Ultimately what would the success of your arguments mean for the importance of history, the social sciences, literature and the humanities? And what would it mean for philosophy?I have not yet read Rosenberg's book. I certainly shall and will review it here. I can't resist wondering, however, if something vaguely like an historical method will show up in it occasionally. Indeed, I'll probably review it with that specific question in mind.
My arguments turn the humanities and the interpretative social sciences, especially history, into entertainments. They can’t be knowledge, but they don’t have to be in order to have the greatest importance—emotional, artistic, but not epistemic—in our lives. As for philosophy, done right it’s just very abstract and very general science.
16 February 2012
Talking Philosophy's Interview with Alex Rosenberg
A worthwhile twenty minutes of reading and the comments section should not be missed. A taste from the interview: