to answer the question of why history matters. The link takes you to a philosophy professor's blog (Kieran Setiya) that I found through a link on another friend's blog (David's blog, in fact).
The particular post addresses a book of lectures Setiya read, which try to defend the study of the humanities in general. The author makes the case (apparently) that even in studying esoteric questions of literature, history, anthropology, etc. the larger questions of human nature are addressed. Setiya takes issue with this argument, and he eventually makes this point:
Why concede to science, and philosophy, that the relative generality of their questions makes them more important? A defence of the humanities should be a defence of history and anthropology and literary studies, even when they tell us nothing about who we are.
I'm not entirely sure that I can agree with his assertion that the more esoteric studies tell us nothing about who we are, but I suppose he gets at the point of David's question to me back in December. Is there any point to the study of history in its own right? If so, what is it?
Interestingly enough, when I raised the bigger questions of who? and why? about humanity in general as a reason to study history, I believe David classified those as applying to humanities in general, which would put him at odds with Setiya. That question aside, Setiya clarifies for me the manner of answer that David might be looking for in answering his question about history.
Now...what will my answer be, if I'm barred from pointing to larger questions about human nature? Entertainment value? A sense of continuity with the past? (That doesn't necessarily have to point to a larger question of 'why we're here'. Continuity might be valuable in its own right...even if there is no larger point to it. Right?)
I suppose I have at least somewhat of a beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment