Özet:

This article was written with the aim of evaluating the thoughts of Mehmed Akif, who expressed in his verse and prose that the Ottoman people were idle and lazy in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, and Sabri Ülgener, who had similar diagnoses for the economic backwardness of the Ottoman state. The Ottoman Empire shrank geographically in the first quarter of the twentieth century, and withdrew from the historical scene in administrative and political terms, and was replaced by the Republic of Turkey. However, the mentality of the members of the society, which is the product of centuries, remained the same in the issue of work production and inertia. The low determination of the people of the country to work and produce, and the obvious backwardness compared to the West continued to be one of the major problems in the Republican period. Besides many issues, Mehmed Akif gave more place to the Ottoman people's understanding of work, time and worldly life in his poetry than his contemporary poets and thinkers. He expressed his feelings and suffering in his sermons and articles in magazines, especially Safahat. Not content with criticism, he explained his offers for his condition and improvement. As an economist, lawyer and sociologist, Sabri F. Ülgener wondered about the historical and sociological reasons for the issue of speed and inertia, which has a great place in Akif's verse. Inspired by Max Weber's thesis, he researched the mentality of the Ottoman people by using the data he produced from his extensive bibliography consisting of basic works from tevarihname and divans to Nefahâtü'l-Üns, Müzekki'n-Nüfûs and Marifetnâme to Ahlâk-ı Alâî. He built a scientific theory about the roots of inertia and stagnation. In this study, it will be examined how Mehmet Akif comprehended the phenomenon of work and what kind of method he devised while constructing his mind, and the mentality theory of Ülgener, who analyzed the economic ethics and mentality of the Ottoman period over the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, will be summarized. Finally, how the two thinkers approached the issue in terms of cause and effect will be compared and discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler: