Let's be really frank here. The humanities are a joke subject...

The trouble happened when we turned "a liberal arts education" into "the humanities," and let in a bunch of bullshit like sociology and gender studies. We need to go back to an education that makes people read the Western Canon, and that's it.

You’re right.

What about newspaper movie reviewers? Or columnists in magazines like the New Yorker?

The development of literature reflects the broader movements of the social whole, and thus debates concerning literary meaning and merit are a vital part of the world spirit's historically unfolding contemplation of its nature.

Attached: 1554810222890.jpg (396x396, 50K)

Sociology is much better than literature, you idiot.

This is absolutely false. The romantic idea of the artist as someone embodying history, people and nation is barbaric.

Nothing is "personal". It's all mediated through the Other

I agree

>Can you imagine such a world?
Yeah I'm living in it

Are you going to tell us why? The artist can only think in terms of the ideas of their time.

Only at turning you into a fag.

You're right, it can be studied independently or with others who are also interested in the subjects. Something like a university is not required, and people should not be given money to go through a middle man, especially with a great resource at their fingertips: the internet.

>Literature is a deeply personal thing,
Literature and art are objective, you cunt.

lmao get your head out of your ass son

>Sociology is much better than literature, you idiot.
Someone had the audacity to post this on fucking Yea Forums. Commit suicide immediately, you cocksucking faggot.

They totally are. "Subjectivity" is liberal nonsense. These cunts genuinely believe a tranny is a real woman, for fuck's sake.

Please die, please, please die

The words on the page are objective. Your feelings and thoughts while reading are subjective, but can be made objective through discussion with other people. Objective doesn't mean scientific, it just means that the object is rendered in such a way that others can view the object and have the ability to come to the same conclusions.

Did you come here and make all these posts just so you could say this?

No, it was merely to illustrate their fucked up worldview and general attitude towards subjectivity. Sorry if I offended your tranny mind.

Nothing to fight about. You’re right.

It was a neutral question, don't be a fuckhead.

Pure ideology

samefag

It was a loaded question.

When someone just says something unprompted, I don't find the question very loaded at all. It came across as strange, so I asked.

No, it's impossible without taking into consideration social pressure and groupthink.

Literary analysis isn't just a book club, the point is to be able to formulate and articulate arguments about abstract ideas. This is useful in any field of study. I was a STEM major and the truly brilliant professors I've met had a deep interest in the arts, because they understand that (good) artists are at the frontier of human imagination. They can present new ways of thinking, and literary critics can articulate that into systems of thought applicable to a variety of fields. I believe that there's inherent value in expanding the scope of human thinking. Maybe you want everyone to be a drone with nothing in their head except how to be more productive for Uncle Sam, but I don't. And if your post is implying that you only want the rich should have the capacity for complex thinking then you should stop spreading ideology.

Humanities alone can't save us. The sciences alone can't save us. Unfortunately everyone's far up the ass of their own respective fields.

I agree.

OP here. I actually hate engineers and applied mathematicians. I certainly don't want people to switch to such fields. But I've come to the conclusion that humanities academic study is bogus, it produces shit like Mark Fisher or Nick Land or Zizek. Absolute plebs with Loud mouths.

>I actually hate engineers and applied mathematicians.

What do you actually value then?

>humanities academic study is bogus, it produces shit like Mark Fisher or Nick Land or Zizek. Absolute plebs with Loud mouths.

Every single field produces mediocre thinkers because most people are mediocre. I would also like to hear your reasoning as to why you believe those thinkers, or the popular figures in the humanities more generally, are "plebs."

Your argument is primarily that "no government or private institution should have to offer it for free." Private institutions -- you're right, they're there to make a profit, they have no obligation to do anything with their money. Public institutions -- this would vary country by country, but I would guess most don't have a special provision for the literary arts in their constitution or other such equivalent document, meaning they're not under any legal obligation to do so. And yet, most public institutions do offer courses in the arts, you know why? Because they see the value in having an educated populace, one that preserves their culture through the art that they create and how they analyze it. Granted, this will vary in priority from country to country -- probably wealthy countries and/or ones with an established, institutionalized cultural tradition (I'm thinking of the European countries and their colonial progeny) will place more value on these ideals.

