The article began life as, and retains the character of, spoken argument for not allowing the neurosciences to shape the agenda of the history of the human sciences. This argument is then used to suggest purposes and content for the journal, History of the Human Sciences. The style is rhetorical, even polemical, but open-ended. I challenge two clichés about the neurosciences, that they intellectually challenge other areas of knowledge, and that they are reconfiguring the human with the notion of ‘brainhood’. (...) The suggestion is that the real challenges lie elsewhere; specifically with understanding the relations of different forms of knowledge and making it conceivable by political action, or simply mode of life, to implement one way of being human rather than another. The conclusion re-asserts the value of the heading, ‘history of the human sciences’, and of the value of the journal with this name, as a forum in which to reflect on the identity and relations of forms of knowledge about ‘the human’ in all their variety. (shrink)

This interview with Steve Fuller was conducted by e-mail between 3 September and 31 October, 2019, Professor Steve Fuller was sent six detailed, written questions regarding a number of his fundamental concerns as these have been articulated throughout his work. The broad themes covered have to do, inter alia, with his views on philosophy as a discipline, the conditions of scientific progress, the role of traditions in human thinking, and the implications of his position on these and other issues for (...) the future of higher education. The interview consists of the questions together with his written responses. A list of references to published works relevant to Professor Fuller’s answers in the interview is appended. (shrink)