Author(s): Sedat DOÄAN
In the sociological literature, Durkheim is generally referred to as metatheorical positions such as ontologism, realism, materialism, naturalism, and positivism, and is interpreted as the methodological counterpart of individualism associated with Kant. However, neither Kant is an individualist, nor Durkheim accepts these positions. Durkheim tends to understand such interpretations as “stigmatization” and sought ways to express himself better. Indeed, these interpretations, which seem consistent with the final consequences of his sociology, are incomplete and inaccurate according to philosophical character of his groundwork. Durkheim attempted to correct his basic texts through his various writings, which he developed in dialectical relationship with such misunderstandings, and to arbitrate the groundwork line. Although he specifically wants to build a sociology free from philosophy and history, he is aware of the difference between "making sociology” and "building sociology" and that the latter is a philosophical activity. Thus, this initiative belongs to the field of “philosophy of social sciences” or “metaphysics of sciences”. As with the Aristotelian tradition, also for Kant any given scientific discipline can not constitute itself without a metaphysical groundwork. Indeed, Kant has done exceptional works in this regard, and Durkheim is making an accurate Kant reading in this respect. Because the three basic works of Kant's critical period include the groundworks for natural sciences, metaphysics of morals, and social sciences. In this study, the justification of Durkheim will be examined; Durkheim agrees with Kant in his traditional metaphysical critique and opposes Kant in the reconstruction of social sciences. The basis of this study will be his article about human nature and writings about methodology
The Journal of International Social Research received 7760 citations as per Google Scholar report
