Why Liberal Arts and Humanities are superior disciplines to technical fields

[C3PO]

Looks like arson - as in a deliberate attempt to initiate a flame war - to me.

Isn't that trolling?

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

I've got a bachelors degree from the College of Liberal Arts (Political Science) but it would be silly to argue that my degree is somehow worth more than the degrees of physicists and doctors. All disciplines are important,

Who has said otherwise?

and without the work of many hard-sciences we would know nearly nothing about the physical world that we exist in.

We don't know anything now from the so-called "hard sciences." What the natural sciences do is build more-or-less abstract models to help explain observed phenomena. That's useful enough for building cool gadgets, but there's no guarantee that those observed phenomena are actually occurring (as opposed to being artifacts of flawed observations) or that the processes the models describe are the way things actually happen: it's simply the global best-guess that provides outcomes most consistent with what has been observed.

I also take serious objection to the assessment that my degree is an end, instead of a mean.

Who said anything, in that context (note the emphasis), about college degrees?

I gave some mention to my education, sure, but in a totally different context in which I was simply discussing my personal background.

 

[clickypens]

Saying that one field of study is more important than the other is just silly. Everything that humans do contributes to the furthering of man (including the Darwin Awards). I study history and we humans would be no where without natural sciences. But, we also need social sciences to understand why we are who we are. One is not better than the other, they are complementary.

 

[Face]

Isn't that trolling?

IMO it is. If you check the OP's post record, you will see many such postings. If you check other forums for the same nick, you will even see more.

Decide for yourself if you find it worth to play along in this "game" or not.

 

[insanity]

You're arguing that the humanities are worth more, either morally or otherwise, than hard sciences because they are an end. Arguing that humanities are superior to technical fields entails a value judgment about the worth of one's education.

Also, just a heads up:
Arguing that there are no truths discernible from the hard sciences is kind of antithetical to your whole objectivist worldview. On that point, I agree, we build models to make tools that improve peoples lives. There is no guarantee the model is perfect, but this is inherent in the logic of science and as such, our models get better and better which usually has a tangential benefit of technological progress and the improvement of human life.

 

[C3PO]

IMO it is. If you check the OP's post record, you will see many such postings. If you check other forums for the same nick, you will even see more.

Decide for yourself if you find it worth to play along in this "game" or not.

I never try to argue with trolls, because it's the attention they're fishing for.
Instead I question their reason for posting. I know it's going to be a short conversation. :lol:

 

[Ghostrider]

Let's put it this way: without science and tech, we wouldn't have paper, ink and paints.
Without literature and art, we wouldn't have much use for them...

By the way, where's the conflict exactly? The human condition is one big banquet. We need all kind of ingredients and spices. And anyway, don't we have a "cool photography" thread here? Photography is based on physics and chemistry (the traditional variety), but it's also used for art. The various branches of human sciences are in symbiosis, not in competition.
Unlike its practitioners, of course...

 

[Andy44]

Mod note: All the talk about trolling is off-topic, so stop. If you think flaming is occurring, report the post, please. Your choice is to participate in the discussion or not to do so. Complaining in the thread is not productive.

Now back to our discussion:

I think we are misled by the categorization and specialization of the modern academic system. You can't have engineering without science, and you can't have science without philosophy. Don't forget that some of the greatest scientific minds in history were philosophers, eg. Isaac Newton.

Back in the day, you wouldn't call him a physicist; rather he would be a "natural philsopher" or something similar.

Until about ten years ago I didn't have much use for the arts and philosophy. I didn't understand it, it wasn't easy to pin down with math, I liked airplanes and spacecraft and electronics, all of which were technical and relied on mathematics. So I work in the engineering field.

As I got a little older through my twenties and into my thirties I was unable to satisfy my curiosity about the world without looking into things like first principles and seeing what made people tick. I am fascinated by discussions of what the meaning of reality is, and how it relates to my life. Being human is more than just math.

And science and engineering is a human endeavor, so it turns out that when an engineer designs a machine he is, aware or not, applying his own personal conceptions to it. And the artist is using math and engineering in some form, as well. A digital photograph, for instance, cannot be created without the engineering and software that went into the equipment.

I think the idea of a "university" is kind of lost on so many people. To really get the most out of academics, you have to study both science and humanities, and you have to see them as a whole, instead of totally unrelated subjects.

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:24 PM ----------

Looks like Ghostrider beat me to the punch, and in fewer words, too!

 

[Ghostrider]

Looks like Ghostrider beat me to the punch, and in fewer words, too!

Yeah. I'm a man of few words. But you expanded on it in a way that was needed.

And I'll be there all week, btw. :thumbup:

 

[Linguofreak]

What is the use of remaining alive, if the remainder of that life is empty and devoid of beauty, enjoyment, and fulfillment? This is exactly an example of how science and technology merely provide the means, while the study of the liberal arts and humanities provides the end.

