Of what use are the humanities?

[brendan]

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/will-the-humanities-save-us/
Stanley Fish is the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has also taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins and Duke University. He is the author of 10 books. His new book on higher education, "Save the World On Your Own Time," has just been published.

[werdna]

LOL, here we go again

[hard]

the crusade has arrived

[phagist_]

I don't see the purpose of these threads other than to stir shit.

Sure you'll just say "I'm only a messenger", but knowing the reaction of previous similar threads (which you are well aware of), it seems kind of obvious.

Some people do degrees with a strict career in mind, others do them in the pursuit of knowledge.

The latter applies for me and a fair few humanitarian students. We go to uni to learn, and broaden our knowledge of the existing world.

While others go just so they can get that dream job or earn $xx,xxx.xx a year.

You can’t argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.”

This has nothing to do with anything. You don't argue that a civil engineer hasn't found the cure to cancer yet.. or Accountants aren't designing the best buildings...

Also, the article insists just because humanities students can't do so (SAVE THE WORLD!!!); they are useless to the world.

But is that how you categorize a 'useless' degree? by it's supposed lack of value to the world?
Who decides the 'value' and what criteria needs to be met to be deemed 'valuable'?

Why should someone pursue a degree JUST TO HELP THE WORLD - instead of doing something they enjoy?

[brendan]

You can’t argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.”

This has nothing to do with anything. You don't argue that a civil engineer hasn't found the cure to cancer yet.. or Accountants aren't designing the best buildings...

I think you should read the article in its entirety rather than jump to erroneous conclusions, particularly the last few paragraphs...

Teachers of literature and philosophy are competent in a subject, not in a ministry. It is not the business of the humanities to save us, no more than it is their business to bring revenue to a state or a university. What then do they do? They don’t do anything, if by “do” is meant bring about effects in the world. And if they don’t bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them.

To the question “of what use are the humanities?”, the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good. There is nothing more to say, and anything that is said – even when it takes the form of Kronman’s inspiring cadences – diminishes the object of its supposed praise.

I don't see the purpose of these threads other than to stir shit.

The purpose of these threads is to have a reasoned discussion about the topic at hand - not the messenger as some may wish.

the reaction of previous similar threads (which you are well aware of)

You mean posts like yours?

[phagist_]

I think you should read the article in its entirety rather than jump to erroneous conclusions, particularly the last few paragraphs...

Teachers of literature and philosophy are competent in a subject, not in a ministry. It is not the business of the humanities to save us, no more than it is their business to bring revenue to a state or a university. What then do they do? They don’t do anything, if by “do” is meant bring about effects in the world. And if they don’t bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them.

To the question “of what use are the humanities?”, the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good. There is nothing more to say, and anything that is said – even when it takes the form of Kronman’s inspiring cadences – diminishes the object of its supposed praise.

He says all this yet he still contends that "you can't argue that a states economy will benefit by a new reading of Hamlet"

From wikipedia:

“The humanities are those academic disciplines which study the human condition, using methods that are largely analytic, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences. Conventionally the humanities include ancient and modern languages and literature, history, philosophy, religion, visual and performing arts (including music). Additional subjects sometimes included in the humanities are anthropology, area studies, communications and cultural studies, although these are often regarded as social sciences.”

Also;

The most unique features of being human are the ability to form sound judgments in our conduct and our ability to communicate effectively

--------------------------

The purpose of these threads is to have a reasoned discussion about the topic at hand - not the messenger as some may wish.

May I direct your attention towards this thread.

I'm just the messenger.

--------------------------

You mean posts like yours?

That is exactly what I mean.

[brendan]

The latter applies for me and a fair few humanitarian students. We go to uni to learn, and broaden our knowledge of the existing world.
While others go just so they can get that dream job or earn $xx,xxx.xx a year.

So only humanities students want to "learn, and broaden our knowledge of the existing world"?

I think you should read the article in its entirety rather than jump to erroneous conclusions, particularly the last few paragraphs...

Teachers of literature and philosophy are competent in a subject, not in a ministry. It is not the business of the humanities to save us, no more than it is their business to bring revenue to a state or a university. What then do they do? They don’t do anything, if by “do” is meant bring about effects in the world. And if they don’t bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them.

To the question “of what use are the humanities?”, the only honest answer is none whatsoever. And it is an answer that brings honor to its subject. Justification, after all, confers value on an activity from a perspective outside its performance. An activity that cannot be justified is an activity that refuses to regard itself as instrumental to some larger good. The humanities are their own good. There is nothing more to say, and anything that is said – even when it takes the form of Kronman’s inspiring cadences – diminishes the object of its supposed praise.

He says all this yet he still contends that "you can't argue that a states economy will benefit by a new reading of Hamlet"

OK, so you dispute that claim?

The purpose of these threads is to have a reasoned discussion about the topic at hand - not the messenger as some may wish.

May I direct your attention towards this thread.

Yes, that is a pretty good illustration of some who would rather go after the messenger, than address the message.

You mean posts like yours?

That is exactly what I mean.

So according to your argument this thread was designed to "stir shit" ... then I suppose that "shit" must be your posts?

[Flaming_Arrow]

LET THE E-BATTLE BEGIN!

[phagist_]

So according to your argument this thread was designed to "stir shit", then I suppose that "shit" must be your posts?

haha how old are you? seriously.
------

Yes, that is a pretty good illustration of some who would rather go after the messenger, than address the message.

First; I was just disputing your backfired messenger claim.
Secondly; I did address the message; in my first post.

You have a real knack for avoiding the crux of the argument.

Look at every single one of your posts in reply to this thread.. so far you have quoted the article in response and thrown around a pre-teen-esque comeback and then claimed I was personally coming after you in an attempt to dodge the falsifying of your "not the messenger" claim.

You have added very little to the reasoned discussion you sought after.

[phagist_]

So only humanities students want to "learn, and broaden our knowledge of the existing world"?

Please direct me to where I said this.

Some people do degrees with a strict career in mind, others do them in the pursuit of knowledge.

The latter applies for me and a fair few humanitarian students. We go to uni to learn, and broaden our knowledge of the existing world.

I never specified 'non-humanities students'.
It is irrelevant to the discussion of the 'value' of a humanities degree.

I have a feeling you are focusing more on me than the issue at hand.

Please address the questions in my first post.

[brendan]

Please direct me to where I said this.

If you would carefully note, it was actually a question in relation to this:

The latter applies for me and a fair few humanitarian students. We go to uni to learn, and broaden our knowledge of the existing world.
While others go just so they can get that dream job or earn $xx,xxx.xx a year.

I have a feeling you are focusing more on me than the issue at hand.

It's one thing to have feeling, it's another thing to prove it.

I was just disputing your backfired messenger claim.

How does it actually dispute anything I have said?

You have a real knack for avoiding the crux of the argument.

What argument?

claimed I was personally coming after you

Where have I claimed that?

You have added very little to the reasoned discussion you sought after.

It was my intention to post the article and let people discuss the topic, rather than myself:

Sure you'll just say "I'm only a messenger", but knowing the reaction of previous similar threads (which you are well aware of), it seems kind of obvious.

[ninwa]

The problem I have with this article is that when he says

To the question “of what use are the humanities?”, the only honest answer is none whatsoever.

he defines usefulness only by something's ability to "bring about effects in the world".

I think the scope of "usefulness" extends beyond that.

[phagist_]

Where have I claimed that?

Yes, that is a pretty good illustration of some who would rather go after the messenger, than address the message.

--------------
These type of discussions never work over the internet for me.. something always gets lost in translation and/or someone comes in to beat off their ego (DON'T WORRY I'M NOT SAYING YOU ARE)

I'm sick of this cat & mouse bs it's not doing the topic any justice.

I would like to know how exactly someone deems a degree 'useful to the world' i.e what criteria would need to be met to come to that conclusion?

anyway I gotta go out now.. I'll wait and see what some other people actually have to say about the topic at hand.

[brendan]

Please address the questions in my first post.

You mean the following questions:

But is that how you categorize a 'useless' degree? by it's supposed lack of value to the world?
Who decides the 'value' and what criteria needs to be met to be deemed 'valuable'?
Why should someone pursue a degree JUST TO HELP THE WORLD - instead of doing something they enjoy?


Those queries seem to be addressing the argument's that Mr. Fish made himself, I don't pretend to endorse his argument or even understand all his claims, so the above queries are best directed to the author (particularly as emailing is free):
Stanley Fish
Professor of Law
305-348-7820 (phone)
305-348-1118 (secondary)
305-348-1159 (fax)
[email protected]

Where have I claimed that?

Yes, that is a pretty good illustration of some who would rather go after the messenger, than address the message.

You linked to a post from AppleThief, and directed my attention towards it. I was referring to that post. I think AppleThief's post is very good illustration of some who would rather go after the messenger, than address the message.

I'll wait and see what some other people actually have to say about the topic at hand.

Me too:

I don't see the purpose of these threads other than to stir shit.

Sure you'll just say "I'm only a messenger", but knowing the reaction of previous similar threads (which you are well aware of), it seems kind of obvious.

So according to your argument this thread was designed to "stir shit", then I suppose that "shit" must be your posts?

haha how old are you? seriously.

Glad to see that you chose to play the man rather than the ball. And it was after all your claim:

I don't see the purpose of these threads other than to stir shit.

Then there is still this argument you made:

The latter applies for me and a fair few humanitarian students. We go to uni to learn, and broaden our knowledge of the existing world.
While others go just so they can get that dream job or earn $xx,xxx.xx a year.

So only humanities students want to "learn, and broaden our knowledge of the existing world"?

[midas_touch]

* midas_touch sees this becoming another 10+ page thread and waits on in anticipation