The prehistoric society gave immense value in the dreams, no matter how hard it does not understand they were attributed msticos and religious values to it. Probably the images formed at the private moment of rest were associates the premonitions and even though the wisdom, a time that a little more the front of the period that is being studied, tribal societies made its important decisions being based on the dreams of the head of the tribe. As visa then, the prehistoric men also dreamed, and had msticas conceptions on this transcendental world for which they became vacant during the night. But what in fact they even though dreamed the hunter-collectors of African the paleolithic Europe or of hordas and mongolides? He was in the primitive society, valley to detach, that the creative dreams had appeared. The prehistoric man, in the attempt of recriar the images seen in the previous nights, drew in the internal walls of the caves, 3 abstract rupestres figures that he had value of interpretation private. However, the primitive society was composed of men who not yet reproduced what they did not know (In this in case that the period of space time understands the inferior and average paleolithic ages, for all the effect we will work in this part of the work with the cultures Auchelianas and Magdaleniana).
They were until capable to invent tools, but this creativity was not extended to the artistic way. The prehistoric art was extremely realistic, at least in the majority of the cases. But and when a rule runs away the exception? It is the case of joined figures in such a way in France, Russia and 4 Spain how much in some 5 African regions where the rupestre art assumes an abstract character extremely. Points colored on perpendicular traces and animal mutants with more than four legs were total mentally ill of the daily one of ' ' man of cavernas' '.
To look a fixed bond of influence of other thinkers on Weber, revealed a task impossible to be carried through; nor therefore, however, improfcua: many works had been produced on the basis of an association of the workmanship of Weber however to a probable influence of Simmel, however to a not less probable influence of Rickert, Nietzsche, Dilthey and as much others. This test that none of them can intend to have reason how much to a direct entailing of the workmanship of Weber the conceptions of some of these authors. Thus, of when in when, according to convenience of clarification of pertinent questions to the objectives of this work, could be presented position of affinity or rejection of Weber it stops with subjects and conceptions that were also objects of other authors. nvestors contributes greatly to this topic. Two sides of one same currency will have of being observed, therefore: all cultural phenomenon will only be able to become object of analysis from its direction and meaning. Thus the individual actions of the social actors occur also for all. Exactly the calls collective entities, as classrooms, layers and congregations, only can adequately be analyzed from the individual directions of acting of that they compose such collective entity.
These, for Weber, are for itself same incapable of action. Thus, the capacity human being to act significantly, to pursue a direction when it acts, later implies the possibility of its action to be interpreted with regard to such direction/meant. The other side of the currency consists of the transposition of this conclusion the properly epistemolgico domain: also the scientist, when she makes science, acts significantly. In this measure, the actions and conclusions of the scientist cannot follow the reality of the things through a description, but they remain interpretations, repletas with the present time of that it interprets. The conscience of that the world, the life and the existence can lock up different interpretations in different cultures, results in the conscience of that it does not have one interpretation-in-itself.