Max Weber - The Disenchantment of the World
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 бер 2023
- Dr. David M. Peña-Guzmán talks about Max Weber's concept of the "disenchantment of the world." Dis-enchantment is a reference to the end of the magical, the mysterious, the unknowable. For Weber, disenchantment is something that science produces and suffers. Understanding the crisis of meaning of the modern world thus requires thinking about the "ethical" work that science can do for human life and human existence, work that has been lost in the aftermath of the industrial revolution.
I have already had the pleasure of listening to this whole video before. But, I'm here again and decided to comment because I had to share that the content here on Overthink has such replay value that I'm not only "refreshing" my understanding of the subject, but I'm also learning about something new! Thank you
Epoch philosophy is about to drop a video on the Protestant ethic! Idk what’s going on but my undergrad sociology major is screaming!!
I remember having to write essays on science versus religion for school... I started getting the impression that science is a means and religion is an ends and have since adopted that mindset and haven't found much to falsify it... this video is fantastic, lovin' both the information and the personality
100%
I dont know if you will see this, but thank you. I am writing my thesis. Something in this video clicked and cleared a mental block i was having. You are great. ❤
Thank you, David, for that wonderful overview of Max Weber's speech at the University of Munich! I first read it thirty years ago and found it a revelation of the mindset that brought ruin to Europe and now overshadows the entire Life World. Still, there was a ray of hope in the way you presented your podcast that suggests how we might be able to think ourselves out of this predicament by respecting the essential mystery of Nature and becoming re-acquainted with its enchanting side.
This is incredible work!
Thank you so much for the video 💕🤗
I love the length of it bc it allows you to go a little bit deeper into the topic. I feel like i get a lot more inspiration for further thinking/reading when watching these 20-30 mins videos 🤓
The term "instrumental reason" comes to my mind all the time. It solicits a word to represent what isn't instrumental reason, and there we run into difficulties because a lot of people will roll their eyes if you say, "spirituality". It's actually a concern with the whole, rather than the part, but this leads us to another dreaded word, "holistic". Perhaps the problem with the wording is illustrative of the problem itself.
MOST interesting subject - and thank you for the clarity with which you bring it to light.🙏
I’ve recently come across a Buddhist critique of the rational materialism and by association the complete a-ethical position of science driven, Capitalism & Communism - which has lead us inevitably down the mono-value road of materialism, and the disenchantment of science. This is where science loses its magic and the worlds resources are plundered in the triumph of materialism. By contrast the Buddhist position of ‘The World’ as samsara or suffering was discussed and the ethical merits of the idea of giving up ‘The World’ or the rejection of worldliness as the only goal of life was rejected - I need to continue contemplating this issue myself - but thank you David, Overthink ( & Weber) for raising it. 🙏
Ooo you inspired me to look into what modern Vedic scholars and teachers have said on this, thank you!
Well done David! I really enjoyed your overview. Gracias
excellent, thanks
Interesting to think about this relation to politics today. For example, one imagines a time when political debates used to be over values, and those values would help to shape and inform policies in important and consequential ways - that is, policies were an extension of our values and subject to updating and refining. There was a sense, rightly or wrongly, that politics were fluid and dynamic, being shaped by the collective, the so-called “will of the people,” under democratic governance. If we didn’t like something, how a policy was being carried out, if we decided it was out of line with our values, it could be changed, corrected. That does not feel like the case today. Now values are assumed, presupposed, hard lines are draw in advance. Why? Policy is a technical matter, beyond the understanding of the average citizen and thus beyond debate. There are the special select groups - the cabals of credentialed elites - that know best. They alone have access to the knowledge. They’ve studied the relevant topic and know the answers, the best - the only - ways in which to respond. This understanding is beyond debate. We defer to them. Policies are formed and determined by this set of “experts,” on any given side, thus rendering our politics essentially route, meaningless - the outcomes in some ways predetermined.
Lessssss gooo I love this channels uploads
Clear explanation of an early 20th century idea based on attitudes that seem to be... at best naive in hindsight (if I understand correctly)🙏
We know a lot more about how much we don’t know now, and it’s way more than we imagined ever existing in the first place. Talk given during “the war to end all wars” which was horrifying but only a fraction of what was to come less than 20 years later, which in turn is just a drop in the bucket to what we can do now.
Rough.
Hindsight? The world of academia is still heavily based on both business and perpetual pursuit of progress. The cult of personality is still very important in modern day science and scientism. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dr Fauci, Bill Nye, ect.
Brilliant thanks