The knowledge that is used in IPCC assessments predominantly stems from a wide variety of academic disciplines. Given the high scientific and political profile of the IPCC, the production of knowledge in disciplines is impacted by the existence and dynamics of the IPCC assessment process. In some cases, the dynamics between academic disciplines and the IPCC is characterised by the presence of positive feedback loops, where the production of knowledge is structured and programmed by the IPCC. The subsequent findings then receive a preeminent role in later IPCC assessments, and so the cycle continues. It is important to critically reflect on these dynamics, in order to determine whether visions of climate change’s past, present, and future – for example, pathways for the climate-change problem and its potential solutions, as far as they exist – have not been unduly constrained by the IPCC process. The IPCC runs the risk of unreflexively foregrounding some scientific and policy approaches at the expense of other approaches.

This chapter focuses on an important work of Angelo Poliziano, called Lamia. In it, Poliziano does two things relevant to the humanities today: he offers a new way of thinking about the enterprise of philosophy as it was understood since antiquity – the search for human wisdom and a wise style of life. In doing so, he suggests that academic philosophy as practiced in universities is not enough in the project of gaining wisdom and living wisely. Second, he suggests that philology – the deep, borderless reading of texts – represents a master discipline and one that is in fact more in line with philosophy’s authentic mission. Poliziano makes his most trenchant points by using narratives and fables, rather than syllogistic argumentation. In so doing, he makes a case for philology as an overarching discipline of disciplines and sets forth a new way of looking at philosophy