El Político y el Científico

by Max Weber

Il lavoro intellettuale come professione è il titolo scelto da Max Weber per raccogliere i testi di due celebri conferenze, La scienza come professione e La politica come professione, da lui tenute all'Università di Monaco tra il 1917 e il 1919. La riflessione del grande filosofo è incentrata da un lato sulla situazione della Germania uscita disastrosamente dalla Grande Guerra e dall'altro sulla figura e il ruolo dell'intellettuale, scienziato e politico, sui limiti intrinseci delle due discipline e sull'inevitabile conflitto tra la scienza, la cui autorità riposa sul suo essere del tutto avalutativa, e la politica, che nella definizione e nella scelta di gerarchie di valori ai quali la realtà deve adeguarsi trova la propria ragion d'essere. I due testi costituiscono un'opera unica, la cui «grandezza problematica» è ben sottolineata dall'ormai classico saggio di Massimo Cacciari, qui presentato in una versione aggiornata.

Genres: Philosophy, Sociology, Politics, Nonfiction, Science, Classics, Theory

128 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1919

About the author

(Arabic: ماكس فيبر)

Maximilian Carl Emil Weber was a German lawyer, politician, historian, sociologist and political economist, who profoundly influenced social theory and the remit of sociology itself. His major works dealt with the rationalization, bureaucratization and 'disenchantment' associated with the rise of capitalism. Weber was, along with his associate Georg Simmel, a central figure in the establishment of methodological antipositivism; presenting sociology as a non-empirical field which must study social action through resolutely subjective means.

Reviews

[Hadrian · Rating 4 out of 5]

This new edition by NYRB Classics presents two of Max Weber's most famous works - known as the Vocation Lectures, the translators don't use that word in their titles. Where other translations called it "Science as a Vocation" and "Politics as a Vocation", this edition calls them "The Scholar’s Work" and "The Politician’s Work."

The lectures recommend themselves. They could hold a record for the most ideas crammed into such a short space.

"The Scholar’s Work", delivered in 1917, goes on to talk about the psychological toll of academic life, and the "disenchantment of the world", where a rational knowledge of life does not necessarily provide meaning. Aside from this distinction between facts and values; Weber offers more practical warnings on the difficulties of academic life, the difference between research and teaching, and the differences between facts and values in teaching. Scientific research can't be separated from its values and suppositions, and if those are refuted, then the science is rejected. Well, much of that could have been written yesterday.

"The Politician's Work" was delivered in 1919, a world away. The German Empire was gone, and the Weimar Republic fought for its life. Weber himself would contribute to the writing of the new state's constitution, though he sees only the darkening clouds ahead. He avoids direct comments on the Empire and the Republic as it was, but talked about the conflicts between state bureaucracy and charismatic leadership; or how political leaders would have to balance its sense of responsibility and its personal convictions. von Bismarck said politics is the art of the possible; Weber says it's like drilling holes into tough old boards.

"For although, or rather because, power is the unavoidable means of all political action, and the lust for power its driving force, there is no more destructive corruption of political power than the parvenu blustering around, conceitedly rejoicing in feeling powerful, or worshipping in any way power as such."

But Weber, with all the foresight and description that he has, does not have the answers to everything. He's a fatalist: the old charismatic authority is hard to find. Values and facts are not wholly exclusionary; values are what allow people to talk about facts at all and frame them. Nor are facts so exclusive and hallowed as they once here; it is easier to bombard the public with outright lies. He talks about faith and values in a time of disenchantment; and perhaps his acceptance of moral relativity and politics as a competition may, to an even more cynical viewer, have their foot slide into the political theology of Carl Schmitt.

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

Both lectures contain both practical information and philosophical takes on politics / science. Both should be must-reads for anyone who engages himherself in politics or in the scientific world.
Not easy reads, I will probably come back to both of them. There is however a lot of "food for the mind" there.

[Carlos · Rating 5 out of 5]

El libro se divide en dos partes: la política como vocación, en la que Weber analiza las cualidades que debe reunir alguien que quiera implicarse en la política; y la ciencia como vocación, en la que explica el sentido de la ciencia. Esta segunda parte es más divulgativa, con menos repercusión que lo que se puede extraer de la parte política, en la que hay muy buenas perlas. No se trata de un libro propiamente, sino la reproducción de dos lecturas que dio Weber.

