The Methodology Steering On The History Conception Of Max And Weber

Since the 18 th century, the research of historical society got rid of the shackles of metaphysics gradually, and become an independent science.Positivist philosophy of history played an important role in promoting transition from speculative philosophy of history to analyze or critical philosophy of history.Scientific philosophy of history laid an objective foundation for the study of social history,but also result in a incarnate positivist philosophy of history which seek to universal law. "How Social and is Possible" and heckling of the universal objectivity become themes of critical or analysis of the history of philosophy, inducing epistemology turning in historical philosophy.The reproduction of "hume problem" in historical philosophy to question the epistemology and objectivity of historical science.Marx and Weber criticized on speculative philosophy of history and positivism science of history, witch realized on the methodology turning on social history, and answer the problem "How Social and History Science is Possible" in different ways. Due to the different world outlook and methodology, social and historical theory of Marx and Weber showed great differences. First of all, Marx’s historical science built on the basis of social practice, unified historical interpretation and the historical practice or new world and new methodology.Marx dialectical relationship between philosophy and history as the relationship between universality and particularity, and thus the overall judgment and specific narrative unity. Secondly, by Marx ideology critique, critique of metaphysics and logic of capital digestion abstract rational critique of human alienation rule, the dominant position of people built on the basis of historical practice. Thus, Marx’s historical sciences permeated with human feelings and values point to reshape the dominant position of people in the history of social relations and historical practice, also facing the reality of moral values implied criticism and social history of science possible. Thus, Marx’s theory of history is different from scientific positivism of history,witch reflected the speciality of social history and human activity.Weber tried to seek the restrictive equilibrium between universal laws and history description, value and the fact. So, he criticized unified view of history, and setting the boundaries between the fact judgment and value judgment, universal regularity and special personality, necessity and contingency. Weber criticized vulgar materialism from the methodological point in view of the "economic determinism", "social evolution", "class struggle" and other viewpoints, pointing out that historical materialism become the ultimate law. Weber emphasis on individualism, specificity and causal explanation, and criticized essentialism and one element determinism in historical epistemology. Influenced by neo-Kantian,there is a confliction between value of diversity and objectivity of historical knowledge in Weber’s history, and guiding historical relativism ultimately.The Methodology turning in social history of Marx and Weber affect the development trend of the 20 th century, and the historical methodology of historical epistemology becoming attractive. On the one hand, post-modern historians deny the objectivity of historical knowledge, and the historical knowledge would be history of ideas and ideology that built on the basis of subjective;On the other hand,the analysis philosophy of history unitied the material and spirit, macro and micro, determinism and indeterminism by the intermediary elements including language,culture and so on. The pluralism and priority in history epistemological lead to fragmentation of social history and even lead to the historical nihilism. Western Marxism emphasize culture, human subjectivity and ideology critique,and strived to unified universality and particularity, structured and human nature.But,it become a pluralistic interpretation theory in overcoming the disadvantages of economic determinism.In fact, Marx’s historical materialism sublate the universal paradigm of historicism,meanwhile,it unified practice theory and interpretation theory, regularity and human nature,the universality and particularity by historical dialectics.His research methods and narrative method reflect the dialectical relationship between the abstract and concrete.Marx did not regard the historical research as a science like Weber,and which is built on the basis of practice.He solved the problem:how the objectivity of historical knowledge is possible under ethics,values and ideology condition. Marx’s view of history answer the regularity of social and historical development,and highlights the optimism of human reason. Therefore, we should be view relationship of "Theory lades value" and "real lades value" eclectically, not as the opposition between objectivity of historical knowledge and value relevance,historical law of induction and historical phenomenon described.In contemporary social history paradigm reform, we have the history of ontology and epistemology History, Theory and History historical explanation Practice of unity. On the one hand, the historical dialectic based on practice should combine universality and particularity,objectivity and value,and face the role of individual ideas,morality,ideology and other microscopic elements. On the other hand, we should open and tap multidimensional sight of historical materialism, also enrich and enhance explanatory power of reality by integrating "fragmentation" of the historial research.