韦伯的“价值多神论”:语境、渊源、逻辑方法论基础

I. Presnyakov
{"title":"韦伯的“价值多神论”:语境、渊源、逻辑方法论基础","authors":"I. Presnyakov","doi":"10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-68-106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Weber’s concept of “vocation” in science implies “anti-monumentalism”: research can always be continued, and the results obtained can be used in various ways. The scientist cannot be completely aware of the final impact of their work, so they are faced with a paradox of consequences. This paradox is based on value polytheism, a concept put forward by Weber. There are two ideas central to polytheism: first, one must recognize the internal logic of value spheres and, second, one must consider their fundamental incommensurability. But how does this idea emerge in Weber’s theory? Interpretations of value polytheism as a “fact” of a cultural situation and as the logical foundation of science do not allow one to answer the question of its origin. The conceptual bridge is found in Weber’s sociology of religion. Tenbruck’s, Schluchter’s, and Hennis’s models are examined to identify variations of value polytheism. However, their macro-orientation does not demonstrate the internal structure and functioning of polytheism. The present paper explicates the logical-methodological foundations of Weber’s scientific programme to clarify these points. Primarily, it investigates the problem of the consequences of an action carried out in a “vocation” mode and the boundaries of “adequate” causal explanations as presented in Weber’s works. It makes it possible to consider Weber’s value polytheism and concepts associated with it not as value metaphysics or unreasonable axioms,but as a methodologically based conceptual apparatus.","PeriodicalId":33494,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Max Weber’s “Value Polytheism”: Contexts, Origin, Logical-methodological Foundations\",\"authors\":\"I. Presnyakov\",\"doi\":\"10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-68-106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Weber’s concept of “vocation” in science implies “anti-monumentalism”: research can always be continued, and the results obtained can be used in various ways. The scientist cannot be completely aware of the final impact of their work, so they are faced with a paradox of consequences. This paradox is based on value polytheism, a concept put forward by Weber. There are two ideas central to polytheism: first, one must recognize the internal logic of value spheres and, second, one must consider their fundamental incommensurability. But how does this idea emerge in Weber’s theory? Interpretations of value polytheism as a “fact” of a cultural situation and as the logical foundation of science do not allow one to answer the question of its origin. The conceptual bridge is found in Weber’s sociology of religion. Tenbruck’s, Schluchter’s, and Hennis’s models are examined to identify variations of value polytheism. However, their macro-orientation does not demonstrate the internal structure and functioning of polytheism. The present paper explicates the logical-methodological foundations of Weber’s scientific programme to clarify these points. Primarily, it investigates the problem of the consequences of an action carried out in a “vocation” mode and the boundaries of “adequate” causal explanations as presented in Weber’s works. It makes it possible to consider Weber’s value polytheism and concepts associated with it not as value metaphysics or unreasonable axioms,but as a methodologically based conceptual apparatus.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sotsiologiia vlasti\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sotsiologiia vlasti\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-68-106\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-68-106","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

韦伯在科学中的“天职”概念隐含着“反纪念碑主义”:研究总是可以继续的,所获得的结果可以以各种方式使用。科学家无法完全意识到他们工作的最终影响,因此他们面临着后果的悖论。这个悖论建立在韦伯提出的价值多神教的基础上。多神教有两个核心思想:第一,必须认识到价值领域的内部逻辑,第二,必须考虑它们的根本不可通约性。但是这个想法是如何在韦伯的理论中出现的呢?将价值多神教解释为文化状况的“事实”和科学的逻辑基础,不允许回答其起源问题。在韦伯的宗教社会学中可以找到概念桥梁。Tenbruck、Schluchter和Hennis的模型被检验以识别价值多神教的变化。然而,他们的宏观取向并没有显示出多神教的内部结构和功能。本文阐述了韦伯科学纲领的逻辑方法论基础,以澄清这些观点。首先,它调查了以“职业”模式进行的行为的后果问题,以及韦伯作品中提出的“充分”因果解释的界限。这使得我们可以将韦伯的价值多神教及其相关概念视为一种基于方法论的概念装置,而不是价值形而上学或不合理公理。
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
Max Weber’s “Value Polytheism”: Contexts, Origin, Logical-methodological Foundations
Weber’s concept of “vocation” in science implies “anti-monumentalism”: research can always be continued, and the results obtained can be used in various ways. The scientist cannot be completely aware of the final impact of their work, so they are faced with a paradox of consequences. This paradox is based on value polytheism, a concept put forward by Weber. There are two ideas central to polytheism: first, one must recognize the internal logic of value spheres and, second, one must consider their fundamental incommensurability. But how does this idea emerge in Weber’s theory? Interpretations of value polytheism as a “fact” of a cultural situation and as the logical foundation of science do not allow one to answer the question of its origin. The conceptual bridge is found in Weber’s sociology of religion. Tenbruck’s, Schluchter’s, and Hennis’s models are examined to identify variations of value polytheism. However, their macro-orientation does not demonstrate the internal structure and functioning of polytheism. The present paper explicates the logical-methodological foundations of Weber’s scientific programme to clarify these points. Primarily, it investigates the problem of the consequences of an action carried out in a “vocation” mode and the boundaries of “adequate” causal explanations as presented in Weber’s works. It makes it possible to consider Weber’s value polytheism and concepts associated with it not as value metaphysics or unreasonable axioms,but as a methodologically based conceptual apparatus.
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
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Sources of Social Power, Varieties of Capital, and Types of Stratification: the Heuristic Potential of Multivariate Macroanalysis of Social Conflict A Quantitative Analysis of Economic Factors of Revolutionary Destabilization: Results and Prospects Transformations of the Political Imaginary in Post-Soviet Central Asia: The Cases of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan ‘The Level of Fears Is off the Scale!’: Triggers of Urban Conflicts in the Context of Municipal Management (Novosibirsk Case Study) The Archaeology of Urban Conflict: From Plato to Henri Lefebvre
×
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