La idea más sobresaliente del libro, para mí, es una que Weber emplea casi como una premisa de partida: el estado se define como "una asociación de dominación con carácter institucional que ha tratado, con éxito, de monopolizar dentro de un territorio la violencia física legítima como medio de dominación". Por lo tanto, solo mediante el reconocimiento de dicha autoridad este monopoliza dicha violencia. Además indaga en el motivo por el cual una persona habría de someterse a un estado, que puede ser por mera tradición, por el hecho de estar regido por leyes o por sumisión a un líder.

También analiza lo que debiera ser la estructura del estado y lo que distingue al funcionario del político u hombre de acción, así como la política de partidos, la cual él mismo rechaza en tanto en cuanto solo sirven para cazar cargos y tienen posturas muy inmovilistas, debido a la acumulación de "notables" en las altas esferas de los partidos, los que impiden el progreso de gente capaz que pueda desmontarles el tinglado. Para Weber, un hombre de partido no es más que un borrego que hace lo que se le pide, sometiendo su intelectualidad a la causa de los suyos. Solo aquel que jamás se rinda, por muy poco caso que se le haga, será un político por vocación.

Un libro sobresaliente, muy útil para el que lo quiera leer.

[Manon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Since I've had to write an essay about it I'll admit I'm too lazy to write a proper review !
I'll just say a few things :
- you may be familiar with Weber's theories on Politics, but his insight on science is as fascinating. It is quite philosophical and very interesting historically speaking as well. Of course this is also true for "Politiks als Beruf" but I personally knew what to expect on this second part.
- Forget that Weber is trying to convince you that scientists and politicians are nothing alike when he is actually doing two entire conferences on how these two vocations are intertwined. Which is, once again, very interesting.
- This book is almost a century old and so many things are still so relevant. Except maybe for the part about the absence of corruption in administration... Hum. Weber also - sort of - predicted what would happen in Germany in the 30s !

To put it in a nutshell, it was a very interesting book and I do encourage everyone to read it. You may agree or disagree with Weber or dislike the book as a whole, but I think it is one of those books that you HAVE to read, especially when studying sociology and political sciences. So many concepts of his are still being used today, or have been improved by his successors ! I need to finish the introduction by Raymond Aron now...

[Gijs Huppertz · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://ongeduld.com/2021/11/04/weten...

Wetenschap als Beroep en Politiek als Beroep. Twee colleges gegeven door Max Weber, een van de grootste sociologen van de afgelopen eeuw en samen met Marx en Durkheim gezien als de grondleggers van dit wetenschapsgebied. In deze twee colleges werkt Weber verschillende punten uit. Zo blijft hij bij Politiek als Beroep stilstaan bij politiek dat bedreven moet worden. Zo stelt Weber dat de politicus behoort te handelen naar Gesinnungsethik, hier volgt men zijn ethische principes en Verantwortungsethik, hier draagt de politicus de eindverantwoordelijkheid voor zijn handelen. Beide concepten die nu nog steeds accuraat zijn en wellicht missen in de huidige politiek. Verder beschrijft Weber de politicus die leeft voor en van de politiek. De eerste die zijn levensonderhoud eruit haalt en de tweede die er echt zijn lot in heeft gelegd. Weber is echter niet al te positief in zijn boeken, hoewel je met een positieve blik zijn essays kan leven, proef je ook de rumoerige tijd waarin hij leefde en de fragiele staat van Weimar Republiek. Weber eindigt zijn essay over Politiek als beroep met een noodstelling, dat er een held in de simpele zin van het woord, nodig is die zijn principes door durft te zetten en durft te blijven handelen zelfs als hij van mening is dat de rest van de samenleving te dom of lui is. Iets waar ieder mens naar mijn inzicht aan vast kan houden.
De essay over Wetenschap als beroep trok mij meer aan. Hier predikt Weber over hoe belangrijk het is een band te voelen met de wetenschap. Alleen als men een soort intuïtieve connectie heeft met de wetenschap, zal ze deze goed kunnen verrichten. Verder gaat Weber in op de onttovering van de wereld. Hier stelt hij dat over de eeuwen de wereld zijn magie langzamerhand is kwijtgeraakt. Dit komt voort uit een proces van intellectualisering en rationalisering die er langzamerhand voor heeft gezorgd dat er niets mystieks meer over is. Weber stelt vervolgens dat dit proces er uiteindelijk voor heeft gezorgd dat wij alles in termen van vooruitgang zien. Dit dood echter de zin om te leven, want het leven zal eindigen, maar de vooruitgang nooit en zo sterven wij altijd onvoldaan. Dit laat volgens Weber (en Tolstoj op wie hij voortborduurt) een leegte achter die de wetenschap niet kan vullen. De onttovering van de wereld door de moderne wetenschap en technologie laat ons dus achter met een leegte en een gebrek aan zinsgeving. Of dit gevuld kan worden is de vraag.

