Hey found your podcast and I’m listening through and I love it already: for 17:00 I thought Weber was describing capitalism as a process of wealth generation that assumes an industrial, logical, and infinitely viable wealth generation. So it’s not really just wealth accumulation, it’s the expectations of wealth generation that he ties to the creation of capitalism. Thought I do agree that he does a poor argument in defense of rich, greed, and wealth past people. He assumes they were haphazardly making money, which is apart of that resonation you all mentioned about the text, we are being greedy differently now than in the past for some reason. Still listening through, so maybe someone mentions it. Love the work so far, I am definitely subscribed now :)
i think, you are giving too much meaning to Weber's style. scientists often make very wishy-washy claims like "A may be associated with B". yes, it's often to deflect criticism, but it's also not to oversensationalize results. you can't claim that you have definitive results when you clearly don't, that's lying. and people will notice, and will agro at such claims.
Hey found your podcast and I’m listening through and I love it already: for 17:00 I thought Weber was describing capitalism as a process of wealth generation that assumes an industrial, logical, and infinitely viable wealth generation. So it’s not really just wealth accumulation, it’s the expectations of wealth generation that he ties to the creation of capitalism. Thought I do agree that he does a poor argument in defense of rich, greed, and wealth past people. He assumes they were haphazardly making money, which is apart of that resonation you all mentioned about the text, we are being greedy differently now than in the past for some reason.
Still listening through, so maybe someone mentions it. Love the work so far, I am definitely subscribed now :)
Consider reading The Vanishing Mediator: Narrative Structure in Max Weber by Fred Jameson.
i think, you are giving too much meaning to Weber's style. scientists often make very wishy-washy claims like "A may be associated with B". yes, it's often to deflect criticism, but it's also not to oversensationalize results. you can't claim that you have definitive results when you clearly don't, that's lying. and people will notice, and will agro at such claims.