Reflection on Class 6

Hello everyone:

After discussing the book in class and hearing Phil's take on what Weber was shooting for, I decided to go back and read the introduction portion, followed by Science as a Vocation, and then look at the end of Politics to see if my take on the lecture changed. Needless to say, it did - finding the same thematic undertones in the Science lecture shed some light on the Politics lecture. Weber discusses that in terms of how far science has "advanced" us, the savage still knows more about how to build a cart than an enlightened person knows about how his car works (pg. 12-13). This is an interesting comparison to make, and he carries on to mention that all the political economists in the world put into one room would each give you a different answer as to why your money buys X goods today and Y goods tomorrow - the savage, meanwhile, knows how to procure his own food and other goods through practical applications. This is Weber's pushing for specialization in science, which is similar to pushing for "specialization" in any career; by having it be one's vocation. One who is called to be a scholar will be far better disposed to make good his career than one who enters it in order to make money. The same holds true for a politician.

Similarly, Weber then goes through and tears science apart as a vocation, citing the example of doctors: they mindlessly preserve the lives of their patients even if those patients would prefer release from their suffering. The doctors base their work on the presupposition that all life is worth saving all the time (pg. 18). He does this in order to attack people who believe in science without any presuppositions, which he finds hypocritical that many of these people attack religious presuppositions in the same manner - that taking something on faith is ludicrous (pg. 17-18). Weber later goes on to explain the actual benefits of scholarship as a vocation (in his opinion), but only after bringing his audience back down to Earth. In the same manner, addressing the blindly hopeful in the aftermath of Germany’s defeat in WWI, Weber is attempting to ground his listeners. In this atmosphere, Weber explains that no one leader or politician will be able to magically pull Germany out of its financial and other economic situation – long term investment and commitment is needed. Allowing the ethics of conviction to guide one of his audience would (and in many cases, probably did) lead them to make leadership decisions that ended quite poorly, yet they took no responsibility in the matter. He instead pushes for the ethics of responsibility.

The similarity between the two that I find the most compelling is on the last page (pg. 32) of the Science Lecture, and near the end (page 92) of the Politics Lecture. Weber takes all of what he has said in each, where he splits science from morality/religion, and ethics of responsibility from ethics of conviction, and explains that a vocation in either field is only present in the person who manages a synthesis of the two attributes. For the scholar, there is the preferred mixture of taking the presuppositions of science in stride but also pursuing change in the world as a moral agent (pg. 32). This dichotomy is not made as clear as that of the politician, however: Weber is taken aback whenever he meets a mature person who manages to not only pursue political ends because he believes they are the right path to take, but is completely aware that he must take responsibility if his endeavor fails or causes evil in some manner.

I really got more out of reading this in order, with the introductions as part of my reading. I suggest the same to anyone else who has the time.

-Mike