Özet:

This article came from Max Weber’s attempt to understand a paradoxical phrase in his scientist speech as a famous profession: “Heute aber ist es religiöser “Alltag””. This paragraph, which is almost impossible to be translated by this expression of "religiöser alltag", is like the formal passage of the key concepts of Weber's religious sociology: ethical-methodic life (lebensführung), monoteism, politeism (vielgötterei), compromissen und Relativierungen (Kompromissen und Relativierungen), the conflict of gods, magicalization and depersonalization (entzaubert und daher in Gestalt unpersönlicher) and religious daily (religöser alltag). The last sentences of the paragraph are a warning to the German youth in the wake of the severe defeat of the First World War: “Modern man, especially the young generation, is to respond to such a daily life. The search for “experience” that we see everywhere is derived from this weakness; it is indeed weakness not to face our age directly with the seriousness of our face.” One of the two sources that are often used to understand Weber’s central problem is the Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism, and the other is the vocational speeches that are a political testament. We just ask the simple question: Why does Weber talk about a daily life religion or the ancient gods that filled the daily life, that is, a kind of modern politeism?If it is thought that it is derived from the theories of secularization that the American sociology after the Second World War will spread, does the unconsensual struggle of the unpersonal ancient gods over our lives not create a paradox?Why does Weber link the fate of the religion to the politeism of daily life, not to metaphysical or scientific challenges, in this age in which modern capitalism governs the souls of the people?Should we understand that the day-to-day life is a challenge to the religion or that the religion is adjusted to the flow of daily life?The Calvinist Protestantism, which Weber’s story is described as “our last great heroism”, has actually generated the dissolution of religion through the profession as the unintentional consequences of their actions, while the daily life is immersed in religion?While the Calvinism, which carries the asketism that Catholicism is pushed into the monastery into daily life, “provides to shape the daily life as a rational life in this world, provided it is not for this world nor for this world,” how has it come to the release from the late modern era of the “Iron Cave” where capitalism does not need religious radicalization from the “optimization of the ordinary” that Charles Taylor sees as one of the moral sources of modern self?Can we claim Weber’s early and late reformation and early and late modernity assessments have made distinct definitions through this mind of daily life?As you can see, Weber’s daily concept in the context of religious sociology can help us ask extremely important questions.In fact, we can add some more basic questions to them.In this article, I argue that Weber’s alltag thought is the fundamental problem of sociological thought, on the one hand, of the theoretical analysis and conceptual abstraction, on the other hand, of a kind of unbegrifflichkeit, the theoretical-pre-pre and non-conceptual.Therefore, I think that many key concepts and issues from Weber’s rationality to herrschaft forms, from routine (veralltaglichung) and charisma (charisma) to the method problem in social sciences (ideal-type and value independence) and from Weber’s controversial Freiburg speech in 1895 to the politics that strangely consistently provides political and scientific speech in 1917-19 to Weber’s daily thinking can be re-read.In the context of this thesis, we will try to answer these questions only in the context of religious sociology.In this way, we will be able to see not only a more different reading of religious sociology, but a background that is unconceptualized as much as we mentioned above.

Anahtar Kelimeler: