Jonathan Berman Tells Max Weber to "Lasciate Ogni Speranza" Himself

In encouraging a young man to take up an academic life Weber would tell him that he might have to bear being passed over and spend an entire career without recognition. On the other hand, to a Jew he would tell him "lasciate ogni speranza" which translates in English to read, "abandon all hope". This is an interesting reflection on German society in the early 20th century and makes me glad society has advanced a bit since then.

A more timeless reflection on Max Weber's part in Science as Vocation is that science is full of its own presuppositions. Science assumes that its own methods and rules of logic are valid. In addition, science makes the assumption that whatever it uncovers is “worth being known.” However, that assumption is problematic in and of itself because it requires a value judgment. What is worth being known? Certainly, the answer to this question depends on each individual person.

In my opinion, international relations are “worth being known”. International relations begin from the presupposition that the relations between states are vitally important. Exploring what creates the state and the forces that drive its behavior can help us make correct foreign policy decisions. However, that begs the question, once we have this understanding of the international system what should we do with that knowledge? Do we try to create a world order? Or do we seek to expand US hegemony and increase its capabilities relative to its rivals? These are questions that the science of international relations cannot answer. Like other sciences it cannot answer Tolstoy's basic questions, “what should we do and how shall we live?”

Thus, Weber is right in saying that science cannot put us on the “path” to true meaning. The only thing science can do is give us the technology to control life, provide a method of thinking in order to discern facts, and give us clarity by telling us the end-product of our actions. Science does not and cannot tell us in what way we should control our lives, what facts we should seek out, or whether an end-product is good or bad.

These questions that science cannot answer are left to each and every one of us to decide on our own and need to be based on normative truths. The answers people choose will affect how they conduct their lives, what they deem important, and what end-products they feel are good and should be sought after. Answering these questions seems like a complicated and messy affair because each individual and each society will have different presuppositions with which to base their answers on. In international affairs these different answers create conflict. The US and Al Qaeda have answered these questions differently. So have Taiwan and China. The list goes on and on.

Maybe, the one thing science can contribute is making people recognize “inconvenient facts.” For example, racism is made an archaic concept because science has proven that the difference in skin tone is due to a few genes and that in reality race is a social construct. How could anyone holding a racist belief, say for instance that such and such ethnicity is inferior, compete with this fact? Hopefully, this will change the racist's mind or perhaps it won't. Nevertheless, at the very least, those looking for the answers to the question, 'how should I live' and 'what should I do', will pass over racism, which is based on some very faulty presuppositions for others when they see its deficiencies.

And in the end, isn’t that all science can do?