Here's where I disagree with you: Sure, art, literature, music, and so forth are a bit closer to "what it means to be human" than the hard sciences. But I generally find that the treatment given to those subjects in schools tends to do them more harm than good, and that I can appreciate and benefit from them as well or better *without* being educated in them (reading through Lord of the Rings is a delight each time. Having to write an analytical paper on it in High School was a chore). Meanwhile, science and technology are not entirely devoid of beauty or enjoyment. Science-wise there's plenty of neat stuff, for instance, in the field of astrophysics that's incredibly cool even if we'll never have the technology to actually make use of it. And technology-wise, a program can be a work of art. I've taken to writing programs in assembly language for decades-obsolete machines not because it's useful, but because it's fun. The whole Free Software / Open Source movement comes from people for whom writing programs is more than a matter of utility and money.

 

[Hielor]

What use is a communications device, if you have no ideas to send back and forth across it? And if the only ideas you have to send back and forth are those relating to further improvements on communication devices, well, that seems a bit pointless, doesn't it?

What use are ideas, if you can't share them? Technology allows ideas to be shared across distance and time.

Technology and technological advances are part of what it means to be human. Cats don't build computers.

 

[Notebook]

The Universe or nothing:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRN6d-QUa5c&feature=related"]YouTube- Things to Come (1936) 10 of 10[/ame]

N.

 

[Mantis]

Isn't that trolling?

It is indeed.

 

[MeDiCS]

Mod note: All the talk about trolling is off-topic, so stop.

Aww .

To justify my post, I want to tell OP to study logic and re-read his posts. Knowledge about 'advanced' philosophical terms, such as nihilism and the omphalos hypothesis is advised.

 

[Linguofreak]

Mod note: All the talk about trolling is off-topic, so stop. If you think flaming is occurring, report the post, please. Your choice is to participate in the discussion or not to do so. Complaining in the thread is not productive.

Thank you.

Now back to our discussion:

I think we are misled by the categorization and specialization of the modern academic system. You can't have engineering without science, and you can't have science without philosophy. Don't forget that some of the greatest scientific minds in history were philosophers, eg. Isaac Newton.

Back in the day, you wouldn't call him a physicist; rather he would be a "natural philsopher" or something similar.

Until about ten years ago I didn't have much use for the arts and philosophy.

I've always had a keen philosophical interest, and I've always enjoyed the arts (mostly literature, though not much of the "classics"), but I've also always been very leery about the way they are dealt with in education.

I didn't understand it, it wasn't easy to pin down with math,

Obligatory XKCD link: http://xkcd.com/55/

I liked airplanes and spacecraft and electronics, all of which were technical and relied on mathematics. So I work in the engineering field.

As I got a little older through my twenties and into my thirties I was unable to satisfy my curiosity about the world without looking into things like first principles and seeing what made people tick. I am fascinated by discussions of what the meaning of reality is, and how it relates to my life. Being human is more than just math.

And science and engineering is a human endeavor, so it turns out that when an engineer designs a machine he is, aware or not, applying his own personal conceptions to it. And the artist is using math and engineering in some form, as well. A digital photograph, for instance, cannot be created without the engineering and software that went into the equipment.

I think the idea of a "university" is kind of lost on so many people. To really get the most out of academics, you have to study both science and humanities, and you have to see them as a whole, instead of totally unrelated subjects.

Yeah, I've got mixed feelings on that. At different times I've felt the education system was either forcing me to take stuff that was really useless, or restricting me from broadening out. I must say, though, that languages and linguistics make a good bridgepoint between the hard sciences and the humanities (a shameless plug for my own field of study).

 

[jedidia]

But the liberal arts and humanities ARE the end in themselves. The liberal arts and humanities deal with what it means to be a human being, what it means to live.. They're what really matter.

Art, and ESPECIALLY post modern art, is in so far a means to an end as it is, above all, an expression. An Artist that doesn't believe in his "mission" for expression can hardly be considered an artist in the postmodern sense. And this expression again can be employed by the powers that be to their ends.
If anything, liberal postmodern arts have become irresponsible, in that they don't care a bit about what they will actually cause. The artists are not aware anymore that they have a responsibility for what they actually cause in a society.

And I say that as someone that is deeply in love with some of the basic axioms of postmodern philosophy, and isn't a stranger to art either (I'm a musican).

There's a good book from Zoran Terzic, "the art of nationalism" (Kunst des Nationalismus, I'm not sure if it's available in english actually, but if it is, get it!)

It deals with the significant role that "liberal and postmodern" art played in getting the war in bosnia and hercegovina going some 20 years ago. Can rid you of quite some illusions in that respect.

 

[Linguofreak]

If anything, liberal postmodern arts have become irresponsible, in that they care a bit about what they will actually cause. The artists are not aware anymore that they have a responsibility for what they actually cause in a society.

Huh? These two sentences seem to contradict each other. Do you mean "in that they *don't* care..."?

 

[to be]

All natural sciences and technical fields do is develop tools. They're merely means to an end, not an end in themselves.

But the liberal arts and humanities ARE the end in themselves. The liberal arts and humanities deal with what it means to be a human being, what it means to live.. They're what really matter.

Kurt M. Weber - User:Kmweber, perpetual failed wikimedia board candidate - I presume. Fancy meeting you here.

 

[jedidia]

Huh? These two sentences seem to contradict each other. Do you mean "in that they *don't* care..."?

ups, yes, indeed I do. Thanks for pointing out!