If history and anthropology were the same disciplines, why would we teach them separately? Doesn't history teach more than just about humans? — TaySan
It is rather limited if people do view history as if people in the past were always in worse conditions. — Jack Cummins
There were difficult periods, such as th, but there were great civilisations in the past, especially the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians. — Jack Cummins
You may have answered your own question, about teaching History & Anthropology as different academic subjects : "History" (the story of humanity) studies human cultures as abstract whole systems, while "Anthropology" (the science of humanity) studies the individual parts (people) of those systems. So, History is a Humanities subject, while Anthro is a Science topic. History allows for some subjective philosophical conjectures about "why" certain events happened, while Anthro (as an empirical reductive science) tries to avoid such generalizing and speculation about essences. However, "Philosophical Anthropology" may be what you have in mind, since it seems to be a specialized form of History. :smile:"The subjectivity of history, in a matter that in different periods and in different cultures, was conceived in a way that mirrors the morals and values of that whole culture, does demonstrate, through a logical argument, that history as a concept, its nothing more than anthropology, as its study differs from people to people?" — Gus Lamarch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.