Софиология

A similar differentiation at the same time is apparent in the development of political economy from Staatswissenschaft, the science of – and on behalf of – the state, into Soziologie as an autonomous social science, This development took place during the lifetime of Max Weber, who was a champion for the theoretical independence of sociology from political science. Weber developed the concept of Wertfreiheit in science – or the freedom from other than scientific values in science – to ascertain this independence. This was not only Wertfreiheit of science from politics, but also from the dominance of rules, methods and ends of other life spheres, e.g. of religion, law, art and education, in the sphere of science. The Wertfreiheit of sociology according to Weber guaranteed the objectivity of the results of sociological research.[512] In fact, the Wertfreiheit of science is a logical consequence of Weber′s conception of history as an increasing rationalization of and differentiation into various life spheres that have their own Eigengesetzlichkeit or autonomy

The social question not only provoked the recognition of the factual differentiation of political and civil society, and the analogous differentiation of political and social science, but it also produced new articulations of the ′good life′. Since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the good life had been the central question of political philosophy, as it was the most important task of the polity as the Greek polis. In Aristotle′s analysis of the telos (end) of various political organizations, from oikos (or house community) to village to polis (city-state), the last and biggest entity had the task to provide for the good life of the population of the polis. The actions of the state or polis only had legitimacy because of its telos to provide for the good life.[513]

In traditional societies, religion answered the question of the good life, Weber demonstrated in his Zwischenbetrachtung the possible tensions between the political and the religious life spheres, that proceed from the fact that both are essentially engaged in ′giving meaning′.[514] In the 19^th century, politicians and autocratic rulers of the nation-states had secured the exclusive right to answer the question of the good life for its population and territory, and to install the rules and use the force necessary to direct society to this end. It was exactly this exclusive right of the polity to determine the telos of society that raising the social question challenged.

Because of his scientific principle of the autonomy or Eigengesetzlichkeit of every life sphere, Max Weber did not challenge the political sphere in his sociology He restricted sociology to the description of ′the social′ in terms of social actions and associations, and consciously kept all normative questions about the good society or the good social actions or associations out of sociology. Sociology should not prescribe any ideal of the good life of society, as it would transgress its competence in doing so. Science cannot decide between good and evil.[515] Apart from this, according to Weber, social actions do not always have the intended result: sociology cannot predict the future, but can only describe ideal-typical rational possibilities.

Sophiology did not recognize these self-imposed limitations of Weber′s sociology Not only the ′is,′ but also the ′ought′ belonged to its sphere.[516] In other words, not only the description of the actual state of society as it is – in the fallen state of humankind and society – is the task of sophiology, but also the description of society as it ought to be – as the Kingdom of God on earth. One important task of sophiology is the interpretation of the world from the telos of society – or from the intentions of God for humanity in material history

2. The cement and organization of society

For all possible – political, societal or religious – perspectives on the ′good life′, one dominant problem was the problem of cohesion. What was the cement of polity or society, or what was the ultimate motive for any social group action? What was the force that kept the state undivided, or that was lying at the basis of society as a whole, or of every individual social organization? The perspective that formulated it colored the answers to this question: liberals answered with the notions of self-interest and positive law; Christians of all denominations with the notions of Divine love and Divine law, and communists would point to the natural law of solidarity within an economic class or social group.

Weber differentiated even the cement of society: social actions of individuals can be coordinated into group action from different motivations.