So far, I have only read the Introduction of Joe Moran’s, “Interdisciplinarity,” so I am no expert but it doesn’t sound like anyone is. Interdisciplinary sounds like an updated word for philosophy. It is the center of all the disciplines yet, no one really knows how to explain it or if it is a good idea. Moran himself says, “I take interdisciplinarity to mean any form of dialogue or interaction between two or ore disciplines: the level, type, purpose and effect of this interaction remain to be examined.” To me it seems as if the scientists and researchers still do not understand this word they created for the connection of different disciplines or should I say “majors.”
I think that the philosophers and researchers try to study every single thing and then work much slower and more scattered because they can’t just focus on one field. Can you imagine what Nietzsche could have accomplished if he would have stopped and specialized in something rather than worrying about trying to “traverse the who range of human values and value-feelings”?
Moran states that Aristotle claimed that philosophy is the “universal field of inquiry which brought together all the different branches of learning.” How can one possibly major in philosophy if it is essentially the entire tree and every other discipline is the branches? Wouldn’t it be more effective if everyone picked the one branch they wanted to study to the point where they could memorize the veins in every one of their branches leaves rather than to try to know everything there is to know about that tree? We are all only human, even the scientists and philosophers, and we can only comprehend so much information. If everyone dedicated their lives to a more concise field of study, then ideas like philosophy and words like interdisciplinarity would not be as overwhelming.