I really love that rattling sound at the beginning of your videos. It's like signalling my brain that I'm going to learn something new and interesting, and that makes me feel good. :)
00:00 Sociology - Max Weber 00:41 1. Why does Capitalism exists? 01:18 i) Protestantism makes you feel guilty 01:51 ii) God likes hard work 02:13 iii) All work is holy 02:35 iv) It's the community, not the family, that counts 02:59 v) There aren't miracles 03:06 The disenchantment od the world 03:58 2. How do you develop Capitalism around the world? 05:23 3. How can we change the world? 05:43 Traditional authority 05:52 Charismatic authority 06:02 Bureaucratic authority
@@thephilosophicalspartan4813 Rest is fulfilling appreciation in shared awareness. In terms of balance and meaning in life - to work without rest and without the renewal and inspiration is 666 - never comes the day of deeply shared appreciation. No depth becomes superficial substitution for life. Plundering or exploiting a sense of scarcity and lack in mutual distrust of false with-ness and false worth-ship. As for a god bothering - surely this is your mind projecting back. If you cant be bothered then you can expect the same. I don't know as to the number 1000 - but the first 'gods' were planets and their 'Suns' were the Eras or Ages of Man's development. Current dogma doesn't allow a recognition of this as historical experience - but in official cosmology there is the times scale of Astronomic as VAST and to us extremely slow while the spin rate of an Atom is unimaginable FAST and tiny. So I suggest a fractal and holographic view in which significance or meaning is inherent at all scales - but not as an add-on of human manufacture so much as innate relational expression of the whole in and as all its parts. This power holds all things already one - even if it nature is in a sense more like to a stillness or zero point from which all self differentiation arises as an expression of and within infinite potential. The separation from 'gods' God or Power in and through all things is a working illusion. The ability to not be bothered remains the capacity to care enough to matter to yourself or incarnate and embody caring as an expression of accepted self appreciation. A working illusion is like inherited and acquired cultural baggage. Old ideas can run by default until and unless you care enough to question them in relation to who you truly are. I don't see a difference between electrical and magnetic expression of qualities into quantities in principle when operating at different scales. But I see human thinking gaining a world but losing the Soul of the felt qualities of being. It isn't that we don't care or lack faith but that we care for our illusions and give faith to maintaining their sustainability - instead of aligning in what sustains us. If we are denied dreaming we very quickly become psychotic. While sleep is part of this, we mostly live in dream or narrative framings that offset, adjust, evade or seek to control, predict, possess or deny reality of actual or intimate relation. Curious that our sense of time is spent out of true currency and that mis-timings can set all things awry. If you can give yourself what you truly need - you can rest in its acceptance. You will then appreciate a 'god' or power of connected being - because that is who and what you are the expression of.
This video is misleading. Max Weber never said that capitalism was created by protestantism. He said that, among several other factors (economical, technological, law codification, new kind of rationality), a specific form of religiosity (ascetic protestantism) had some uninentional influence on the development of A specific form of capitalism which is the modern enterprise capitalism. Just read the book
so to summarize Protestantism did create A capitalism, so technically they aren't incorrect. Nevertheless, yes, they are only emphasising on "Protestantism" part. But its scary how accurate Weber is, because take for example most of the underdeveloped country have everything required for capitalism to flourish but they are still stuck why?
Sorry, i think you got it wrong. On this precise point, the video is completely incorrect and reproduces a view of Weber that has often been criticized by Weber's specialists. The ethos of a particular form of protestantism (the notions of beruf-vocation, of confirmation and the need to work for God's glory) has had some unintentional influence on the development of a particular form of capitalism. As for your example of "underdeveloped country", the phenomenon can't be explain by Weber's theory because its aim is not to prove that protestant countries are more developed.... Sociology is a beautiful science and needs its supporters to be very precise in the terms they use. I can't help but suggest you read the book
I see, thank you for the clarification. But it just so happens that protestant countries are more developed than lets take for example most Hindu countries, why is that so? I am just curious, I mean no harm.
El capitalismo aventurero existió siempre, solo en ciertas condiciones (de las cuales es que Weber intenta desprender el análisis religioso) se crea el capitalismo moderno occidental. Es interesante que este análisis de la Praxis occidental del capitalismo va de la mano con lo explicado por Marx sobre la acumulación originaria, y con la visión más actual sobre la historia de Inglaterra y Alemania en aquellos años. Otro ejemplo enorme es el protectorado de Cromwell, para aquellos interesados en el tema de cómo religión y sociedad van cambiando en conjunto. Saludos.
