Instead of carrying a photograph of his wife Patricia in his wallet, the Canadian neurophilosopher Paul Churchland has a scan of her brain. As passionate advocates of eliminative materialism, the couple view psychological phenomena such as belief, hope and love as constructions of the imagination. It is their contention that, in essence, the brain comprises merely the interaction between the neurons contained therein. Believing in a human mind is the same as believing that the earth is flat.

The irony is that this act of holding on to a scan, intended to tease romantics, can also be viewed as an ultra-romantic expression of love. At least that is the opinion of José van Dijck and Robert Zwijnenberg. “Churchland says that the brain scan shows more of his wife than a photograph. In this way he romanticizes the brain scan …”, says Zwijnenberg. Van Dijck responds: “Which, of course, reminds me of Thomas Mann.” Zwijnenberg: “Yes! The Magic Mountain.” Van Dijck: “The passage in which TB patient Hans Castorp inspects the X-ray of his fellow patient, with whom he is in love. This image transports him to a pink cloud of love because he can see inside her. He keeps the X-ray for years in his wallet. Churchland's story is exactly the same.” Zwijnenberg: “I’m impressed with how Mann is able to eroticize an X-ray. For Castorp it is an erotic experience to see inside his beloved's ribcage. The image is not only a medical or technological product but also functions as an essential aspect of an emotional relationship between two people. In this way Mann gives the X-ray a place in the cultural context of human relations.”

This exchange between Van Dijck and Zwijnenberg is typical of the manner in which they engage in the debate with other academic disciplines. Van Dijck, professor of media studies and dean of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Amsterdam, and Zwijnenberg, professor of art history at Leiden University, are both in favour of a more offensive, self-assured stance for academics in the humanities, who they believe have withdrawn too far into their own circles and have left the public debate about the big social issues to prominent representatives of the natural and social sciences. It is their belief that this debate will be enriched if humanities academics distance themselves less from everyday reality.