4 ms·
The several paragraphs before and after this statement are much more salient and profound. E.G. the following paragraph: But factory-style scholarly productivi
by dncbfwa 1y ago
The several paragraphs before and after this statement are much more salient and profound. E.G. the following paragraph:
But factory-style scholarly productivity was never the essence of the humanities. The real project was always us: the work of understanding, and not the accumulation of facts. Not “knowledge,” in the sense of yet another sandwich of true statements about the world. That stuff is great—and where science and engineering are concerned it’s pretty much the whole point. But no amount of peer-reviewed scholarship, no data set, can resolve the central questions that confront every human being: How to live? What to do? How to face death?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bigbadfeline 1y agoThat's sounds like what religions do, so call it a religion and proceed accordingly.
- eska 1y agoI think the opposite. The social sciences should not try to find out how to live etc, but find factual information that each person may use to answer that question for themselves. After all there is not one objective answer to those questions. Prescribing how people should live etc is in the realm of philosophy and religion. For example buddhism is part philosophy, part religion. Stoicism is also a philosophy, not a science. But they’re equally valid.