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.