The meanings of understanding in the theories of Weber and Habermas
About PhilPapers
General Editors:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
JeeLoo Liu
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Gualtiero Piccinini
Giuseppe Primiero
Theron Pummer
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell Rowbottom
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Robin Smith
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Lynne Tirrell
John Wilkins
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
JeeLoo Liu
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Gualtiero Piccinini
Giuseppe Primiero
Theron Pummer
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell Rowbottom
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Robin Smith
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Lynne Tirrell
John Wilkins
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
Trans/Form/Ação 36 (SPE):221-244 (2013)
Abstract |
Partindo do pressuposto de que a teoria social elaborada por Habermas em muito se assemelha àquela construída por M. Weber, procedeu-se a um estudo comparativo com a intenção de identificar as formas pelas quais Weber e Habermas elaboraram o conceito de compreensão, ao mesmo tempo em que e o elegeram, cada um a seu modo, como instrumento metodológico adequado às dificuldades da produção de conhecimento científico nas Ciências Sociais. Tanto para Weber, como para Habermas, o conhecimento nas Ciências Sociais não consegue escapar das influências diretas da subjetividade do cientista, como também não é capaz de se proteger das contingências histórico-culturais aos quais inevitavelmente toda ação humana está vinculada. Por isso, fundamentados em suas próprias razões, tanto Weber quanto Habermas apontam a compreensão como a forma possível de conhecimento, o que implica a renúncia às pretensões explicativas e à produção de teorias gerais de fundamentação última, que são típicas das ciências convencionais. Assuming that the social theory developed by Habermas is very similar to that constructed by M. Weber, this article performs a comparative study with the intention of identifying the ways in which Weber and Habermas built the concept of understanding. Both authors chose this concept, each in his own way, as a methodological tool appropriate to the difficulties of the production of scientific knowledge in the social sciences. As much for Weber as for Habermas, knowledge in the social sciences cannot escape the direct influences of the subjectivity of the scientist, as it also cannot protect itself from the historical and cultural contingencies to which every human action is inevitably linked. Therefore, based on their own reasons, both Weber and Habermas point to understanding as the possible form of knowledge, which implies the renunciation of the explanatory pretensions and general theories of ultimate foundations typical of the conventional sciences
|
|||||||||
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
Categories | (categorize this paper) | |||||||||
Options |
|
|||||||||

PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 13,476 |
External links |
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy) |
Through your library |
|

No references found.

No citations found.

Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn (1997). Webers Idealtypus AlS Methode Zur Bestimmung Des Begriffsinhaltes Theoretischer Begriffe in den Kulturwissenschaften. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28 (2):275 - 296.
Reihan Salam (2003). Habermas Vs. Weber on Democracy. Critical Review 15 (1-2):59-85.
Lauro Frederico Barbosa da Silveira (2013). Habermas Reading Peirce. Trans/Form/Ação 36 (SPE):33-44.
Harry F. Dahms (1997). Theory in Weberian Marxism: Patterns of Critical Social Theory in Lukacs and Habermas. Sociological Theory 15 (3):181-214.
Jason L. Powell (ed.) (2012). Habermas. Nova Science Publishers.
Tony Smith (1981). The Scope of the Social Sciences in Weber and Habermas. Philosophy and Social Criticism 8 (1):68-83.
Clodomiro José Bannwart Júnior (2013). The Evolutionary Perspective in Habermas' Critical Social Theory. Trans/Form/Ação 36 (SPE):67-86.

Monthly downloads |
Added to index2013-06-01Total downloads30 ( #69,139 of 1,691,121 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #183,891 of 1,691,121 )How can I increase my downloads? |
