From Erranter: ‘Separating The Humanities And Science’

September 12, 2010September 12, 2010 / chr1 / Leave a comment

“Some people, professors, thinkers, philosophers and whatnot, like to talk about bringing the humanities and sciences together in a comfortable marriage, “just like it used to be.” I say this is a terrible idea “

Indeed. In fact, I say it’s a failure on the part of many a humanities department not to maintain a curriculum without devolving into balkanization and politicization…thus pathetically trying to copy science in search of a new curriculum. Nice try.

Also On This Site: How much of this is simply economics?: Repost-From NPR: ‘Author Louis Menand On Reforming American Universities’…Conservative Briton Roger Scruton suggests keeping political and aesthetic judgments apart in the humanities: Roger Scruton In The American Spectator Via A & L Daily: Farewell To Judgment…Repost-From Scientific Blogging: The Humanities Are In Crisis-Science Is Not…

That’s what happens when you let unreasonable people steer the debate: Repost-Revisting Larry Summers: What Did He Say Again?

…Repost-Is Psychology A Science? From Richard Feynman’s ‘Cargo Cult Science’

From Bloggingheads: Tamar Szabo Gendler On Philosophy and Cognitive Science

June 2, 2009June 2, 2009 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Discussion here.

Szabo-Gendler aims to bring a deeper philosophical understanding to the cognitive sciences and neuroscience (popular neuroscience especially) by bringing up an important argument that philosophers from Aristotle to Hume have consistently made:

“life goes very well when one’s reasoned commitments and one’s habits are in line with one another”

In other words, one’s relationship between the reason and the passions can potentially get you out of whack (addiction would be a good example). Also, the depths of moral philosophy can help to deepen cognitive science.

Perhaps it can even guard against excessive idealism (we’re seeking the holy grail of human knowledge kind of thinking) that could be best avoided when thinking about the limits of neuroscience. Perhaps, as one commenter points out, such idealism is an inevitable product of popularization (and writing) as found in the works of Jonah Lehrer and Jonathan Haidt. They’re not the first to write books about the pursuit of happiness:

“It’s really irritating to read, for example, Haidt’s book on happiness or Jonah Lehrer’s introduction to _How We Decide_ where Plato and Aristotle (because they regarded man as “rational” in some sense) are presented as having held the ridiculous belief that all or most of our actions must be the direct result of conscious, plodding deliberation.”

I’d also offer that some people who are attracted to and develop skills in music, poetry, literature often find some of their skills transferable in psychology and the social sciences (mutual fear of mathematics? a specific kind of habitual development of the passions? would Nietzsche be an extreme example?).

Something to think about.

Also On This Site: Jesse Prinz argues that neuroscience and the cognitive sciences should move back toward British empiricism and David Hume…yet…with a defense of multiculturalism and Nietzsche thrown in: Another Note On Jesse Prinz’s “Constructive Sentimentalism”

Was Nietzsche really a philosopher?: A Few Thoughts On The Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy Entry: Nietzsche’s Moral And Political Philosophy…A Few Thoughts On Allan Bloom–The Nietzsche Connection

From The Washington Post: A Few Thoughts On Jonah Lehrer’s Review Of Denis Dutton’s ‘The Art Instinct’

A Few More Thoughts On Denis Dutton’s New Book: ‘The Art Instinct’

February 2, 2009February 25, 2009 / chr1 / 2 Comments

Dutton’s site here.

I used the analogy of Noam Chomsky and his theory of language to describe Denis Dutton’s aims in his new book, The Art Instinct. As much as I disagree with Chomsky’s anarcho-syndicalist politics, I think his achievement lies quite far apart from his politics (though even this could be argued).

Dutton’s book may be more of an attempt to use libertarian principles, Darwin’s Origin Of Species, and perhaps ultimately the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant to try and direct the arts in our country in a new direction (hopefully away from the toxic mix of politics and moral sentiment active in many of our universities and major publications, often on the left…which can divide us politically).

This could be a useful goal.

However, it doesn’t seem quite like philosophy, and seems much more like aesthetics (deep theories about art and the pursuit of beauty and truth within it).

Perhaps it’s not radical enough to be ignored and reviled as much as it could be?

Dutton’s bloggingheads appearance here.

Dutton On The Colbert Report here.

Again, I’m saying a lot on very little, as I haven’t read the book. Your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Addition: I have read the book and offered some commentary (not a formal book review): Review of Denis Dutton’s ‘The Art Instinct’