Area	Spring Points

	cultivating humanity: cultural progressing gary e. davis	June 2020

Asking “When does psychology drive culture?”(Creating consilience, ch. 9) may call for exploring the influence of leading minds, in the interest of advancing higher educational values across society, but that epidemiological approach (ch. 9) shows a search for interdomainal method which remains quantitative (continuing norms of scientism, as does the atomistic physicalism of chapter 11) about qualitative life. So, no wonder a mathematical physicist mirrors that in ambivalence toward psychological telicness in prospecting the future of humanity (ch. 7). That typifies a common condition of interdomainal studies: the appeal of scien-tific generality. But “integrating the sciences and the humanities” for the sake of cultivating humanity—for cultural progressing—must be an overridingly, prevail-ingly humanistic cohering (no mere coherence, no matter the scale of “integra-tion”) because human interest—humanness—is primordially oriented by our own-most potential for human life. One scale of apprehensibility may be better than another because its guiding values or scale of prospectiveness (classically “eudaimonic” appeal) better serves our interest in humanistic individuation (Consilience, ch. 1), cultivating humanity, and humane social life—which is not a matter of transcendental feeling (hedonic flourishing). “The scope of virtue” (Intelligent Virtue, ch. 4) is accordingly as potentially hori-zonal as “the stakes of a world literature” (An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization, ch. 22) understood as potentially high-scale interdomainity. Curriculae express a conceptuality of learning as pathway that can be modeled as “scaffolds for understanding” (Developing Scaffolds, ch. 6) that can have any scale, ideally advancing singular creativity on a way to leading minds. next—> intelligent virtue: conceptual philanthropy

 

 

Be fair. © 2020, gary e. davis