4 ms·

> "I believe that the profession can’t really move forward until we shed our fear of saying and thinking things that colleagues would call ‘humanist.’ " Why on

by _rpd 10y ago

> "I believe that the profession can’t really move forward until we shed our fear of saying and thinking things that colleagues would call ‘humanist.’ " Why on Earth has humanism fallen into disrepute among literary studies majors?

anigbrowl 10y ago
It hasn't, but if you say humanism you're exposing yourself to dual charges of cultural Marxism from the right and sneers of wasting money on a 'useless' degree from people who think education should serve vocation.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  > education should serve vocation. yes, it's commonly said, and it's politically supported as well with all the emphasis on promoting STEM subjects. however...vocation and $dayjob are not the same thing and the conflation of them is, I think, one of the roots of a profound cultural problem we're currently facing. I don't mean merely to argue the semantics of the word "vocation", which I know is frequently used as a reference to "vocational training" which is an unfortunately named term that refers to practical job skills training. I'm arguing that the reason we make this mistake of semantics in the first place is because on a deeper level our culture has lost touch with the notion of what a vocation really is and really means. It means _calling_. Education really _should_ serve vocation, except that vocation and job aren't the same thing and now we have confused the two and so our education is confused as well and no longer but illuminates but instead obscures. Case in point: the difficulty of claiming to support "humanism", or want to study "the humanities".
  - _rpd 10y ago
    > we have confused the two I don't see confusion so much as a desire for the two to be the same and a goal worth pursuing.
  - gbersac 10y ago
    I think on the other hand that vocation is a think since only a few decade. In ancient time, your only option was to do the same thing that your parents. There weren't as many professions. Vocation is a luxury. You gain money by serving other people's needs, not by following your vocation. It's a luxury humanity has been able to afford since only few decades (except aristocracy).
  - internaut 10y ago
    If we had a society where people could educate themselves/be educated for 20 years, work for 20 years, have a vocation for 20 years, it might be a better world. Presently such a lifestyle is available only to a minority in our society. You can't advocate such a thing more universally without being labeled a Fascist (Service Guarantees Citizenship!) or a Communist. Those ideologies certainly are problematic but they did offer a higher ideal to the people. Many people in Western society feel bored, miserable and lost. That's what is behind many of these conversions to Islam. It is first and foremost, a crisis of higher purpose and if it cannot be turned to a productive output it will likely metathesize into something worse.
- internaut 10y ago
  You've seen Sociology textbooks? Guilty as charged. I don't mind people doing this at a private university, but I think it questionable that we accept this at public universities. Imagine most economic programs were taught by Moldbug about Ludwig von Mises's doctrines.

by _rpd 10y ago

anigbrowl 10y ago

It hasn't, but if you say humanism you're exposing yourself to dual charges of cultural Marxism from the right and sneers of wasting money on a 'useless' degree from people who think education should serve vocation.

metaphorm 10y ago
> education should serve vocation. yes, it's commonly said, and it's politically supported as well with all the emphasis on promoting STEM subjects. however...vocation and $dayjob are not the same thing and the conflation of them is, I think, one of the roots of a profound cultural problem we're currently facing. I don't mean merely to argue the semantics of the word "vocation", which I know is frequently used as a reference to "vocational training" which is an unfortunately named term that refers to practical job skills training. I'm arguing that the reason we make this mistake of semantics in the first place is because on a deeper level our culture has lost touch with the notion of what a vocation really is and really means. It means _calling_. Education really _should_ serve vocation, except that vocation and job aren't the same thing and now we have confused the two and so our education is confused as well and no longer but illuminates but instead obscures. Case in point: the difficulty of claiming to support "humanism", or want to study "the humanities".
- _rpd 10y ago
  > we have confused the two I don't see confusion so much as a desire for the two to be the same and a goal worth pursuing.
- gbersac 10y ago
  I think on the other hand that vocation is a think since only a few decade. In ancient time, your only option was to do the same thing that your parents. There weren't as many professions. Vocation is a luxury. You gain money by serving other people's needs, not by following your vocation. It's a luxury humanity has been able to afford since only few decades (except aristocracy).
- internaut 10y ago
  If we had a society where people could educate themselves/be educated for 20 years, work for 20 years, have a vocation for 20 years, it might be a better world. Presently such a lifestyle is available only to a minority in our society. You can't advocate such a thing more universally without being labeled a Fascist (Service Guarantees Citizenship!) or a Communist. Those ideologies certainly are problematic but they did offer a higher ideal to the people. Many people in Western society feel bored, miserable and lost. That's what is behind many of these conversions to Islam. It is first and foremost, a crisis of higher purpose and if it cannot be turned to a productive output it will likely metathesize into something worse.
internaut 10y ago
You've seen Sociology textbooks? Guilty as charged. I don't mind people doing this at a private university, but I think it questionable that we accept this at public universities. Imagine most economic programs were taught by Moldbug about Ludwig von Mises's doctrines.