/lit/ - Literature

They judge worth on cash value. As everyone now does.

You're less likely to get a job with a computer sciences or physics degree nowadays than with a, say, history degree here anyway.

Most of the bankers and millionaires-through-work were humanities students anyway.

I think a lot of people put the arts down because many arts students are idiots though. You know this too.

>>3263704

hmm, it always goes back to the rhetorical question for me: can you live your life without art? Without abstract stimuli?

I don't think that arts benefits humanity in the terms that it is criticised for but it does benefit the individual.

I say that STEM students are fucking autists and I can and will do as I please

>>3263717
>any arts students are idiots though.

as one of those idiots, i say that it is too true. I blame the loss of spirituality and our generally decreasing compassion for one another.

I'm not religious btw

I'd say they only care about money and that art and understanding the culture they live in is as important a facet of being human as any other.

The person that made that image obviously doesn't read. I dislike that people portray good authors as Dickinson-type prudes. It's so inaccurate.

>They are not useful for human improvement/progress/development
disagree, although it's clear the study of humanities isn't doing much to stop the decline in culture
>They are not intellectually rigorous
a field based entirely on subjectivity will not take any intelligence or understanding of logic to succeed in
>They are not economically valuable
Who the fuck buys paintings anymore

>>3263737

I think it's just tjat most people are stupid and arrogant, the rest just arrogant.

>>3263717
There is so much wrong with this post.

>>3263717
>You're less likely to get a job with a computer sciences or physics degree nowadays than with a, say, history degree here anyway
horse shit

Those claims are so absurd that it's not even possible to argue against them without losing a few brain cells.

> 2012
> not recognizing that the true key to success in career and life generally is a well versed general interest in all topics with specialization to fit professional ambition
> espousing whole areas of study for reason as various and incorrect as 'math is hard' or 'there's no money in that'
> not respecting that there is value to almost all intellectual pursuit, and that this value pays dividends which may not be immediately obvious
> ranking the validity of specialization based on subjective metrics

come on guys

>>3263742

Scientists aren't intellectually rigorous either. Read some journals - they're filled with fallacies, regardless of your peer-reviews.

Simple counter: explain what value is.

Why is something valuable?
Because other people want it or need it.

How does value differ from one thing to the next?
Scarcity or abundance in proportion to want or need.

Medicine is valued as people want to live longer
Engineering as people value transport and shelter
Sciences as people value convenience, transport and shelter

Is art wanted?
-unarguably yes

Therefore is art valuable?
-Yes

Remind them art is everything. The question is whether the art is good.
Film, Pictures, Photography, Literature, Sentences, Architecture, Nature. All are art.
Life without art? Emotionless and robotic.
Life without art is life without love.

>>3263752
Scientists often suffer as much in the job market as humanities graduates. If it weren't for a couple of scientific fields that actually provide valuable merit in the economy, scientists wouldn't be lumped in the same category as engineers and med graduates.

>>3263746

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2012/jun/05/choosing-degree-subject

My boyfriend has a Masters in Embedded Systems and took a year to find a job. He now works for £25,000 a year with no chance of advancement or much rise in pay. He was offered another job at Bombadier for even less money. Most of his friends were in the same position; some still are.

The job market is shit for everyone

>>3263704
>believing in progress
>caring about this abstract notion of 'humanity'

The humanities are about making you, the individual progress. Engineering is about making sure more worthless eaters in the third world get food and shelter.

>>3263758
Meanwhile most of the population are watching/reading shit community college graduates created. Extensively studying a subjective field is preparing yourself for failure.

The only people who take humanities courses at prestigious universities are people who can afford it off their family's money, and aren't doing it for jobs after graduating but because they consider it a hobby.

>>3263769
>worthless eaters in the third world get food and shelter.

now, now. i was just beginning to agree with you

>>3263772

That's such bullshit. Fuck you.

>>3263772
>s money, and aren't doing it for jobs after graduating but because they consider it a hobby.

you are describing it in out of context, why must you have utilitarianism at the base of your argument?

