Neurohistory Is Bunk?: The Not-So-Deep History of the Postclassical Mind Author(s): Max Stadler Source: Isis, Vol. 105, No. 1 (March 2014), pp. 133-144 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/675555 . Accessed: 16/04/2014 05:21 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Isis. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 195.176.110.146 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 05:21:01 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions F O C U S Neurohistory Is Bunk? The Not-So-Deep History of the Postclassical Mind By Max Stadler* ABSTRACT The proliferation of late of disciplines beginning in “neuro”—neuroeconomics, neuroaes- thetics, neuro–literary criticism, and so on—while welcomed in some quarters, has drawn a great deal of critical commentary as well. It is perhaps natural that scholars in the humanities, especially, tend to find these “neuro”-prefixes irritating.