objective arbiter in this dispute to his reader, urging him to perceive the arguments put forward impartially. Weber concludes by claiming that Rachfal’s lengthy critique is so off-target that he need not change a single word in his writings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Is Ethnic Discrimination a Matter of Common Sense in the Fight against Crime and Terrorism? On Violence in History Post-City (II): Cartographies of Imaginaton and Co-spatiality Politics Radical Democratic Model of Politics as a Response to the Problem of Refugees Political Integration The Philosopher Robert Spaemann and His Public Positions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1