Unintentionally or not it is still an influence. I don't know why are you guys that bothered. If a police kills someone unintentionally he's still killed the person. If you hit someone unintentionally you've still hit the person.
It IS great. But be sure to look at primary texts when you get the chance because this is just one possible interpretation of some very complex philosophy. Some people just take it as given that this is the right answer. ;-)
Don't you love it when someone so eloquently voices what you're thinking; I am a fan of Weber if this video is anyghing to go by. Thanks for the video.
These videos are doing so well to satisfy a much needed way to spread important concepts that aren't included in most general schooling curricula, which has lead to an uninformed population universally. Hopefully this channel continues to gain traction because there's a lot of important stuff here which would help to improve the way we think about the systems we have in place now, and to analyse them a lot more critically and bring more diverse thinking to the table, as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the bureaucratic elite at present. I'm learning so much from your channel and videos, thank you!!
Chris Latsinos I second you in every your word. It was the exact idea I had right after the videos of Adorno and this one. The system in place likes to keep us uninformed, distracted, confused and unwilling toward any critical optics. Me too, I am learning so much, in the sense of getting informed and questioning my own decisions and society, rather than on a knowledge per se.Thank you very much to this channel for presenting it in an accessible form for common people.
So good. I've got my sociology exam tomorrow. Pretty sure I learned more from this video about Weber's views than from the ten's of pages in my text book which state his ideas. Thank you
@@abdeeqahmed5936 awesome to look back and reflect. But now im a psychologist haha. Actually I was studying Sociology in Mandarin (not my native language) so thats probably why i had no idea what i was doing or reading
Leo H Slavoj Zizek is a contemporary slovenian philosopher. His philosophy is a mix between marxist thought, hegelian philosophy and lacanian psychoanalysis. If you look besides the fact that he is a very charismatic person, the reason why he is famous, is because of his critique of ideology. Zizek argues that our reality is structured through unconscious fantasies. For more I recommend what ***** mentioned, The Perverts Guide to Cinema, or, The Perverts Guide to Ideology. If you want to read some of his books, I will recommend his The Sublime Object of Ideology.
Alain de Botton Love the theory, hate the theorist. C'mon Alain, give to the devil what belongs to the devil. haha. Zizek's voice is incredibly important today.
Dear School of Life, I would like to add that the Disenchantment of World, was not caused only by Clavinism, but by also the Buracratisation of the Authority in Modern Society. Love your channel
+The School of Life why is Alaska in the red zone? It's a state of the US, and if we were going from which states are in turmoil surely California would be red too?
Weber doesn't even claim Calvinism CAUSED disenchantment with the world (nor does he give any other explicit reasons for that), he points out that it had always existed, and refuged into cloisters! Take e.g. Luther, I think that qualifies as "protestant work ethics", but he wasn't fond of turning away from the world, for more than just one reason, while not being able to agree with Catholism on a fundamental level - and we do know how that story turned out. It's more like a certain type of personality, and work force, that seems to have found their place IN the world, who can be attached to Protestanism. Weber claims though, it was Calvin who really established and exported Protestanism into the world (namely England, "New England"/North America, Holland), influencing the quality and quantity to which Capitalism developed there, and imo that does seem to have some reason in it. E.g., good old Scrooge came into my mind, he actually seems to be the most extreme example of just those Calvinist qualities - but, he doesn't love his fellow poeple, because, he has no self love either, hence he forgot one fundamental Christian order, that's valid regardless of confession. ...Think about it.
Hi! I love your videos, and I find them extremely helpful for my Sociology AS level. Can you do a video on other sociological perspectives such as functionalism (Durkheim, Parsons)/feminism/postmodernism? :) Thank you xx
CrackThoseClaws i freaking second you. i hope i dont fail tomorrow. i get the whole Protestanism thing--but that's the ONLY thing i acutally understand with Weber.
Alain, Just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy your work here. I wonder if you might do a video on Pierre Bourdieu, considering his importance to contemporary social theory and its spirit of pragmatism and resistance.
This video sums up my life's ambitions. I did not grow up in a religious household. Work is my religion. As weird as it may seem, but it is engrained in myself. If i call off work i feel a sense of guilt. It has never mattered what job I have had.
I love Max Weber and I think it's also important to mention his theory of the human action that was pioneer of the "micro-sociologies" and inspired (in various ways) social scientists and intellectuals such as Alfred Schutz, Harold Garfinkel, Peter Winch, George Herbert Mead, Talcott Parsons or Erving Goffman. Lots of their theories focused on interpretation of the daily actions and I think that people undervalue them. Daily action is also important when explaining the estructures and norms of society and I think focusing on such themes (they may sometimes seem banal) is also essential when studying sociology. Nice videos, by the way.
Japan is a capitalist, prosperous and first world country, yet it doesn't have protestant ideals in it's background and the family is still highly valued. What gives?
Check out Zizek on Buddhism. Japan has a very strict sense of duty, probably the most metaphysical part of their culture. Lemme remind you about samurais and kamikazes. This is like the epitome of working yourself to death and favouring and institution above human individuality.
Japan took the west (and especially the US) as a model in many ways since the mid/late 19th century. Of course, their culture is somewhat compatible with the ideas of capitalism, but back when they first decided to "westernize" there was a lot of turmoil as a result of their way of life clashing with the new foreign ideas that -they knew- they had to accept if the were to avoid becoming China (which was humiliated by the -more advanced- western powers at that time).
But no one's talking about Marxism in this thread, so why are you mentioning it? Weber is actually trying to offer an alternative view on the subject that doesn't rely solely on economic factors to explain the whole system. Whether or not this is what all Marxists assert (let alone Marx) is another matter entirely. As silverskid explained elsewhere in the comments: "[Weber] merely states that cultural forces are equally important to get a full picture."
It's somewhat key to point out I think that Weber had a very specifically defined argument; that it was a specific type of religion that contributed (as opposed to being a direct result of) to a very specific type of capitalism, and not necessarily in an economic sense but in a kind of 'spirit of' sense. To suggest that he was trying to create an opposing theory to Marx isn't really the full story.
Some problems with this analysis: some rich capitalist nations are catholic and capitalism works just fine in non-christian East Asian countries (Japan, South Korea, Singapore and China more everyday).
Weber was specifically describing capitalism in western societies. He goes into great depths to explain that there is a difference between western capitalism and capitalism in Asian countries and that his analysis is on western capitalism. He also explains this difference in terms of religious ideals (Asian countries having more "mystical", other-worldly religions and Western countries having ascetic, inner-worldly religions) and how these differences play out in the economy.
celeneky fine if that is true that idealogy influences wealth then why up to 15th or 16th china and india are most wealthy nations.... Adam Smith claimed China had long been one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious, most prosperous and most urbanized countries in the world...according to british economist angus madisson china is the largest economy and richest upto 16th centuary The gross domestic product of Mughal India in 1600 was estimated at about 24.3% the world economy, the second largest in the world at that time...presently the world gdp share of u.s which is richest country in the world is about 19%... i think max weber completely gone wrong in his analysis....
***** Weber analyzed the case of India in his book "Hinduism and Buddhism". The video extrapolates his tesis. If you want, Weber's question is how a pitiful country like Great Britain came dominate over much wealthier countries as India, and to smack the face of the Chinesse empire. European powers managed to develop very rapidly incredible sources of power and the means to administer them, the question is, what on those countries allowed such changes. A purely marxist perspective would say, "well, they had the Wealth of America", then you realize, that much of that wealth, specially it's silver, ended throught trade in China and India, why didn't they started the industrial revolution?
+Philippe Belanger Max Weber is talking about the genesis of capitalism, not whether capitalism works in non-protestant countries. Weber also wrote a book about religion around the world. His theory suggest only Christianity (Calvinism) can give birth to capitalism/modern industrialism. He argues that Catholicism, Dadaism and Hinduism discourage monetary cumulation and scientific and social progress. Unlike Protestants (christians who protest against the catholic church), these religions encourage submission to earthly authority and hedonism. Japan and many other Asian countries intimate Capitalistic countries only when they observe the benefit of Capitalism. The logic is clear: you don't need Protestants in your country to adopt capitalism.
+tasurrincci we dont industrial revolution before great britan arrived to india..india was highly industralised economy...we have textile,ship building,world famous stell and other mineral industry....then comes the question how great china and india lost battles to britian which had smaller forces...answer is simple divide and rule and gun against people who uses swords...
This is great. I would just mention that marxian analysis is very complementary to weberian analysis, as provided, for example, by thinkers like Antonio Gramsci or Erik Olin Wright. This, despite the orthodox (and sometimes stupid) marxist refusal for taking into account religion and the deep cultural dimensions of society as an important component and value. Thank you!
The idea of Bureaucratic Authority is very interesting; something I had thought about before but didn't have the concept to articulate. Once again, nice video!
His conclusion is very interesting and very applicable to the climate crisis. Money and technology are only tools -- and they certainly help, we shouldn't underestimate their power -- but what is ultimately needed to achieve long-lasting change is your purpose, outlook and ideology. I also find it interesting how, counterintuitively, gradual change in policies is more productive/leads to more change in the long run than a complete overturn of the system/someone radical/a revolution.
Weber's and Marx's ideas on religion and politics, that were brought up in the video, actually do well to support one another. With religion, the people are able to tolerate capitalism (Marx) and they may also be driven to be capitalistic (Weber). This can be seen in secularism on the political compass; secular people tend to be leftist, and religious people tend to be rightists.
waxosoax For the most part, School of Life seems more interested in reporting what an individual believed and put forth, and less inclined to deliver conjecture on who was right or why. So, bias is to be expected without necessarily being evidence of endorsement.
3:45 Marx didn’t mean it like that. He meant that religion is something that’s relaxing the masses in such dark times of inequality. Opium in those times was used as a medicinal drug for pain.
I wonder if exporting all of that post-modern, cultural relativism in universities for the last 60 years severely impeded the transition of those clan oriented, superstitious, & short-term-planning cultures to a more Western, albeit more anxious ones. It's strange to think of the dreaded "globalized mono-culture" as a force of good (in moderation, of course).
Paul Keefer The global mono culture I think is pretty clearly a net good. Because it is a two way street, the variation between the US and France (for example) is much less today, BUT the variation within BOTH France and the US is also greater. So cultures are getting "wider" even as they move closer together.
Rockn Outt How can variation within the countries be greater is they are sharing more and more of the same goods and services? For example; if there are more and more IKEAs every year, and more and more houses filled with IKEA furniture, where is the variation /within/ each culture?
Eric John Well I think you need to take a step back. Lets assume there is IKEA and Target (american retailer that sells some furniture). Target is only in the US (where it began) and IKEA is only in Sweden. At this point when speaking about furniture both countries are very different. People in Sweden have totally different furniture than those in the US. But enter globalization, now people in both Sweden and the US have BOTH stores, IKEA and Target (because both countries expanded globally). Now see that Sweden and the US have less variance, as in both people in both countries have the same furniture (a mix of Target and IKEA) but the variation WITHIN each nation is also greater. As in they both went from having only IKEA or only Target to having both choices. So the variation BETWEEN the 2 countries is actually less, but WITHIN each country there is much more variation. Not the best example but I think you can see my point.
Rockn Outt Your 'global mono culture' is not desirable. You forgot that Target and IKEA are fundamentally corporations. Your local ethnic food place is another expression of globalized capitalism. The cultic and heroic principles of the Ancient world were devised by peoples, consciously or not, for the sake of happiness and spirituality that was specific to their time and place. Modernity is the destruction of these ways of life. Do Swedes derive happiness from commodities they buy/sell through IKEA? Perhaps, but that is ultimately materialistic thinking.
lliihhaann Friend, I think you misunderstood me completely! Those were weak examples of a principle, not a globalization "success story". Replace Target and IKEA with philosophy, religion, art, anything. You can find great anime in the US, watch great south Korean films in Europe, Soccer/futbol!, I just got a "flat white" at Starbucks the other day a drink invented in Australia, I can eat (pretty) good food from China, India, Pakistan, Greece, and many more within minutes of my suburban home in the US. So both in Australia and here we're drinking "flat white" coffees, does that sound like evil corporations? Or like "mono culture"? My roommate binge watching anime in Japanese? Is that the destruction of our culture? I think not! So try to take the example I gave with Target and IKEA and simply replace it with any idea, cultural norm, art, etc. We share a more common culture because we can experience more of other cultures than ever before and its natural to take the best and leave the rest. The Chinese export their rich culture with martial arts classes and great food and they watch US films, play soccer, and wear Nike in return. Long winded but whatever
I have learned many articles about the subject, but this video through a pedagigical style, has concentrated the essence of the contribution of Max Weber to the explanation of historical evolution of societies. and how could new ideas generate an impulse in the history of societies. culture, through language is a big and important part of human progress: protestantism, in its Calvinistic version- has bring new values and terms and ideas about time, god, individual in its relation to society-namely that a part of the self is Embedded in the others- . All that has changed the way we think about the evolution of the sources of political power's legitimacy and therefore the progress in societies. This is what I have learned from this instructive and valuable video?. Thank you very much
Are you planning on doing the other founding sociologists like Comte, Martineau, DuBois, Mills or Spencer? The four sociology videos you posted are great!
why are iceland, greenland, alaska, singapore, taiwan and hong kong not considered "blue" capitalist countries? granted, most of these can be seen as territories of countries, but it seems kinda funny that ukraine is considered a "successful" capitalist country whereas iceland or singapore is not
Edward Said's post-colonial theory would turn Max Weber's misunderstanding of non-western countries' failure to adapt such systems on its head; and why adapting them works against their benefit. It affects them not just on a spiritual level, but relates to invasiveness of such alien systems threatning one's cultural identity. It is a huge reason why there's an uprising of extreme nationalist movements in the greater middle-east for example. Great Job on your videos. I like how you take the substance of a person you talk about and do not add any personal bias.
This is excellent. But I would like to suggest that Weber's idea that capitalism was in part a product of religion does not necessarily negate that of Marx's "opium of the people". In fact, it strengthens it; if it is indeed the case that Protestantism helped to create the conditions for capitalism, that religious fervor could act to blind one's mind to the social relations that capitalism itself brought about (until you happen to read Marx!). This is, of course, the basis for any critique of ideology. I would have also liked to see a bit about Weber's "ideal types", as this is a huge contribution to the methodology involved in modern sociology. Cheers!
How applicable is Weber's "Protestant-based" analysis today? Protestants and Catholics alike in Europe have reaped the benefits of capitalism, and nations like Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam, India all have strong work ethic but have accepted/rejected capitalism to different degrees. Nations like Scandinavian countries maintain strong capitalist economies despite being overwhelmingly atheist or agnostic. Has there been a more modern analysis to identify what truly differentiates effective capitalist economies from the ineffective capitalist economies?
Sounds incredibly eurocentric to me. I mean, it would be hard to argue that capitalism hasn't flourished immensely in Japan or South Korea, but they are neither protestant nor under the sway of a similar guilt-bearing religion. Similarly, there are catholic nations which have flourished with capitalism. More majority-catholic nations on that world map were colored blue than protestant ones, point of fact. Given these facts, the lack of effectiveness of foreign aid seems to better fit a Marxist analysis, than one by Weber, in that those nations are poor for the same reason that there are wide sections of those capitalist nations which are unemployed. Their labor is simply unnecessary to meet the demands of the market, which itself does not include them because they lack the wealth to purchase at the same rates as capitalist nations. They are given money, which they in turn spend on goods from the West which is universally cheaper than making such goods themselves, thus perpetuating their own largely unemployed status. Adding on top of this the imperialist exploitation of their natural resources by industrialized economies, it is no wonder capitalism doesn't seem to be helping such nations as much as others. The religious affiliation of those nations which capitalism first took hold seems more coincidence than causal.
gnet kuji Weber never analyzed the 1rst/3rd world dilemma. It cannot be asked to him to answer for what he didn't intended a answer. That's the channels fault for extrapolating his tesis beyond it's borders. Weberian thought explains why do people values growth, effienciency and rationalization as ends on themselves. It's not just coincidence that the Industrial revolution started on the Anglosaxon world, but then we're speaking of the 18th century. Another thing is that Catholics came too to be forced to industrialize. Eventually, from the needs of competition, the "protestant ethos" spread and secularized, but the original craddles were still dominant for most of the 19th century.
gnet kuji Japan and South Korea are predominantly Confucian, which shares a very similar work ethos than Protestantism. Self-improvement, frugality and hard work.
***** Japan is not Confucian, nor were they at the time of Weber's writing. They were, as they are today, mostly Shintoist with a large minority of Buddhists. All other religions, including both Christianity and Confucianism, make up less than ten percent of the population combined. There was so called "Neo-Confucianism" during the Edo period, but it was entirely dead and replaced by the time Japan's borders were opened and industrialization began. As for Korea, the research there is confusing because the state has an odd way of classifying religions which leaves nearly half the country as being counted as having "no religion." Even so, most estimates place Confucianism in South Korea at less than 2% of the population. Historically, the Joseon were Neo-Confucianist even after it had fallen out of favor in Japan, but it largely died out with the end of the Joseon kingdom at the end of the 19th century, long before the mass industrialization of Korea.
gnet kuji Japan underwent a similar process with confucianism, as catholics did with protestantism. It's tennets took hold, more from the force of social institutions thanfrom actual worship.
gnet kuji He did try to analyse Chinese and Indian structures of authority, and I've heard that he did a bad job at it. Having read quite a lot of Weber I agree with your comment and I think the video is somewhat misleading. I don't think that 'Protestantism and the spirit of capitalism' actually suggested that Protestantism lead to capitalism, just that they had striking similarities. If we were being generous to Weber we could argue that a Weberian analysis would suggest that each society would develop a capitalism that fits their ethic. Although we shouldn't forget that Protestantism went hand in hand with colonialism. Making colonies productive and making colonies christian were still synonyms in Weber's day.
Amazing video! Thanks. I'd like to see a video about the connection between the concept of measuring things and resources and capitalism (eg. time, money).
I've had his book on my to read list for years and never got around to it so thanks for the summary. Don't like to expose my ignorance but who we're the leaders whose photos appeared repeatedly around the six minute mark?
Well done as always, did noticed with the world map about countries with capitalism you didn't include Alaska with the United States? Just three years after Max Weber was born the US bought it from Russia. Also what about and theory of Education section?
+Imran Nazir Weber is not saying that Protestantism is the only cause of Capitalism, he is saying that capitalism has multiple causality and he uses the protestant ethic as an example of one of the causalities. He says that because people are governed so much by religion and because of their wholehearted believe and desire in religious commands, people felt obliged to work hard and similarly any sort of culture, religion, etc that people internalize has the potential to cause major change i.e capitalism. Therefore because of Chinese, Japanese etc culture also advocates for hard work which is engraved in the people thus the development of their economies.
I'm loving the videos; great explanations of great minds! Although I consider the analyses of capitalism you have provided to be profound, I do think they are too one-sided. In order to provide a well-balanced point of view, I believe you should also consider thinkers that support capitalism, or at least highlight its benefits. If your aim is to stimulate critical thinking, it's my opinion that you should always provide both theses and antitheses.
Protestanism with maxim,, Work as much as you can, earn as much money as you can, give as much as you can'' is the highest form of Christianity to date. It enabled creation of modern world.
For those of you who think Weber was only talking about Germany or that his theories aren't still relevant today, the entire focus for Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism was on capitalism in the West, and particularly the U.S. He wasn't saying that capitalism didn't exist in Asian or other countries, he was explaining the multiple factors he believed reinforced WESTERN capitalism that made it so different from other capitalist countries. In his theory, the Protestant Ethic in the U.S. was one of the driving (and reciprocal) forces influencing and being influenced by capitalism in that specific sociohistorical context. Although the Western world isn't as religious (in terms of practice) as it might have been when he wrote P.E., this is just one of many factors Weber saw to influence what we see today. His work on bureaucracy/power/authority is as relevant as ever, as well as his ideas on types of social action. His work on religion (not just this study) has hugely impacted the subfield of Sociology of Religion and his work is extremely important to the entire discipline of sociology. This is a short, (informative) video but Weber is so much more complex and comprehensive than this. I wish people would actually do their research before judging scholarly work.
An other great video, but I must say that I find the error where you colour Alaska red while the contiguous United States remains blue at 4:12 quite amusing.
Some authors say that capitalism was born in Italy, at the end of Middle Ages and then spread to other European countries after the renaissance and Protestant reformation. Italy was always a catholic country by the way. However Weber stressed the aspect of Protestantism because in the historical period he focused on, Religion was still a major factor of how people thought and acted. But ultimately his theory points to the concept of “mentality”-there’s a certain type of mentality that is conducive to capitalism, in Protestant countries of Northern Europe and America yes, but also in Italy France or Japan… For example Spain for many centuries befitted the stereotype notion of a Latin Catholic country where capitalism could not really develop. But interestingly in the last few decades Spain developed a new mentality and is now too a capitalist economy despite its catholic tradition. On the other hand its neighbour Portugal and Latin American countries have not developed this type of mentality, traditional and charismatic elements are still much more prevalent there, and it’s evident that those economies are not fully fledged capitalist. They contain some capitalist elements but these are essentially externally dependent, because their social systems and mentality are not capitalist like. Ultimately I think Weber thesis is mostly correct but the concept of mentality trumps over religion and is really the key concept.
Hi, I really enjoy your videos, they have helped me to look at things in a better way. I come from a very religious family, and then i turned to atheism and I was very lost. Trying to find meaning is hard and your videos help a lot. Anyway I was wondering if you could do a video on ludwig wittgenstein. My teacher once told me he's a great philosopher, but it can be hard to understand him. Thanks - Hector
After his brief mention of Weber's project, Mr. Botton's treatment of Weber presents a fairly cogent account of a few sociological implications that may have influenced the various ways in which we experience capitalism today, culturally or perhaps even ideologically. However, Botton's treatment puts forward a prescription that presupposes capitalism as a structurally sound system, insofar as its failings are accounted for in terms of national wealth disparities (so-called, a problem of culture/values) and not the inverse: income equality/distribution (structural) which may affect the culture/values he's trying to account for by way of Weber. This finally lacks nuance and is effectively misleading.
I see a parallel all across European History. Roman Empire vs Germanic & Celtic Tribes. Catholic vs Protestant Feudalists vs Liberal Christian vs Atheist Anarchism vs Statism. Capitalism vs Socialism Decentralized vs Centralized economic planning
The Good in my opinion is recognising that accepted ideas are internalised by action to become the mind framing of its perceive world and therefore of its response. We can and do thus define ourselves into destructive outcomes under the belief we are doing the right thing or the lesser and necessary evil under moral dilemma. The error is where we seek to bring unrelated conflicts to any new sense of 'answer' instead of addressing them as a subject specific issue as the wish for a panacea to relieve us of our inherent and inescapable RELATIONAL conflicts - both within ourselves and among ourselves. Technologism of thought or of tools extending thought thus works against a true workability in service of life under the mistaken belief in such change or interventions as 'progress' that 'answers' or resolves the past by replacing it in new sets of clothes for the hidden fears of a self-invalidation or indeed fig-leaves to cover a deeper shame of truth as exposure in guilt of hate and lack of worth. The nature of fig-leaf thinking is that of a masking denial presenting in forms of correctness or justification. These forms are ideas that become fixed and as fixed become dead inheritance that can likewise be taken out of original context so as to result in derivatives of derivatives. Rather than engaging in the seeking of cause as an exercise in power struggle in the need to be right and therefore direct blame away so that others 'pay' the penalty, why not seek all the factors as part of a structure - including our own personal relational issues. Everyone seeks profit and no one loss - excepting they define these things to means otherwise. For the mind of definition relative to others and world is the strategy of a self-defence OR alignment in love of true. Religion is simply our acceptance of ideas and meanings that join us in self with other and world as life. Egoism will wear religious forms or scientific forms and any other form by which to pass off as valid - but a love of truth can communicate with people in any idiom of exchange by not first deciding what it is. That would be love of forms or ideas of truth - which can of course substitute for real relationships, perceptions and interpretations - such as are possible in a world OF perceptual distortions. Underlying separation trauma or relational conflicts are for the most part a self evasive internalised structure that generates our 'world' as something increasing out of control and therefore invoking ever more subjugation and sacrifice to control as the survival of self-possession set against others and world as threat. Possession and control operate a technologism of marketising and weaponising everything - especially ideas, in imaged thought and speech. This is not capitalism but a deeply feared deceit on which our very survival SEEMS to demand sustainability. It isn't change we fear so much as pain of loss of possession and control. There is no love in any of this - nor perhaps even the capacity to recognise that it is ALL about love. Separation trauma is lost awareness of connection, support, guidance, recognition, worth etc etc and so of course under such conviction feared and believed true, a mind of substitution rises as an adjustment layer. Piling ever more adjustments or diversionary displacements of definitions by which to evade a denial that now denies us from within AND without is perhaps a Call to look within for truth instead of seeking to manage a world of lies or conflicts masked by falsely flagged diversions.
