Martha Nussbaum on the Value of the Humanities

Why study Humanities subjects? Isn't studying Philosophy, for example, just a luxury of no obvious value to a democracy? Martha Nussbaum thinks not. In her recent book, Not For Profit, she has made a passionate defence of the Humanities. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast she discusses these issues with Nigel Warburton.

Philosophy Bites is made in association with the Institute of Philosophy

Listen to Martha Nussbaum on the Value of the Humanities

Comments

[Burk]

Hi, PB-

I enjoyed this interview, but would offer one comment- that rigorous thinking is not something to crow about in the humanities. I may be biased as a scientist(!), but my impression is that while some forms of humanities value rigorous thinking, (philosophy, criticism of various flavors, history...), and arts require a sort of implicit or intuitive rigorous thinking, none really go the whole distance the way the sciences do, completing the circle with tests against which one measures the rigor of one's thinking.

Here in the US, one often finds philosophy departments hosting what are to all intents and purposes theologians, and why? Because they can get away with it, in a way that they could never get away with such lack of rigor in scientific departments. While there may be a place for theological topics in teaching the history of philosophy, it is otherwise completely indefensible. Likewise for post-structuralism, post-modernism, and all the other miasmas of the avant-garde humanities. Rhetorically sophisticated? Perhaps. Rigorous? Hardly.

While we all pay homage to rigor and precision of thought, and value it nowhere more than in the fields (of humanities) that touch our lives most deeply- economics, politics, history, philosophy, I have to say that these fields often make poor training grounds for that habit of thought, while the sciences do a better job, perhaps intrinsically by how they go about their business.

Perhaps that is why we are so impressed when a philosopher has something truly new and rigorous to say.. it is an exceedingly rare event! It is also why some of the most fertile directions in contemporary philosophy are in collaboration with scientists, such as in game theory and theory of mind.

With best wishes!

[David from Darlington]

Surely there are different types of rigour? I am not sure that the kind of rigour measured solely in terms of testable hypotheses and predictive success is the only game in town. It is also not clear to me that science itself can proceed without the kind of rigour that only well-formed but distinctly speculative thought can provide.

[Karl Haigler]

It seems to me that one can dismiss philosophy's lack of rigor if one discounts the integral role of logic. There is much to be found in philosophy that supports rigorous examination of arguments, including scientific arguments, which after all in their public form rely on rhetoric and not simply citations of evidence. Philosophy can assist in public discussions of issues of interest to the public, such as discrimination, civic responsibility, and stewardship towards the environment and provide analytical tools for common deliberation. Nussbaum's point about the role of the humanities, especially philosophy's contribution, to democracy is valuable in this light.