[Rodrigo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es un libro que se puede leer y releer muchas veces. Siempre aparece algo nuevo, alguna conexión que no había visto, algo que se me pasó en otra lectura. Sobre todo, revela a un Weber profundamente preocupado y hasta cierto punto desesperanzado por el mundo que lo rodea. Aunque uno pueda tomar distancia de su pesimismo, la actitud con la que aborda los dos problemas que tiene por delante (la vocación política y la científica), también es un llamado a mirar las cosas como lo que son y no como nos gustaría que fueran; y, en último término, aceptarlas, e incluso quererlas, por lo que son.

[Alan Gallardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Weber, como cabría esperar, es un tipo muy serio. Aquí habla de qué se necesita para ser un científico y un político. El primero se lee rapidísimo, aunque propende a desviarse del tema principal para explicar las estructuras universitarias de su momento (asunto muy específico, pero que podría ser de interés en algún momento. Imagino). Realiza un análisis mayormente ético, de cómo hacer ciencia y cómo no hacerla.

En la política, la desviación para explicar estructuras históricas se torna más pronunciada y dilatada. Sin embargo, si uno persevera, las nociones que Weber analiza se hacen imprescindibles para cualquier formación política: el poder legítimo o Herrschaft, la definición de Estado moderno, prebiscitario y burocrático, el concepto de líder y las éticas de la convicción y la responsabilidad. A mí me ha estimulado sobre todo la ética de la responsabilidad y la función maquinal del partido, más que nada por haber estudiado ya lo de la fuerza y el estado en la carrera.

Weber demuestra además un criterio bastante crítico con la estructura política que estudia, aunque de paso le tira una cantidad de mierda a los socialistas de su momento que me hace gracia por la desproporción, je.

[Taylor Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

A new translation of two of Weber’s more famous lectures, in which the nature of academic and political life are, in surprisingly practical detail, analyzed. There swirls an aura of disillusionment that finds, for its origin, Weber’s insistence on the quotidian, materialistic nature of the two professions—academic research and teaching, and political life—about these works: they present less-than-glamorous portraits of the academic’s work and the politician’s. There is historical analysis in these talks that is insightful, particularly in the case of the politician and the political machinery to which she or he is so often beholden, as Weber derives parliamentary democracy and constitutional authority from monarchy. Also of note are Weber’s comparisons between continental Europe and Britain, and between Europe and the United States. They are fascinating historical documents, as well, and one’s appreciation of Weber’s thought is made more magnified, or certainly it is visited by a greater clarity, with an understanding of the historical context into which they fit. There is something, too, slightly Nietzschean in Weber’s insistence on redemption—I am overlaying interpretation, of course, onto the work—despite disenchantment: “We should set to work and meet ‘the demands of the day’—of our life’s work—both professionally and personally. This is easy to do, though, as long as we each find and obey the daemon that holds in its hands the threads of our own life.” Even today, one hundred years from the past, and beset by troubles uniquely our own, Weber’s voice resonates with something of value. Why do research? Why be called to cast the year’s of one’s life at the “slow and difficult drilling of holes into hard boards,” as Weber evocatively calls politics? Perhaps because “to achieve what is possible in the world, one must constantly reach for the impossible.” But do not mistake Weber for those hollow ‘life-coaches’ that market their wishful thinking, peddling the deception of empty words capturing even more vacuous dreams: “Only those who are certain they won’t be shattered when the world turns out to be too ignorant or evil for what they are trying to give it—those who can say, even when faced with all that, ‘And yet!’—only they are truly called to do the work of politics.”

[Poncho González · Rating 4 out of 5]

de creerse o no, hoy seguimos teniendo los mismos problemas políticos que hace 100 años cuando se dio esta conferencia, es inquietante pensar que en 100 años no hemos avanzado nada en temas políticos y nos seguimos quejando de lo mismo, no hemos logrado cambiar las cosas, lo políticos de hace 100 años son igual de malos que nuestros políticos actuales y muy probablemente los políticos de en 100 años sigan siendo iguales a los de hoy.

una lectura muy interesante, interesante en el hecho de que lo que se dijo hace 100 años tiene la misma vigencia en la actualidad.

no entrare en muchos detalles del libro, ya que el mismo libro habla de tantas cosas que es imposible juntarles en un texto, me gustaron muchas de las ideas del autor, con mucha visión y nos narra cosas que todos sabemos, pero el sabe colocar las palabras adecuadas para expresar esa realidad que se vivía y se sigue viviendo.

al ser unas conferencias, el autor en ocasiones divaga mucho y deja muchas ideas al aire, ya que como tal no es un texto, no se pudieron corregir en el momento y lo que estamos leyendo es la oratoria de unos discursos que en partes se muestra carente de estructura.

muy buenas ideas que podemos recoger del texto pero algo mal distribuidas, aun asi es un relato que vale mucho la pena leer ya que te explicara cosas que tu sabes que existen, pero te aclarara un poco el panorama de nuestras situaciones políticas en todos los países del mundo.

[Matt Branum · Rating 5 out of 5]

This superb new translation presents Weber’s genius in conversational and captivating tone. The Vocation Lectures speak meaningfully to contemporary questions about politics, ethics, and intellectual thriving, just as they did a hundred years ago.

[Marcel Santos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read just 3/4 of it. The part that interested me was the first on science. It speaks about the vocation of being a scientist in the face of hard material conditions and incentives, and to my disappointment just a little something about the making of science.

Max Weber assesses the hurdles of being a scientist vis a vis the incentives. He speaks about the scientist having the need to be also a teacher, and especially a popular one, in order to have good conditions to research. Interesting is the passage in which he describes the mindset already present in the educational system in the US in comparison to the one in Germany. US Education was like a commodity, and the relationship between student and teacher was one derived from a service provision contract.

Another key concept is the disenchantment of the world: the more science advances, the more we demystify the world; phenomena then attributed to the work of gods or deities are now assimilated by science, reducing the space for mystical explanations. More about that here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

The second part - politics as a vocation - is an important excerpt for Political Science. It contains the famous formulation that the State has the monopoly of violence, for example, though Weber elaborates on several other issues.
The theme, however, is not of my interest. This plus the fact that this book is a transcription of a long lecture with no pauses or thematic divisions made me put it down after some struggle. In fact, this is one of the very few books that have ever made me do that.

[nino dalc]

bon on va dire je l’ai fini hein

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Front material better than lectures.

[Bernardo Furtado · Rating 5 out of 5]

Um livro extremamente claro, explicativo e enriquecedor. Uma leitura desafiante, na qual o leitor é conduzido pelo autor ao longo de diferentes períodos históricos de forma a compreender não apenas o político moderno, mas também a sua origem. Neste caminho são evitadas sempre que possível figuras e partidos em particular, uma vez que, o objetivo da obra é discutir Como fazer política e não Qual a política a praticar. Uma obra ímpar que recomendo a todos aqueles que, tal como eu, se estão a iniciar na vida política.

[Jordan Hartsfield · Rating 2 out of 5]

In his Politics lecture, Weber really seems to be laying the groundwork for neoliberalism. Skirting around any application of capitalism to the workings of politics and politicians he describes, he ascribes his criticisms to some essence of politics and power itself. There’s certainly some good stuff here, being sociological analyses of who politicians are, how professional politicians operate as opposed to, say, voluntary politicians. But there’s not much there in terms of WHY these systems operate the way they do; and he refuses explicitly to pontificate on an escape from the evils he describes. Instead, he criticizes anything or anyone that wishes to change and improve the systems which he claims diverges from the morality and ethics ascribed to anything else.
Weber also seems to have some under-analyzed views on ethics in revolution, asserting that “[… communists] are achieving exactly the SAME results as any militarist dictator precisely because they use this tool of politics?” No one can predict the end, so unless the means are ethical and just, any side that utilizes violence is unethical and indistinguishable from one another. At best, his thesis is an essentially liberal and defeatist one — politics and politicians are essentially and necessarily immoral creatures, and the problems that exist under one rule will exist under another, regardless of ideological basis.

At worst, Weber seems to be paving the way for impending fascism and Nazism - his fervent assertions that the only good leaders are those that possess “inner, charismatic qualities that turn a man into a leader”. He seems to prefer a leader with a devoted, unquestioning following to a “leaderless democracy” led by “professional politicians”. I’m curious of what he may have thought about the Nazis, but a lot of this lecture leads me to believe he would be sympathetic.

Regardless, this is a foundational work in political economy and sociology. The introduction by David Owen and Tracy B. Strong is comprehensive and compelling. But Weber would absolutely be a talking head on CNN spouting braindead takes.

[Shelley Diamond · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bill Clinton recommended the Politics lecture, so I thought I would check it out. I see why he liked it. I will cite a couple of excerpts:

"The only man who has a vocation for politics is one who is certain that his spirit will not be broken if the world, when looked at from his point of view, proves too stupid or base to accept what he wishes to offer it, and who, when faced with all that obduracy, can still say Nevertheless! despite everything."

"For politicians, the striving for power is an unavoidable tool of their trade. Thus the power instinct, as it is often called, belongs among their normal attributes. However, the sin against the holy spirit of their profession begins where this striving for power is separated from the matter in hand and becomes an object purely of self-intoxication instead of something that enters exclusively into the service of their cause. For ultimately, there are only two kinds of mortal sin in the field of politics: the lack of commitment to a cause and the lack of a sense of responsibility that is often, but not always identical with it. Vanity, the need to thrust oneself center stage, is what is most likely to lead the politician into the temptation of committing either or both of these sins. All the more, as the demagogue is forced to play for effect. Because he is concerned only with the impression he is making, he always runs the risk both of turning into an actor and of taking too lightly his responsibility for his own actions. His lack of objectivity leads him to strive for the glittering facade of power.... "

On the other hand, I thought the lecture on Science was terrible. No idea why other people seemed to like that one...

[Samuel L. Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dou quatro estrelas apenas por indecisão.

Para um livro escrito pouco depois da primeira guerra mundial, é incrivelmente presciente e duradouro. Vai à essência humana do cientista e do político. Imagino ser o tipo de livro que os ideólogos e demagogos desgostam, e, sinceramente, é por isso que é tão bom. É o tipo de livro que põe o poder em "check" ao trazer de volta a responsabilidade moral para a conversa.

Até agora, é o meu ensaio sociológico favorito.

[Jorge Ramos · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Politics means a slow, powerful drilling through hard boards, with a mixture of passion and a sense of proportion. It is absolutely true, and our entire historical experience confirms it, that what is possible could never have been achieved unless people had tried again and again to achieve the impossible in this world. But the man who can do this must be a leader, and not only that, he must also be a hero—in a very literal sense. And even those who are neither a leader or a hero must arm themselves with that staunchness of heart that refuses to be daunted by the collapse of all their hopes, for otherwise they will not even be capable of achieving what is possible today. The only man who has a “vocation” for politics is one who is certain that his spirit will not be broken if the world, when looked at from his point of view, proves too stupid or base to accept what he wishes to offer it, and who, when faced with all that obduracy, can still say “Nevertheless!” despite everything."

Enough said

[Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

“In fact, there are two kinds of deadly sin in the political realm, often the same but not always: lack of objectivity and lack of responsibility. Vanity - the need to put oneself at center stage as much as possible - is what most tempts the politician into either or both of these sins, all the more so as the demagogue has to try to be “effective,” “make an impression,” and is thus always at risk of turning into a mere actor and minimizing his own responsibility for the consequences of his actions. Losing objectivity makes him long for the brilliant appearance of power irrespective of his actual power, while irresponsibility consists in enjoying power for its own sake, not for the sake of any substantive purpose. For although, or rather because, power is the unavoidable means of all political action, and the lust for power it’s driving force, there is no more destructive corruption of political power than the parvenu blustering around, conceitedly rejoicing in feeling powerful, or worshipping in any way power as such.”

[Mihkel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kõik loodusteadused annavad meile vastuse küsimusele: mida me peame tegema, kui tahame elu üle tehniliselt valitseda? Kas me aga peame selle üle tehniliselt valitsema ja kas me tahame seda teha, ning kas sel lõpuks on tegelikult mõtet - selle jätavad loodusteadused täiesti lahendamata või võtavad seda oma eesmärkide eeldusena.

Weber teeb kohati kahtlemata tähtsate mõtteveeretuste, mis esmalt tiirlevad peaasjalikult poliitika ja hiljem teaduse hingeelu ja teostamise kirjeldamise ymber, edastamisel tyytult keerustatud sõnu, kuid yldjoontes ei tohiks tähtsaimad mõtted ka hajevil lugejast mööda minna. Aga kui keskenduda - vaev, mis end antud juhul ära tasub -, on tegemist igati paeluva ja sisult kõnetava lugemisega.

[Phil · Rating 5 out of 5]

will definitely come back to these in the future. a lot to chew on

[mohab samir · Rating 5 out of 5]

