Open AccessFerdinand Tönnies és a korai társadalomtudományok, II. rész
Author(s) -
Еndre Kiss
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
kaleidoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2062-2597
DOI - 10.17107/kh.2021.22.147-155
Subject(s) - natural (archaeology) , natural science , interpretation (philosophy) , epistemology , magic (telescope) , ideal (ethics) , sociology , history , philosophy , physics , archaeology , linguistics , quantum mechanics
In Tönnies’ interpretation, it must be emphasized that the scientific approach of the society, i.e. the social sciences contain delayed branches. The temporal difference is particularly striking related to the natural sciences and exists permanently in specific features. In the past when the early social scientists appeared natural sciences were already in the most modern phase of their evolution as we experience it even today. We can point out Tönnies’ specific works published in the same year as Einstein’s special theory of relativity. We are currently far away from explaining this time shift. Hypothesizing this, there are two possible reasons. The first one might be the force of attraction of the modern natural sciences, which demonstrated almost every day the effectiveness of its scientific methodology. The „method ideal” of natural sciences was an irresistible magic attraction. The second reason can exist in the new motivations, which might have been triggered by the enlightened, emancipative and already socialist movements in the last third of the 19th century. For pioneers of social sciences, there was no „great theory”. No „normal science” existed since it was during hard labour and no scientific community existed at that time. However, can exist either (on which the many questionings according to the protagonists’ cooperation are really depending). It is also not different with the public and the larger scientific community, that we generally call „audience” („Publikum”). This stipulates, that the protagonists must always play several roles. Whether they want or do not, they must at least unite in themselves the philosopher’s and the scientist’s function. The only thing that exists is the „object”, the society as the new object of science. Their methods should dispose of a theoretical-epistemological dimension so that however this dimension should not be philosophical, should then not refer to general objectivity, but to an already earlier qualified particular objectivity.