>>3263781
james cameron barely graduated high school bro

science is a servant to man
engineering especially
it's just a skill, similar to working as a doctor or a mechanic
art is for insight into the human condition

why do you think that the elites of society have made their children study the classics for centuries?

>>3263704
>They are not useful for human improvement/progress/development
People who say this fail to distinguish improvement/progress/development from economic growth.
>They are not intellectually rigorous
This is somewhat accurate. English departments have a problem with intellectual rigor insofar as English scholars tend to import entire theories from other disciplines without understanding them. But when people stay within their own areas of expertise, I don't see any difference in intellectual rigor between science and the humanities . I might have to hear more about the intellectual rigor complain, though.
>They are not economically valuable
The market shouldn't be what determines the value of an academic discipline, if for no other reasons than because the market rewards popularity more than truth.

>>3263792
you aren't attempting to argue against this
>They are not economically valuable

>>3263786
I'm not trying to say he's wrong about art, I'm just commenting that it will get you nowhere in the economy

>>3263791

Most people that don't graduate high schopl are poor, pregnant for the seventh time and filled with cum and herpes.

James Cameron can't make films for shit anyway.

>>3263804

So many CEO's and millionaires were arts students, especially outside America. You're ignoring facts.

>>3263798
i guess they aren't if your parents are poor and you did badly in high school or whatever? that seems like more of a problem w/ the us education system in general than humanities
and it's not like it's going to be super easy to make money with a math or bio degree or whatever, lmao
esp undergrad level

>>3263704
Roach thread.

>>>/sci/

Everyone who posts in this thread is the cancer of /lit/

>>3263767
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2012/jun/05/choosing-degree-subject

The article isn't valid, the definition of "unemployment" isn't the standard economic one. Also, it doesn't mention what kind of jobs the worker gets - History majors have a reputation for getting Cashier or McDonalds jobs.

>1/1
hey there, op. excellent question.
people are thinking creatures.
the study of mathematics, the sciences, etc. requires thought, the practicalities often being addressed by way of 'improvements' and innovations pursued down the line, when people begin to participate in whatever active field they've studied. (building a smaller chip, etc)
now. we can invent an automaton to mindlessly carry out the motions of manufacturing the newest chip, but the consciousness, inspirations, etc innate in humans is not there. it will forever create this chip. it has no urge to use it for anything. it feels no need to improve it further, etc. where do we get the compulsion to feel an empty niche in which we may pursue with our mathematical prowess the invention of such a piece? where do we get those feels that make us want to use it, want to improve it? the mind, inspiration, etc. lit has served to stimulate the mind and introduce ideas into the mainstream which lodge the possibilities out there in the minds of the public, who begin to *wish* those crazy rockets a reality, to visit those little green men.
when there's a shit government or dictatorship, the horrors can be expressed through lit and art. (cold war and communism for example. the art and books were banned, the creators killed, but it served as an expression available to those outside the wall of these happenings they came to understand needed to be righted.)
history. shows us our mistakes. let's not repeat. nonfiction. let's build on what we know, pass down our information through the ages. your textbooks. yeah. theatre. commenting on current events. public watches, opinions morph, effects are felt in every area. we read about hiroshima, nagasaki in our history books. yeah you probably won't be designing bombs any time soon. music- man, op. take a look at some of the songs written in america, around the vietnam war. i don't want a pickle, i just want to ride on my motorcycle.

>1/2
hey there, op. excellent question.
people are thinking creatures.
the study of mathematics, the sciences, etc. requires thought, the practicalities often being addressed by way of 'improvements' and innovations pursued down the line, when people begin to participate in whatever active field they've studied. (building a smaller chip, etc)
now. we can invent an automaton to mindlessly carry out the motions of manufacturing the newest chip, but the consciousness, inspirations, etc innate in humans is not there. it will forever create this chip. it has no urge to use it for anything. it feels no need to improve it further, etc. where do we get the compulsion to feel an empty niche in which we may pursue with our mathematical prowess the invention of such a piece? where do we get those feels that make us want to use it, want to improve it? the mind, inspiration, etc. lit has served to stimulate the mind and introduce ideas into the mainstream which lodge the possibilities out there in the minds of the public, who begin to *wish* those crazy rockets a reality, to visit those little green men.
when there's a shit government or dictatorship, the horrors can be expressed through lit and art. (cold war and communism for example. the art and books were banned, the creators killed, but it served as an expression available to those outside the wall of these happenings they came to understand needed to be righted.)
history. shows us our mistakes. let's not repeat. nonfiction. let's build on what we know, pass down our information through the ages. your textbooks. yeah. theatre. commenting on current events. public watches, opinions morph, effects are felt in every area. we read about hiroshima, nagasaki in our history books. yeah you probably won't be designing bombs any time soon. music- man, op. take a look at some of the songs written in america, around the vietnam war. i don't want a pickle, i just want to ride on my motorcycle.

>2/2
http://dvice.com/archives/2012/05/10-current-tech.php
all avenues of humanity are effected by all others. there are no impractical ones. creation is not an automatic process. people find enjoyment in their days in art lit theatre television, video games, etc. (concept artist here for video games and film.)
something designed artistically may be the next big thing. the public screams for it, it is invented for public use.
there is no practical or impractical. our minds, our opinions which are constantly swayed by [the subjects listed] are built to cognate, then create. the arts contribute to the cognition, the sciences to the creation. but it's even more convoluted. there's no practical, impractical. there's just how those crazy humans down there happen to be living, moment-by-moment.
i'll stop now.
science and lit are awesome.

>>3263815
citation needed

>>3263804
>get you nowhere in the economy

i think i disagree. I would say that art is very much of value economically because of our individual desire to enrich our own lives that drives us to be a consumer in this day and age.

for instance: why are tablets and ebook readers popular?
my answer: because they give us easy access to content created by an artist.

my point was that science acts as a facilitator of art

>>3263704
Op, please... How is it that you have written the whole of your post over the dreadful screaming of your painfully murdered intellectual integrity is beyond me.

>>3263860
>your painfully murdered intellectual integrity

I think OP phrased his query quite tactfully actually

>They are not useful for human improvement/progress/development
They're a great medium to express thoughts in an entertaining way.

>They are not intellectually rigorous
What is academic literary theory of criticism?

>They are not economically valuable
They are economically valuable because people value them. Value is subjective and price is an objective measurement of all those subjective values. Whoever tells you literature isn't economically valuable (or anything that is sought after in society), tell him to take an introductory microeconomics course.

>>3263752
This is kind of depressing. What's even more depressing is how media spins scientific studies to scare the shit out of people. Anyone remember the Harvard Nurse clinical study?

>>3263836

Come on. It's easy to get a job at McDonald's with or without a degree. History majors aren't going to be preffered for jobs at McDonald's. If a Computer Science student doesn't have a job, that means they're even less successful - they could get a job at McDonald's just as easily as the next person. The fact they haven't means those that have got their jobs at McDonald's aren't really denting the overall unemplyment much, whuch is all the more worse for them.

>>3263749
This, of course.

>>3263867
>phrasing

Since when does that have to do with anything? It's about the bullshit content. It requires minimum thought to see that such pandering is useless and stupid.

>>3263767
A biger presence of HUmanities would help solve the problem, i.e. applying ethics to the job market.

>>3263902
phrasing is important to having a clear and civil debate

I would not respond to them at all, for people like that are lost causes.

They have no imagination, no ambition, and as a result are useful only as tools, to be utilised be those of us with those traits as we see fit.

>>3263906
>expecting a civil and clear debate from le reddit topic STEM vs humanities trololololo XD

Phrasing is important to deliver but ultimately the content is what keeps the drive. See above for what I think of the content.

>i'm responding to a troll thread, time to go to bed

I don't mind it enough to respond. I joke about it somehow and get by.

They are not really actual criticism, it's just stuff people say based on appearances and pre-conceived notions.

The equivalent would be to call a stem major a "nerd who doesn't get laid".

>>3263926
>the content is what keeps the drive.

At 41 posts...yup this thread sure is dead. From what I've been reading the majority of responses do not seem as degenerative as it could have been if it had been presented cynically.
and what other way do you suggest people discuss this sort of thing? it is worth discussing you know.

>They are not useful for human improvement/progress/development

This is the kind of technological thinking that reduces life to making money and contemplation to calculation. Though I can only speak for myself, I have to say world-views that maintain science as the only possible kind of truth must be incredibly impoverished. Crazy to think that something other than microwaves and LCD screens could have intrinsic value!

Another thing: who expects Mozart or Keats to be useful in the way a bridge is useful? Who thinks that the goal of literature/philosophy should be progress?

>They are not intellectually rigorous

Depends on the program . . . but not true across the board. Don't just waltz into an upper level lit seminar at a half-legit school and expect it to be easy. Especially if you're stem and haven't written a paragraph in 4 years.

>They are not economically valuable

Again: technologically minded people assume that if you're not producing more coal or timber for the mills you might as well be jerking it to anime your whole life. Heidegger was right about technology, and the current war against the humanities in popular culture just shows how little people care about anything that isn't a consumable resource. I hate it when people try to argue herp derp LIT IS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE and just fall into the same king of technological thinking that sees everything great and beautiful in the world as nothing more than a resource. POEMS DON'T MAKE MY CAR RUN. PHILOSOPHY ISN'T OIL OR CHEESEBURGERS SO WHAT'S THE POINT?

>>3263955
Actually, I am going to agree with you here. The thread indeed isn't a wasteland. I was originally just questioning OP's intentions.

At the same time, I think it's worth discussing just as much as it is worth discussing "which musical genre is the best". It is not he way to ask the question and to start the discussion.

I am going to hold the e/lit/es accountable here for keeping and retaining the level of quality (no matter what you think of it) this board is used to. I was really only questioning the OP, not the thread.

I think we can all agree that all art is useless and end it there.

>>3263758

>Life without art? Emotionless and robotic.

I unfortunately disagree to a degree. Entertainment has taken art's place. Nobody really cares if what they're reading or viewing is worthwhile as long as its enjoyable to them.

Try to write about something and see what kind of writing people will and won't read. It sure isn't how x constitutes a specific form of art because y and we should think of it as being z. Instead it's what the top 10 most inane kick-ass shit is or could be.

I would not even take a minute of my time to make a dignified response to those idiots.

Of course they are valuable. There is a market for it, there has been ever since cavepaintings.
They just don't seem to understand what a human is.

>>3263993
Useless for what? Usefulness implies a goal towards which something is useful. Without stating that goal, you can't determine something's use. Art can be useful for plenty of goals.

>>3263964

A+ post

Science, technology, and finance is what was responsible for the best art, not the study of humanities

>>3264028
Art is useless, but so is the things we need the most, like love.

I don't see why you need a degree in art. You can learn that kind of stuff yourself, and you don't need a degree to get a job as a writer or musician. You need an engineering degree to be an engineer,

>>3264049
You don't exactly need a degree to become a programmer or mechanic though. However, you do need a degree in literature in almost every scenario to become a well-acknowledged literary critique in academics.

>>3264049
Because people make the misconception that paying for a university degree teaching you how to draw will give you more success

>>3263964
>>3264036

Indeed. Good post.

>>3264045
Useless according to what goal? Without a goal everything is useless.

>>3264049

You don't need a degree to do most things funnily enough. You HAVE to have a degree if you want to do a lot things regardless though.

>>3264057
But aren't literary critics superfluous people to society? Don't they mere exist by virtue of their sophisms and tricking people into believing in their worth?

>>3264064
>You HAVE to have a degree if you want to do a lot things regardless though
This, difference being humanities still gives you much less opportunities to do what you want (getting a successful career in the profession)

Same case for fields from all academics, but compare humanities to shit like engineering and medical studies

>>3263704
>that picture
fucking pretentious just like /lit/

>>3264073
That's a lot of assumptions, pal. Literary critics are just that, critics of literature. They analyze literature and attempt to deconstruct it to discover its worth. Nobody cared about Beowulf until Tolkien wrote about how Beowulf was actually a pretty decent epic. They don't exist to stroke their own egos or anything.

>>3264084

>This, difference being humanities still gives you much less opportunities to do what you want (getting a successful career in the profession)

I think you're talking far too broadly. I agree with what you're trying to say in principle (i.e. you should be able to get away with not having a career in x in order to get into y) but that's not how it works anymore.

You want to be a writer? You sure as heck shouldn't need a degree but people will look at you far, far more favourably if you do.

I understand the engineering and medical studies have far more actual value to them if you want to go into a career in that kind of field but its almost superfluous at this point.

>>3264085
/lit/ is pretentious. However, the true gold here is when the most subtle indications of sincerety emerge. In anonymity. Fascinating.

>>3264107
I still think no one really cares about literary critics but literary critics. Not even writers care about literary critics.

>>3264119
>Not even writers care about literary critics.
No, they do. Even bad writers care about literary critics... well not all of the bad writers.

>>3264119

True but when I take my aspirin I don't care about the guys who made it.

If writers weren't such jabronis and could illustrate on their work a bit more we wouldn't need critics to decipher it. Like the dead guys. How selfish are they right now.

>>3264129
Too deep... way too deep... I cannot see in such darkness, man.

>They are not useful for human improvement/progress/development
Social, political, and to some degree economic progress requires those who concentrate in the humanities. It is true that most technical development comes from STEM-related fields, but the development that leads to technical development is thoroughly liberal arts-- remember, pure mathematics is liberal arts.

>They are not intellectually rigorous
That's laughably inane, moving on-

>They are not economically valuable
This is really just a rehash of the first point, which has been debunked. But, just to add some more: Law, politics, teaching. That is all.

STEM people who hate the humanities are just as bad as the humanists who hate the natural sciences.

But the fact is that there are far more science-hating humanists than humanities-hating STEM people. And the latter is 90% engineers anyway.

>>3264129
>we wouldn't need critics to decipher it.
>authorial intent

I´d rather live in my own filth and die of any kind of infection or similar then to live in a world solely governed by purpose and sense of the sciences.
Technological improvement is at best a nice side effect of our being. It doesn´t make my existence any better.

stem pussies can blow my cock
bunch of dumbshits

pure mathematics is liberal arts.
>>3264176
what?

>>3263717
>You're less likely to get a job with a computer sciences or physics degree nowadays than with a, say, history degree here anyway.
ALL THAT DENIAL, MY EYES

>>3263749

>>3264196
Bullshit.

>>3263717

AY HOE'D UP

>You're less likely to get a job with a computer sciences or physics degree nowadays than with a, say, history degree here anyway

.. you're either a woman or just plain fucking retarded. don't talk about anything STEM related. keep attempting to write your shitty stories which, by the way, will never be published.

lol, i bet you're religious too

>>3264320
>History Major
>Writing stories

You're either a retard or just plain fucking retarded. Don't talk about anything.

>>3264004
>Entertainment has taken art's place

I'm not they guy you replied to and even though these aren't my words, they express my sentiments more concisely:

Each generation gets to reinvent art in its own image.
Because art is an act of description, it is inevitable that what it describes will reflect every generation’s bias of the moment. It is not a strict reflection of a time but an interpretation rendered in a language that is always in a state of transformation.

>>3264326

they browse /lit/, that's where i made the assumption that they write stories.

l2correlate

>>3264326

>You're either a retard or just plain fucking retarded

LOL

I don't think you're in any place to be saying anything.

>>3264326
retard or just plain fucking retarded

lel. you ALMOST brought me out of depression

>>3264004
Entertainment is an art form.

Scripts don't write themselves
Character design doesn't just happen
Fashion keeps on going.

It sure feels american here.

>>3263749
>>3263758
>>3263792
>>3263793
>>3263850
>>3263852
>>3263871
>>3263964
>>3264111
OP here. May summarize /lit/'s consensus responses? (I'm gathering ammunition to disagree with some anti-Humanities guys)

>They are not useful for human improvement/progress/development
Highly subjective claim (since it depends on what improvement means). Art/Music/Literature provides value to many people, although it generally doesn't create scientific advances. A society without art/music/literature would be technically proficient but emotionally dead.

>They are not intellectually rigorous
Partially true, although much of the higher level stuff is rigorous. Saying literary analysis isn't rigorous on the basis of entry level classes (and listening to stupid people) is like saying Mathematics isn't rigorous on the basis of high school math.

>They are not economically valuable
Partially true, as a Literature major or History major will generally make much less than an Engineering major. However, there are plenty of exceptions. Also, economic value is only a portion of life.

>>3264176
>pure mathematics is liberal arts
I was talking about the Humanities.

My viewpoint can probably be reduced to something like this: culture is how humanity looks itself in the mirror, therefore it is needed to evaluate, develop and learn about what it means to be human.

Just because you can't put a number on it and a dollar sign in front of it doesn't mean that it's worthless. Quite the contrary actually, for when science have taken us into space and brought about the first meeting with another intelligent lifeform; what do we show them to tell them who we are?

>1/2
>>3266553
>although it generally doesn't create scientific advances
but it does. it largely determines the demand which determines the production and/or improvements, inventions pursued.
the arts present the public with ideas which effect their lifestyles, wants, needs. (ex. the bad guys are going to get us->get them first->war->science is heading in a militant direction, etc)
[new ideas offered in science fiction,] [old ideas with much potential for building on, recorded via historical works] have directly contributed to many innovations we use today.
everything product we watch or use was generally designed by someone first as a concept. The creation process usually consists of a director, an artist/designer, and an engineer to flesh out the concept. They often work closely together to create one single thing.
this is just touching on a few of the very real avenues as to why the 'arts' and 'sciences' are both convoluted practices that exist for each other in order to accomplish shit.

>2/2
>They are not economically valuable
>Partially true
no. not true, really. see previous. you can't get anything done, the way our system works, without both working in tandem. this is like calling your left leg less useful than your right. even after all previously mentioned, to even set an invention to be used in a meaningful way it must be marketed with flashing lights so to speak to whoever is the intended consumer.
whether this is modeling the orbit of a satellite about a planet to the next toyota ad. [some old couple invented a crazy fuel-efficient, inexpensive and eco-friendly sort of car, but the technology fizzled and died because it was never marketed and never became widely known to the public [to gain a sufficient demand for it's ever being produced or going anywhere] because general motors wanted people buying oil for their vehicles to sustain their profits, so worked to shut the innovation from the public eye. This new tech then amounted to nothing.]

see
>>3263850
>>3263852

>>3266631
>>although it generally doesn't create scientific advances
>but it does. it largely determines the demand
That's like saying "the desire for good food creates scientific advances". Absent the desire for good food, the resources put into researching/creating good food would be put into something else. Creating a demand is not productive.

>you can't get anything done, the way our system works, without both working in tandem
Suppose a world where people never wrote literature, painted paintings, or listened to music. Those resources are just put into other industries. Who would lose economically? (aside from those who only have talents in lit/art/music, and those who like lit/art/music). Relatively few people, with major exceptions for stuff like Sci-Fi creating technological advances (as you mentioned).

>>3263704
Art is something that makes people happy. Happy people work better. People who work better help the economy, society, whatever it is they work on. Art, therefore, helps the economy, society, etc.
Art supports creativity and intelligence, thereby furthering us as a society, again.

As far as I'm concerned, art is more important than higher maths.

>>3266654
the problem here's logical fallacy. art is not just paintings. lit is not just dusty classics. music is not just the most popular track on the radio.

i am a concept art and product designer. i'm talking about my field, not in the abstract. it's a pretty direct correlation.
>(like saying the desire for good food..)
my job is to cognate feasible ideas for designs for everything from the newest products, to films, video games, webpage designs, building designs, new tech designs, etc. the director gives a bare outline of what they want me to produce. i conceptualize it from angles to functions, and then when my idea is approved, it is passed to an engineer, architect, programmer, etc who takes my design and shunts it into real life via whatever expertise the relevant field requires.
i see the same thing happening in an incredible number of avenues, a few of which i've mentioned, in the hand-in-hand nature of the sciences+arts, because i'm constantly aware of it because it's basically my job, so a fun thing for me to see.
Again, my field isn't an exception. pretty much every field in the arts contributed in a very real, necessary way to the sciences. seriously. read my posts, i put it poorly, but it's all there, guy.

>>3263704
>They are not useful for human improvement/progress/development
When humanity invokes the technological singularity, how will these people justify the existence of the human race? When we are not longer the best at science and engineering, what will we have left to value of ourselves?

>They are not intellectually rigorous
Clearly these people don't understand the immense amount of scholarship that we dedicate to the humanities. This supposition comes only from ignorance and poses no respectable criticism at all.

>They are not economically valuable
Most artists are poor, yes, but if they really care about their work, they will think it worthwhile, even enjoy it. This is by far the weakest of their criticisms. People who bank on this argument slipped into a consumerist palsy long ago: what are they other than surfeited into reliance on their fancy cars, yachts, iPhone 5s, prepackaged Cheez-its, you get the point. An artist doesn't anchor happiness to worldly things, those being utterly contingent.

>There are lots of people I've met who hate that the humanities (literature, art, music, et cetera) are studied in schools.

I'm not fond of the fact that I have to learn science in schools. They are a trade skill, nothing more. I will never ever ever have to use the physics formulas I learned in school, but I had to learn them anyway. I think, for the sake of well-roundedness, students ought to study the philosophy of science, which relates to everyone, and definitely can be used in principle no matter what your profession.

>>3263704
You're implying that the progress of the human race is an objective value.

>>3263704

Where do you meet people that don't like art, literature and music?

What, they don't own ipods? they don't watch movies? they don't read?

I call shenanigans.

I have several degrees in a hard science field. All my friends are scientists, and they include:

a geologist who plays classical violin
a molecular biologist who writes poetry good enough to have been invited to read it at a major arts conference.
a physicist who writes murder mysteries.

granted there's no Shakespeare or Leonardo here, but I don't know a single scientist who doesn't have a much interest in the arts as anyone else, and much more than non-scientists seem to be interested in science.

oh and i have a graduate student who plays tenor sax.


Is there really a bunch of science guys out there who think written language, art and music are pointless or a bad idea? I don't know any, and I know a LOT of scientists.

>>3264004


the problem here is the word "worthwhile" it's too much of a wild card. and "entertainment" being arbitraly separated from art and literature and music seems a bit arbitrary. Lots of entertainment venues seem to have more music than they do, say, maths.

these are the worst threads, why do people even engage in 'discussion'?

it's like debating personal politics or religious beliefs—each side has their own ardent and narrow-minded beliefs and doesn't want to hear anything that threatens their stance

>>3263742
>it's clear the study of humanities isn't doing much to stop the decline in culture
I think this is because so many people spend their free time in front of the TV or whatever and are fairly oblivious of the humanities. For those interested, I think the study of humanities is helping.

>>3266965
the problem isn't with science guys in general, it's just those bloody engineers.

>They are not useful for human improvement/progress/development
>oh excuse me i forgot you personally get to define what the goals of society are

>They are not intellectually rigorous
>so

>They are not economically valuable
>so

Here, let's try this:

You know how science is rigorous? Now, for the most part, discovery is incremental. Yes, sometimes a scientist shows up and changes everything, but for the most part? Slowly develops. But it still takes creativity! A lot of it! I'll never say being a scientist means you've become boring. Scientists find solutions to problems.

Artists find problems. Artists find solutions to problems that don't exist. Artists grab thoughts and ideas and just put them there and put them into medium. Art is just someone going "What if.." and then makes it. People consume it and do what they will with the idea.

