由于自然界與人類社會之間存在著根本的差異,因此,社會學能否成為"科學",有待哲學的奠基。施塔姆勒與韋伯都是沿著齊美爾對社會學的康德式奠基路徑,致力于確立社會的"形式",他們的不同之處在于:施塔姆勒基于馬堡學派的康德主義,沿著"形式"與"質料"之間的"階"的區分,通過"正義法理念"的論證以獲得"社會形式"的普遍有效性;韋伯則源于弗萊堡學派的康德主義,基于"概念"與"實在"之間的"質"的差異,通過"理念型"的構造來探討社會學的研究方法。兩者的分歧,不過是新康德主義的"內訌"。如何在與西方社會學理論的互動與競逐中,闡發馬克思研究社會的方法論特征,并以之作為重新認識中國社會的思想資源,是一個值得深入的課題。

Given the difference between nature and society,answering the question of whether or not sociology can be a science requires a philosophical foundation. Both Stammler and Weber tried to construct the form of society in accordance with the Kantian foundation of Simmel; the difference between them lay in how they sought to construct it. Following the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism,Stammler offered the ideal of the Just Law as the universal social form,while Weber followed the Freiburg School of Neo-Kantianism and constructed the Ideal-Type as the method of social science. As both followed branches of Neo-Kantianism,the conflict between them was limited. It is vital to elaborate Marx’s method of social research in comparison with other social theories and take it as a reference for re-examining Chinese society today.