本論文試圖由Max Weber 批評Georg Simmel 關於主觀意義的賦 予及客觀意義的有效之混淆，系統地以命題形式重新梳理Simmel 的 價值學說。並對照Weber 的行動理論、理念型的建構，以及客觀性 的主張，進一步地比較Weber 與Simmel 兩者之間的異同。由此比 較，可以發現Weber 與Simmel 的差異並不如Weber 自己所宣稱；反 而，兩者對於文化科學的主張與認識，相似性遠遠大於差異性。亦 即，皆是由意義的主觀賦予，並經由相互承認的有效性，獲得客觀價 值或客觀性。

This article bases upon Max Weber’s critique on the methodology Georg Simmel’s. According to Weber’s critique, Simmel confuses the subjectively given meaning and the validity of objective meaning. Is that so? This article tries to elaborate the value theory Simmel’s with five theses. Then the article aims to highlight differences between Simmel’s and Weber’s theories of value. Simmel’s value theory would be compared with Weber’s relative propositions: the claim of social action theory, the construction of idealtypes, and the viewpoint of the objectivity of social and cultural sciences. Through the Comparison between Weber’s meaning conception and Simmel’s value theory, we can find, that the claims both of Weber and Simmel are so similar more than different. In other words, Weber and Simmel, they all assert, that the meaning or value is subjectively given, however, the subjective meaning or value is become objective by mutual recognitions. Namely, the objective meaning or value depends on the mutual recognized validity.