Thank you so much, this has been so helpful! I was reading it but not understanding, this has cleared up a lot of confusion I had which ngl made it a challenge to read and keep it interesting. Keep doing what you do!
This helped so much in understanding what exactly he was talking about, your notes helped me make notes of his work with more effectiveness thank you so much
I'm a bit confused about Weber's distinction between arts and sciences relating to eventual obsolescence, since that seems to be a fate shared among the vast majority of artists whose names and works have been forgotten or even lost in time. It only appears to be the smallest select few whose works are remembered and considered important long after. Increasing degrees of specialization seem like they'd offer higher chances of doing work that's considered relevant long after since there's far less competition in such specialized niche fields.
The key difference may be about the nature of the endeavour. Even though most artists are forgotten I think most of them aspire to create something that lasts or stands the test of time. That’s essentially what we mean when describe something as great art. But science by nature has to be falsifiable. So all of it can only ever be provisional, the best information we have at the time. There’s something about that that makes it weirdly more ephemeral even though it’s, in another way, a more certain and solid kind of knowledge. It might also be useful to think about how many artists we can name vs how many scientists we could name. My guess is everyone could name far, far more artists than they could scientists.
@@GreatBooksProf That makes sense! Each oil painter still primes their canvas, observes rules like fat-over-lean, with the expectation (even though often false) that their works will be preserved over time. Science definitely has a sort of self-defeating goal unlike others. You helped me greatly in connecting some dots with something I was confused about; thanks very much!
