07/09: Difference between revisions
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{{Page |n°=20}} “Polygamy became an advantage...” | {{Page |n°=20}} “Polygamy became an advantage...” | ||
{{Page |n°=60}} Why? Max Weber answered … | |||
{{Page |n°=71}} Dictionary Weber - Thurnwald | |||
| Line 28: | Line 34: | ||
K. Mannheim : Wissenschaft 1930 ------> Fr. v. Wieser<br /> | K. Mannheim : Wissenschaft 1930 ------> Fr. v. Wieser<br /> | ||
Why not ? Sep. Weber | Why not ? Sep. Weber | ||
{{Page |n°=112}} <ref>At the margin: “Cf. Menger”.</ref>M. Weber’s definitions for xxxxxxx apparent are vague on the main point. If market motives are the essentially “economic” what in the veisme 1 gainful they certainly are – then the economical be the production of material goods, for the two are enlivef different. The effect, if the first definition is material there exist no specifically economic objects - if the latter is achieved to, then there exist tnuf objects, but no specific motives to them. The first position was consistently maintained by Menger, Robbins, etc.; the second is by myself. | |||
Revision as of 01:56, 18 July 2017
KPI Description
Contents
Excerpts
[9] Industrial Revolution [...] Why Marxist? Ashley, Ashdeacon, Cunnigham, Schmoller Levasseur and Toynbee – not one of them sounds Marxian. True there were others like Sombart, Mantoux, Brentano, Hasbach.
(Toynbee founder of the Toynbee Hall)
Or the group of Maitlan, Manus and Guerke, or Brunner, Lamprecht, Below and Dopsch – nut none of which sound Marxist. Excepting of course Marx and Engels one of which as we know did not deny that he was a Marxist.
[17] Notes on Thurnwald, Die Menschliche Gesellschaft
[20] “Polygamy became an advantage...”
[60] Why? Max Weber answered …
[71] Dictionary Weber - Thurnwald
[97] Morris Ginsberg: Recent tendencies in sociology
On Max Weber
Alf. Kierkandt
F. Tönnies
L. von Wiese
R. Thurnwald
H. Freyer: Soziologie als Wirklichkeitswissenschaft
K. Mannheim : Wissenschaft 1930 ------> Fr. v. Wieser
Why not ? Sep. Weber
[112] [1]M. Weber’s definitions for xxxxxxx apparent are vague on the main point. If market motives are the essentially “economic” what in the veisme 1 gainful they certainly are – then the economical be the production of material goods, for the two are enlivef different. The effect, if the first definition is material there exist no specifically economic objects - if the latter is achieved to, then there exist tnuf objects, but no specific motives to them. The first position was consistently maintained by Menger, Robbins, etc.; the second is by myself.
- ↑ At the margin: “Cf. Menger”.