The human sciences are basic and, therefore, fundamental. That's why everyone has their own opinions about them. That is why we have become accustomed to calling them "non-exact sciences". Hence, bizarre features such as (bluff of) "neoliberalism" and "leftist Nazism" ...
Let's see the level of rigor of the "human", quickly:
History: historians look for facts or real perspectives on events or periods of the past as well as those that happen in the present and will be material for the future. For example, regarding the "discovery" of "Brazil", it is true to say that it was a discovery, according to a European vision, but that it was also an apocalyptic invasion, according to an Amerindian view, of the peoples who lived here before this event. nothing "subjective" or "free of interpretation" there. The least apparently objective point in history would be moral criticism. For example, to say that slavery was normal in ancient times, and therefore morally acceptable. It never was, especially when we become aware of the most important truths of all, that we are all the same, in essence, doomed to the same final destination, as well as the existence of a range of possibilities on how to organize a society without needing a regime. of slavery, whether it is essential or not, precisely what I called the essential concept of morality (which is a natural intersection with the field of philosophy).
Geography: knowing about the space where you live, its physical, climatic, hydrographic, cultural, political, economic and historical characteristics, as well as other places, etc. There is nothing "absolutely inaccurate" in geography, is there?
Social sciences: seeks to understand human relations from a social and historical perspective. They are also far from being inaccurate or under the full judgment of subjective interpretation.
Psychology: observation, analysis, descriptive and comparative, of human behavior ... just to mention some aspects of this knowledge and its "exact" character.
Philosophy: the field of human thought, one of the most important and, at the same time, also the most gluttonous, is not based on opinion beliefs, but on the theoretical and practical accuracy of wisdom, for example, by the list of fallacies or misunderstandings of reasoning in debates / confrontations of ideas.
We must not confuse troubled ideological disputes within the field of human sciences and their consequent and multiple factual and moral distortions, which greatly affect the efficiency of their scientific method, with its nature, which is intrinsically accurate.
What do the humanities really look for ??
Like all science, they search for their respective truths, and this also means that, ideally, they do so in order to maximize the well-being or survival of the human species, history as a record of "our" trajectory and source of learning so that mistakes made in the past, do not repeat themselves; geography as a way of politically organizing human beings' means of existence and also of knowledge about the characteristics of the environments in which they live, aiming at a better adaptation; social / political sciences // sociology as a method of understanding social dynamics, their individual and collective impact and solutions seeking to maximize harmony between human beings and the means or cultures that create, sustain, dialogue and adapt; psychology as a way of delineating the complexity of the human mind, also proposing attenuations and solutions for its dilemmas, philosophy as a beacon of maximum sanity, always pointing to the most fundamental (existential) truths as to enlighten us about who we are, what we are, to "where" we will go, to then emphasize what is most essential in life, in addition to teaching us about self-knowledge and rationality, high virtues of human potential.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário