A fine schema, but for me the easiest means of justification of the humanities is to say that they are a study of the overall topography of human nature. There is no eventuality within one’s private or professional life in which a deeper knowledge of human nature is not profoundly useful. This justification completely illuminates the entire edifice – textual criticism may seem ‘the most arcane and useless field’ until one realises that the entirety of European civic and spiritual life was fostered by an institution (the church) built on it.
This also provides a highly effective shorthand for those humanities disciplines which patently don’t help, or actively impede, a closer grasp of human nature, of which there are great number of present examples.
It beggars belief that any self-avowed champions of culture or believer in an objective standard of the appraisal of art could see any value in Kinkade, but then such myopia is what it is to be without a tradition. Interested to hear more of your thoughts on Foucault also if available.
A noble goal indeed – but one that is ill-served by every existing liberal arts curriculum, I'm afraid. If we really want to justify the humanities with this lofty goal, it would involve a complete overhaul of the current system. Even a survey of the "Great Books" over a couple of semesters can only serve, at most, as an entry way to the real stuff. To really appreciate the "overall topography" of humanity is hard work for a lifetime.
And in terms of the variety of "human nature" presented, Shakespeare probably surpassed all of the ancients, despite having little Latin and close to no Greek. The ancients wrote in tropes and conventions (this is true for nearly every classical tradition I'm aware of), and in any case, their works only contain a small subset of human existence. However, this subset is valuable because it has been the common referent of countless intelligent people up to the modern day. One might ask why we should learn from the past, when we can easily learn about human nature (that's perhaps more relevant to modern life) from Netflix and HBO shows. The point of conversing with dead people is obvious to those who are already capable of it, but I'm not sure how we can avoid preaching to the choir.
It's true that biblical exegesis, and by extension theology, cannot exist without textual criticism, but to justify the latter with the former seems to me a bit tortuous. Genuine religious experiences do not necessarily come from a grasp of texts; actually I think there are more souls in heaven who were illiterate than were textual critics.
I agree on your assessment that some humanities disciplines today actually impedes this goal. Particularly guilty are the ones that actively encourage auto-ethnography. I will probably do a separate write-up for Foucault. I think he is a great thinker and even greater writer; he has been undeservedly maligned by the right, probably because of the excesses of his po-mo disciples. But the discerning reader can learn much from him, and this view is shared by Chris Rufo (who is, in my opinion, a modern-day Foucaultian practitioner himself).
I couldn't agree more - a complete overhaul required not only in course material but in an entire pedagogical philosophy, with much different expectations levied on humanities students (including more contact hours, more rigour in testing, more general breadth etc.). Most of those I studied my BA alongside probably left university more confused about human nature than when they arrived.
As a non-specialist with an increasingly passionate admiration for the ancients, I find that while the command of the human scale is less various and subtle than Shakespeare (to use your example), the symbolic imagination among classical artists is generally more acute. I think this, alongside the fact that they got there first and developed a lot of the frameworks, accounts for their endurance.
I do think, regarding how one can avoid preaching to the choir, binding up the study of the humanities with glory, mastery of self and circumstance (which is why tying subjects broadly to one another is key) would do a great deal to increase both its cachet and its fertility. It's hard not to be at least slightly seduced by something that can notionally help you do almost anything, answer (or, at least and indeed better yet, ask) any question, and master or mine or else mitigate the difficulties even the most complex of human interactions. Presently the humanities is (and, just as importantly, seems) far more cloistered, unathletic, unambitious than that. It lacks dynamism apt to satisfy a lot of the would-be path-breakers among our young.
(I also think this is a partial reason why the classics retain their lustre - even beyond the testament proving it, they perceptibly come from an era when the striving after humanistic goals was at an historical high).
You're correct about the gulf between genuine religious experience and interface with texts, I meant more with respect to the customs which were extrapolated from interpretation of scripture, then made into laws etc.
I'm now all the more intrigued to see the Foucault piece whenever it does appear. I don't think I've ever met a classicist who had time for any postmodernist, so it should be interesting. I would I'd expect agree with you on his greatness-as-influence, but not as regards his greatness-as-excellence (and certainly not as a writer; I will be looking out for that part with particular interest).
A fine schema, but for me the easiest means of justification of the humanities is to say that they are a study of the overall topography of human nature. There is no eventuality within one’s private or professional life in which a deeper knowledge of human nature is not profoundly useful. This justification completely illuminates the entire edifice – textual criticism may seem ‘the most arcane and useless field’ until one realises that the entirety of European civic and spiritual life was fostered by an institution (the church) built on it.
This also provides a highly effective shorthand for those humanities disciplines which patently don’t help, or actively impede, a closer grasp of human nature, of which there are great number of present examples.
It beggars belief that any self-avowed champions of culture or believer in an objective standard of the appraisal of art could see any value in Kinkade, but then such myopia is what it is to be without a tradition. Interested to hear more of your thoughts on Foucault also if available.
A noble goal indeed – but one that is ill-served by every existing liberal arts curriculum, I'm afraid. If we really want to justify the humanities with this lofty goal, it would involve a complete overhaul of the current system. Even a survey of the "Great Books" over a couple of semesters can only serve, at most, as an entry way to the real stuff. To really appreciate the "overall topography" of humanity is hard work for a lifetime.
And in terms of the variety of "human nature" presented, Shakespeare probably surpassed all of the ancients, despite having little Latin and close to no Greek. The ancients wrote in tropes and conventions (this is true for nearly every classical tradition I'm aware of), and in any case, their works only contain a small subset of human existence. However, this subset is valuable because it has been the common referent of countless intelligent people up to the modern day. One might ask why we should learn from the past, when we can easily learn about human nature (that's perhaps more relevant to modern life) from Netflix and HBO shows. The point of conversing with dead people is obvious to those who are already capable of it, but I'm not sure how we can avoid preaching to the choir.
It's true that biblical exegesis, and by extension theology, cannot exist without textual criticism, but to justify the latter with the former seems to me a bit tortuous. Genuine religious experiences do not necessarily come from a grasp of texts; actually I think there are more souls in heaven who were illiterate than were textual critics.
I agree on your assessment that some humanities disciplines today actually impedes this goal. Particularly guilty are the ones that actively encourage auto-ethnography. I will probably do a separate write-up for Foucault. I think he is a great thinker and even greater writer; he has been undeservedly maligned by the right, probably because of the excesses of his po-mo disciples. But the discerning reader can learn much from him, and this view is shared by Chris Rufo (who is, in my opinion, a modern-day Foucaultian practitioner himself).
I couldn't agree more - a complete overhaul required not only in course material but in an entire pedagogical philosophy, with much different expectations levied on humanities students (including more contact hours, more rigour in testing, more general breadth etc.). Most of those I studied my BA alongside probably left university more confused about human nature than when they arrived.
As a non-specialist with an increasingly passionate admiration for the ancients, I find that while the command of the human scale is less various and subtle than Shakespeare (to use your example), the symbolic imagination among classical artists is generally more acute. I think this, alongside the fact that they got there first and developed a lot of the frameworks, accounts for their endurance.
I do think, regarding how one can avoid preaching to the choir, binding up the study of the humanities with glory, mastery of self and circumstance (which is why tying subjects broadly to one another is key) would do a great deal to increase both its cachet and its fertility. It's hard not to be at least slightly seduced by something that can notionally help you do almost anything, answer (or, at least and indeed better yet, ask) any question, and master or mine or else mitigate the difficulties even the most complex of human interactions. Presently the humanities is (and, just as importantly, seems) far more cloistered, unathletic, unambitious than that. It lacks dynamism apt to satisfy a lot of the would-be path-breakers among our young.
(I also think this is a partial reason why the classics retain their lustre - even beyond the testament proving it, they perceptibly come from an era when the striving after humanistic goals was at an historical high).
You're correct about the gulf between genuine religious experience and interface with texts, I meant more with respect to the customs which were extrapolated from interpretation of scripture, then made into laws etc.
I'm now all the more intrigued to see the Foucault piece whenever it does appear. I don't think I've ever met a classicist who had time for any postmodernist, so it should be interesting. I would I'd expect agree with you on his greatness-as-influence, but not as regards his greatness-as-excellence (and certainly not as a writer; I will be looking out for that part with particular interest).