يشمل الكتاب محاضرتين القاهما فيبر بناء على رغبة الطلبة الاكاديميين ( حركة الطلاب الأحرار فى ميونيخ ) فيما يشبه اتحادات الطلبة لدينا ولكن ذات صبغة اكثر سياسية نظراً لطبيعة الفترة التى القيت فيها المحاضرات وهى فترة الثورة الديمقراطية التى تزامنت مع نهايات الحرب العالمية الأولى وسقوط الرايخ الثانى .
كانت اولى المحاضرات هى ( العلم بوصفه حرفه او مهنة ) والتى تناول فيها عدة نقاط وعوامل تدور حول نقطتين اساسيتين متعالقتين هما  (١)معنى العلم وما يمكن أن يعتبر علميا (٢) صيرورة العلم عبر التاريخ
ولا يمكن بالطبع الاجابة عن النقطة الاولى الا من خلال فهم لحظات نمو العلم وتحولاته فى الزمن . فيتناول فيبر تحليل عملية تمايز العلم التدريجى عن الدين والفلسفة والظهور الأول فى شكليته الموسوعية اللامتمايزة ، والتى دخلت فى حركة جدلية مع العقلانية الفلسفية ما أكسبها منهجاً وتنظيما محددين . ما قد ساعد على انهيار القيمة العلمية للعقل الموسوعى وزيادة قيمة العقل المتخصص والمتميز بدقة دراسته لموضوع علمى محدد . وهو ما يصعب كثيرا تحقيقه بصورة فردية حرة كما فى حالة المعارف الموسوعية . وانما يكون من خلال دراسة اكاديمية منهجية توفر للطالب آلية للدرس والبحث العلميين . ويصبح المعلم الاكاديمى وطالبه منتميين الى مجتمع علمى محدد بحيث يكون العلم المتخصص ذاته هو شاغله العقلى الاول ، اما ضروراته الحياتية فيوفرها له العلم فى المقابل بصيرورته مهنة اختصاصية يبرز فيها صاحب العلم المتخصص امكاناته العقلية وطموحاته الشخصية جنبا الى جنب وبلا تعارض .
ولكن فى خضم هذه الرحلة يتعرض فيبر للكثير من الافكار الحيوية التى ينتقل بينها بخفة سواء اطال الحديث فيها او اقتضبه قبل الرجوع الى خط البحث والتحليل الاساسى . فهو يتناول الاحداث والافكار سواء المعرقلة أو الداعمة لتطور العلم وتخصصه وتحوله الى حرفة وهى عملية اجتماعية تاريخية تشمل العديد من العوامل المتصارعة فى صيرورة حية وغير مجردة . كما يتعرض لأخلاق العلم والمعلم الاكاديمى ويميزها عن اخلاقيات الغوغائى او الداعية التى لا مكان لها فى المجتمع العلمى العملى او الاكاديمى . كما يبرز كيفية التوازى القائم بين التطور العلمى وإزالة اثر سحر العالم على العقل البشرى البدائى الأكثر لاتمايزا عن عقل الحيوان .
ان خط الدراسة التحليلية لصيرورة العمل السياسى كحرفة لدى فيبر لا يبتعد كثيرا عن خط دراسته لصيرورة العمل العلمى نظرا لكونهما مبحثين اجتماعيين يظهران بصورة فينومينولوجية ( تطورية ظاهراتيا ) على ساحة التاريخ الاجتماعى ، فهو يبحث كذلك عن اصول العمل السياسى تاريخياً وتحولاته التى اسهمت فى ابرازه وتمييزه وبالتالى فى عقلنته وانفصاله عن اشكاله البدائية المختلطة مع اشكال السلطة الاخرى كالسلطة الدينية او فى توحد اشكال السلطة الاجتماعية المختلفة فى يد واحدة او ايادى قليلة بدرجات متفاوتة .
ان صيرورة التخصص فى العمل تسير بالموازاة مع صيرورة تحول العمل الى حرفة او مهنة ذات اجر ، فكما حلل ماركس العملية التاريخية لفصل العامل عن وسائل الانتاج ، فقد قام فيبر بتحليل عملية فصل القوى السياسية الخاصة عن امتلاك المهنة السياسية وما يختص بها من ( اموال ، ابنية ، موارد طبيعية ، .... ) . فبعد ان كانت السلطة ممنوحة بحق الهى صارت تمنح او تنتزع بفضل القوة العسكرية او الثورية الاجتماعية . وبعد ان كانت موروثة بفضل وحدة الدم صارت تنتقل من يد الى يد تبعا للكفاءة او مدة فترة الانتخاب . وبعد ان كانت وحدة السلطة هى اساس استقرار الدولة صار انفصال السلطات واستقلالها حيال بعضها البعض هو اساس كل استقرار وتطور .
كما يعطى فيبر مساحة كبيرة لمناقشة العلاقة بين السياسة والاخلاق . وفى هذا الاطار يهتم بتمييزين رئيسيين فهو يميز اولا فى السياسة الفرق بين العمل السياسى والدعوة السياسية . ثم يميز فى جهة الاخلاق بين أخلاق الاعتقاد وأخلاق المسئولية . ولا مجال هنا للتناقض وانما الامر تكاملى فالسياسى صاحب الدعوة أرقى من السياسى الممتهن ، ولا يمكن للسياسى الا ان يكون براجماتياً فى كل حال . وانما المشكل الرئيسى متمثل فى مدى الحرية او التحدد القانونى المتاح لتداخل المصالح السياسية مع المصالح الشخصية الفردية . هذا من جانب ، ومن جانب اخر طبيعة العمل السياسى الراهن والتى تحتم على السياسي ان تتلطخ اخلاقياته المثالية مهما كانت بالكثير من الاتهامات بالسلبية واللاعملية . وهنا ينصح فيبر بالتكامل والمرونة فى المزج بين اخلاق الاعتقاد ( الدعوة) واخلاق المسئولية ( العملية ) وان يُفهم ان السلطة السياسية هى ما هى بفضل حقها الحصرى فى استخدام القوة .
ان الدراسات الاجتماعية التاريخية تُبرِز اكثر ما تبرِز قضية انعكاسية ذات وجهين هما (١) لا شئ دائم على ما هو عليه ، و (٢) ان كل ما هو موجود له اصل من الماضى مختلف فى شكله عما هو عليه فى الحاضر . وبالضرورة فان فهم هذه العملية لا ينفصل عن فهم واقعنا الحاضر وكيفية تحولاته واحتمالات مآلاته فى المستقبل ، وكعادة الابحاث الاجتماعية التاريخية لا نفتقد المتعة والاثارة الذهنية الناتجة عن التفاعل العقلى مع هذه التجارب التاريخية التى يحييها البحث .