The frustrations and problems of a generation appear in literature. When we look at them, and read them, they serve as reminders of what not to do and we learn.

I know it's not the 'deepest' work of art, but look at Star Trek. Some artist thought about doors that opened automatically, of touch screens and instant communications.

So in short: Art's a crapshoot for new ideas that scientists can take and make reality. It's hard to quantify that value.

>Engineering Student here. There are lots of people I've met who hate that the humanities (literature, art, music, et cetera) are studied in schools. I've heard several criticisms:

>They are not useful for human improvement/progress/development

The most absurd thing I've ever heard. Can you imagine a world where the Beatles never existed? Where the greatest films of Hollywood's golden age never came about? I guess we can all just be monkeys who can build bridges over things and that's good enough for mankind.

Absurd.

>They are not intellectually rigorous

Pfffft.

>They are not economically valuable

Tell that to the publishing companies that make money off of books, the studio with its movies.

Can I just take some time to rant that engineering students are the absolute fucking worst of the science-y/math-y crowd by a country mile? I've really never heard like a physics, chemistry or a biologybro make these fucking comments. It's always smug little engineering snots. Funniest part is that for engineering you don't even have to be amazing at math or exceptionally intelligent. You have to 1. be competent at math and 2. willing to just work really hard. All these faggots do is plug and chug and act like they're gods whose shit doesn't stink.

>>3263704

>how to respond

Engineers and scientists work for wages in order to spend their money on Art, Music, Movies, books, Entertainment, etc.

Artists, musicians, writers also work for wages in order to buy iPads and cars and things that science makes.

It's not hard to notice the symbiosis here.

>>3268074
>buy iPads

well fuck those hipsters

>>3268015
>Can I just take some time to rant that engineering students are the absolute fucking worst of the science-y/math-y crowd by a country mile? I've really never heard like a physics, chemistry or a biologybro make these fucking comments. It's always smug little engineering snots. Funniest part is that for engineering you don't even have to be amazing at math or exceptionally intelligent. You have to 1. be competent at math and 2. willing to just work really hard. All these faggots do is plug and chug and act like they're gods whose shit doesn't stink.


This.

My brother is one of these nauseating kids.

>not intellectually rigorous

Try giving a stemfag a paper on Kierkegaard or Foucault. See what they make of it.

>useful for human improvement

So the lego-builders are more 'useful' than the thinkers? Interesting.

>economically valuable

Thanks, capitalism

>People not understanding that wisdom and its pursuit are an end unto themselves
>People not understanding that art is done for the sake of art, nothing more
>People still wrapped up in the pedantic purview of materialism in general
>Mfw

The ironic thing is that if they actually studied the humanities they probably wouldn't have made such stupid, narrow-minded criticisms.

>>3263704

There are some assumptions in the criticisms you listed that are unsupported and probably unsound:

>They are not useful for human improvement/progress/development

I've always wondered what people mean when they talk about "human progress", development or whatever. What are we progressing towards? What are we trying to develop? How and why are we doing this? And why should anyone care what STEM people have to say about these problems when they are clearly outside of their area of expertise?

>They are not intellectually rigorous

Why is intellectual rigor necessary for an area of study? Thoroughness is good and rigor by itself is good but surely not all worthwhile endeavors have to be intellectually challenging.


>They are not economically valuable

That's because we currently live in a society that only values technological advancement. If the attitudes that people have towards the arts change they may become more economically viable.

Does it really matter? For the most part, someone would study a certain field because they find it interesting. Why would you dedicate years of your life to studying something you find intolerable? Interest breeds dedication. Dedication leads to excellence. Excellence brings about innovation. Innovation oversees worth, regardless of the field.

If you dedicate your time to something you hate, you will end up apathetic and, thereby, worthless. You won't want to contribute. Just let people do what they want. If they wanted to study science and contribute to, what I think we'll agree is a very ambiguous notion of, 'human progress', then they would have. If you force someone to do something they hate, they'll do a shit job at it. That's not going to do anyone any good, is it?