Weber exposes some hard truths about the scientific academic existence and the reflections this has on our lives. He talks about universities preferring faculty who can attract audiences, the academic aristocracy's unfortunate tendency towards mediocrity, and the luck needed to get promoted. It talks about the growing specialization of science and how discoveries made today are destined to become obsolete. He uses the Platonic analogy of men chained in front of a wall with a light - the sun of truth of science - behind them. He is the philosopher who frees himself and shows others that light and struggle for true being. However, if the truth of science is constantly being overlaid with new truths as old ones become antiquated (or out of fashion), what are we to believe as the final truth? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay It says that it is considered necessary to put on blinders to specialize and how this is a detriment to science as a whole. Instead, he encourages scientists to have passion in their work whatever it is because nothing is worth anything to a man, like a man if he cannot do it with passion. He speaks with disgust of those who believe that science is all intellect and no soul and shows the parallel between art and mathematics and how inspiration fosters both equally – through long hours of work and sometimes not even then. He makes a correlation between the progress of civilization and scientific discoveries and the continuous flow of discoveries (due to the obsolescence of previous ideas) being essential for development. However, he sees that this very progress leads to the death of magic and the intellectualization of our perception of the world. Weber goes on to say that this lack of mystery makes us less likely to feel satisfied or experience pleasure in our lives. We can also see this theme in Civilization and its Discontents where Freud asks with all these things (technology, etc.), why we are still unhappy. When Weber starts discussing politics as a science is where I find a pertinent point. Faculty must keep personal politics out of political science, offering each alternative model on its own merits and drawbacks. Point out that in classroom situations it is too easy for the teacher to impose his or her opinions on the class because no discussions or questions are allowed. Personal politics should be practiced in the party room. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Weber only briefly describes how it can be useful to study politics as a science, that is, using an empirical method to deduce the best patterns from all the options. However, I think the most useful aspect of studying political science is learning the art of reading and the skill of getting the author's thoughts and motivations within what is written. The science of politics is also the art of questioning and arguing, but not only for the purposes of persuasion and manipulation, for the benefit of society as a whole. Weber states that the aim of the scientist is to work in the hope that others will go further than us so surely, by studying philosophy and politics, by being that person who turns those who are chained to see the light, we are helping the progress of society with the political science.