[Weslley Dos Santos Graper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uma boa obra para introduzir-se ao pensamento de Weber. Nela nos são apresentado muitos de seus conceitos essenciais, além das ideias de ciência e política como vocação. A exemplo da que considero mais interessante, o "desencantamento do mundo" ou a "secularização do mundo", ocorrida na era moderna em decorrência do surgimento da ciência - interessantíssimo sua pontuação quanto a religião (especialmente a cristã) como essencial na difusão da ciência, e em como em sua época, está ciência que estava fora da "caverna de Platão", agora assume como suas novas sombras, como um novo dogma. A respeito da ciência como vocação, é interessante colocar que, como o próprio autor diz, o "jovem" que acredite ter vocação para a ciência, deve estar advertido de que deve ter uma dupla vocação, acrescendo a de professor. Quanto a "vocação para a ciência propriamente dita", Weber nos diz que obra de cientista pertinente, é obra de especialista, ou seja, com os rumos da ciência moderna, tendem sempre a especialização, um afunilamento, questão muito Interessante para refletir nos dias de hoje, no qual as produções acadêmicas se dão muito mais em quantidade a qualidade.
Caberia aqui muitas outras pontuações acerca de suas críticas aos "políticos profissionais", a conciliação entre "ética de convicção" e "ética de responsabilidade", porém finalizo este breve comentário com uma suma muito otimista: "[...] nada tem valor a menos que ele possa ser executado com entusiasmo".

[Rafael Carreño · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es crucial identificar los elementos que conectan la ciencia y la política para comprender el Estado de Derecho y definir las facultades y los límites que deben tener los engranajes sociales. Weber nos advierte que un profesor nunca debe alinear a sus alumnos con una ideología política ni moldear sus opiniones personales, y que los estudiantes deben buscar en él un guía del pensamiento crítico, no un líder. Desde aquí ya se vislumbra el rumbo de la primera conferencia, y es destacable cómo entiende ambas labores, subrayando, por ejemplo, que la vanidad puede no afectar la ciencia, pero en política tiene consecuencias graves. Esto conecta con su visión sobre cómo deben funcionar los sistemas: los funcionarios públicos deben ser especialistas objetivos y no permitir que la política contamine su labor diaria. Además, me parece interesante su análisis sobre ese llamado que él describe hacia la política, que puede llevarnos a vivir de la política o a vivir para ella.

[Yalin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book includes a masterful translation of Weber's "Vocation Lectures" as well as some good analysis and introduction to the subjects. I have at times - in other works - Weber to be hard to read, but here it was quite easy. The only downside to it all is that when reading and taking notes, you will inevitably find long paragraphs encompassing key arguments and not help but mark, in essence, entire pages. But for anyone looking to find insight on not just the historical but also the current (and all too real and relateable) direction of science, scholarship, and political engagement this book, and the lectures contain within are must reads.

[Begum Zorlu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quote: “Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.”

[Rambling Raconteur · Rating 4 out of 5]

The final fifteen pages reach a crescendo that must have been incredible when Weber delivered these in person. He quotes Fichte, Goethe, Machiavelli, and Shakespeare, but I kept thinking about George Orwell’s nonfiction and Paul Tillich’s Courage to Be. The swirl of history, ethics, and contemporary issues (for Weber and a century later) is compelling.

[William · Rating 2 out of 5]

Aika hajuton ja mauton kokonaisuus. Ensimmäinen osa, jossa Weber käsittelee tieteilijän kutsumusta, oli jokseenkin kiinnostava, mutta poliitikon kutsumusta käsittelevään toiseen osaan en päässyt lainkaan sisälle.

[Resh · Rating 3 out of 5]

i read the first lecture (not the second,, but i am still marking this as read because i read most of the like 50 page book), and i will say it's quite thought provoking and interesting. however, it's also confusing.

[Jochen Seifert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super interessante insights over wetenschap en politiek. Sowieso ooit nog een opnieuw lezen, niet het makkelijkste taalgebruik. Maw. niet alles bleef plakken