I value culture outside academia and the culture industry. People ought to live their arts instead of profit or posture around them.

God I fucking hate STEMfags.

I'm not a stemfag and I hate scientists even more than I hate cultural critics.

can you tell us why it would be without using Hegelese to do so?

I think you have a pretty fundamental misapprehension of what literary and cultural criticism entails. Part of the function of academic studies allow art to be preserved and transmitted to the populace. Oftentimes popular culture is dependent on the preservation of older forms of art.

>People ought to live their arts
A platitude.

>instead of profit
Why? They're only making money if people are buying their books, or buying into their ideas. If the market didn't see them as having value then they wouldn't make money.

>or posture around them
Again, you haven't addressed why you think talking about the humanities is "posturing"

Market-oriented art is logically dependent on the idea of intelectual property. In fact, commercial art (such as music albums, novels and feature films) is pure cancer.

people area a joke.
the humanities are dope af.

I don't argue with the issues that come with intellectual property. But you're making a sweeping generalization when you dismiss three entire media as "pure cancer." You're going to have to systematically defend the claim that art from a market-driven environment is inherently worthless.

I'm going to ask again, what do you value? Your responses imply that you don't value high art, you don't value academia, you don't value low/popular art, you don't value STEM. So what are you even trying to argue for here?

Folk art based on non-electrical instruments made for and by a community of people living off the land and rejecting petty bourgeois cultural artifacts such as novels, films and albums. Literature is abolished in favor of oral tradition, which implies the return of poetry as the main literary device. I'm sorry, user, I'm not even OP and I was just trying to have a giggle but you took me seriously and made good points. Sorry for making you waste your time and have a goodnight.

>Again, you haven't addressed why you think talking about the humanities is "posturing"
Not him, but I'm taking level 100 undergrad english lit studies at the moment where a very sizeable part of it is just kind of silly posturing. Forcing whatever piece through a feminist/marxist/racial lens for the sake of it and lauding themselves for how clever and subversive they are. I wouldn't be surprised if this makes up a lot of people's first impressions of academic literature studies.

Call me old-fashioned but I'm of the opposite opinion. Purely vocational programs akin to trade schools should be created for students of more practical disciplines, especially those in STEM fields. Only theoretical sciences have a place in universities, but the main focus of universities should be the humanities. It's time our universities set their aims higher and stop acting purely in the service of the job market.

It's not a waste of time to discuss interesting ideas. It's good to ask yourself why you value the things you do and why you make the assumptions you do.

You're discussing two separate issues here -- the theory itself and the way students (or professors, potentially) interact with it. I've taken a fair share of college level English/humanity classes and I agree that there is a brand of self-congratulatory vapid commentator to be found in those environments. It's easier to bullshit your way through those classes, and the quality of discussion is often based on the quality of the speakers and the allowance a given professor might give to pointless or disruptive comments. Although some of the most enjoyable, intellectually stimulating classes I've taken were in the higher-level English classes where the classes are smaller and the professors are more willing to moderate effectively.

When it comes to theory, I always take the position that theoretical systems aren't "true," they only "work." Meaning that you should only be able to apply that system by providing evidence for it in the text and giving sound logical arguments for their applicability. If you're able to satisfactorily do that, then it shouldn't really matter whether it's "true" or not. Theory is just a model for organizing your thought structures, and in reality valuable literary theory is and should be applicable to everyday life. Literature is a good way of introducing these concepts to people because they're often directly or indirectly inspired by the conditions that brought about that theory (and on which the theory is really a commentary) or the theory itself.

Literature is fine. studying psychology or economics on the other hands is fucking pure bullshit.
These people get money and fame over lies.

Do you really believe this? Be serious now.

>Just reduce everything to instrumental reasoning lol
Because that's been working out just swimmingly for the past century

Attached: 1527179083826.png (266x332, 23K)

lol xd

2 dawlas in late chaagis at the pawblic lie berry.