In several of this week’s articles, Kronman’s “Why Are We Here” and Fish’s “The Uses of the Humanities”, the uses of the humanities were discussed at great lengths. Also, in class, we discussed the uses of the humanities. Most of us agreed that the humanities have no economic value, but are valuable to us as a culture. I agree that they are valuable for becoming a cultured person. These humanities classes, like philosophy, history, and literature, help to teach the students the meaning of life and how to live a successful life. The answer to these questions should be pursued under the watchful eye of an expert. Knowing the answers to these questions help to make a more intellectual and cheerful person. This is very important for a college student who is trying to figure out what they want to do with their life.
Also there is the issue of specialization. No student should be allowed to immediately specialize. While it is important to specialize for a career, they should have to experience as many fields as possible. As Wolff said, the university should be a place to have new experiences and to grow up. It should be a place that a student can come to so that they might learn about themselves in a safe and controlled environment. Do you have any thoughts about specialization or the role of humanities?
I also believe that humanities have more moral and cultural values rather than practical ones and that they are to be learnt by a relatively small number of students. Humanities may be useful in the way that they teach students lessons about life and give them a more rounded knowledge and education. They contribute to students' well-being in the way that they make them think more positively about the world, people and life, as a great personality states:"The world is according to the people. If they think that the world is good,it is good. if they think that it is bad, it is bad". Humanities are supposed to make people intellectual figures and why not even great ones.
ReplyDeleteBut on the other way I think that they are useless in some ways and biased in some others. Humanities include knowledge that sometimes are the personal thoughts of some people and so they may not be helpful at all because of the time,circumstances and people at that situation. History and especially philosophy and literature consist of highly relative truths and may not even be considered true at all. Literature and philosophy chasnge time by time with the passing of time and history, so they cannot be attributed to people of all times.
I am also against the idea of common curriculum at university level because rounded knowledge is supposed to be learnt at high school level and not many students can afford to make a master or Ph.D degree in order to specialize in their major and profession.
It was very difficult during our in-class debate to argue that the humanities should have absolutely NO place in the university. While in hindsight the validity of some of the arguments is apparent, such as the lack of career opportunities stemming from the humanities, I think we can all agree that we do not wholeheartedly support their complete removal from university curriculums. That being said, it is now interesting to consider why it is so preposterous that they be removed. I agree with your statement that they are valuable for becoming a more cultured person, but I feel that there is another, perhaps more important reason for their existence. I believe that while a person's goals may definitely include success on the monetary level, that money should not be the sole reason a person pursues a particular career. While fields in the humanities may not produce as many suit-and-tie CEOs and businessmen, I feel that if a person truly wants to pursue knowledge about the classics, or has a deep passion for literature, that they should be able to do so and that the university is the prime venue for their studies.
ReplyDeleteAs I begin to think to myself what the purpose of humanities is to the university education, I find myself immediately faced with a problem. My problem is that even after discussion after discussion and reading after reading, I am still unsure as to what this concept of "humanities" really means.
ReplyDeleteThe word "humanity" is very clear in its meaning: it is collectively everything that is human. But what does "humanities" mean? During class, we actually had to spend time trying to define the word, and I doubt I was the only one that felt that even at the end of class we still lacked a concrete definition.
My next thought was to break down the word. One thing that came to mind was that the word “humanities” sounds like the plural of “humanity.” However, if the word "humanity" is all encompassing as its definition suggests, it is difficult to grasp the plural of this word. (ex: there is no plural for the word “everything”)
The dictionary defines “humanities” as “literature, philosophy, art, etc., as distinguished from the natural sciences.” With use of “etc” and “as distinguished from” even this definition seems to lack specificity. I wonder if when the people responsible for putting together the dictionary were faced with this word, they had a discussion similar to ours.
If science is the study of what is calculable and concrete, perhaps the humanities are everything that science isn’t. Or perhaps the word “humanities” is the plural of “humanity,” but I really can’t make sense out of that one.