3 ms·

The lesson here is that intellectual inbreeding is a terrible and sad thing if you're an outside observer. All fields of academic study should once in a while

The lesson here is that intellectual inbreeding is a terrible and sad thing if you're an outside observer. All fields of academic study should once in a while be faced with outside scrutiny because without it the discipline optimizes cleverness instead of actual intellectual content.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
powrtoch 16y ago
Of course, in a sense they are subject to this scrutiny. Humanities programs are very often the first ones proposed for the chopping block whenever budget cuts come around. At which time, I assume, they are forced to make appeals as to why they are too important to be slashed. Obviously I don't think these appeals involve explaining the workings of deconstruction to administrators, but presumably they are able to say something convincing enough to stay afloat. In the end, it probably amounts to most people (very arguably for the better) being unwilling to declare something as bunk just because they don't personally understand it or see the merit. I think the real test should be outside application. If the supposed advances made in some particular arm of literature can only have meaning, effect and influence within that closed literary community, then what can it really be doing for society as a whole? Ultimately we want a discipline to offer something to the world at large, not just to itself. You don't have to be a scientist to see the merit in studying the human heart, you just have to know (or just be able to conceive) someone with heart disease. And it's not just sciences that could withstand this test. If studying music theory helps people to write more beautiful songs, that will be apparent to many people who have no music training whatsoever. Point being, I think the real acid test is outside application. I won't leap to the conclusion that deconstructionism is garbage. I just ask to be shown that understanding it does indeed help someone to do something other than write deconstruction papers.
- dantheman 16y ago
  The problem for application is in what time frame is it useful? In early biology just cataloging plants, bugs, and animals would be of little or no use to those not in those fields as all they were doing is developing taxonomies. The same might be said of those who started first watching the stars. I think that Postmodernism may be a bit of a waste of time, but it's too early for me to know. Unfortunately they wish the public fund their work.
  - greenlblue 16y ago
    Ya but at least you could ask a biologist why he was cataloging all those things and he would be able to give you a clear answer and point to possible uses of that catalog, same for the astronomer. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for some of postmodernist theories.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

powrtoch 16y ago

Of course, in a sense they are subject to this scrutiny. Humanities programs are very often the first ones proposed for the chopping block whenever budget cuts come around. At which time, I assume, they are forced to make appeals as to why they are too important to be slashed. Obviously I don't think these appeals involve explaining the workings of deconstruction to administrators, but presumably they are able to say something convincing enough to stay afloat. In the end, it probably amounts to most people (very arguably for the better) being unwilling to declare something as bunk just because they don't personally understand it or see the merit. I think the real test should be outside application. If the supposed advances made in some particular arm of literature can only have meaning, effect and influence within that closed literary community, then what can it really be doing for society as a whole? Ultimately we want a discipline to offer something to the world at large, not just to itself. You don't have to be a scientist to see the merit in studying the human heart, you just have to know (or just be able to conceive) someone with heart disease. And it's not just sciences that could withstand this test. If studying music theory helps people to write more beautiful songs, that will be apparent to many people who have no music training whatsoever. Point being, I think the real acid test is outside application. I won't leap to the conclusion that deconstructionism is garbage. I just ask to be shown that understanding it does indeed help someone to do something other than write deconstruction papers.

dantheman 16y ago
The problem for application is in what time frame is it useful? In early biology just cataloging plants, bugs, and animals would be of little or no use to those not in those fields as all they were doing is developing taxonomies. The same might be said of those who started first watching the stars. I think that Postmodernism may be a bit of a waste of time, but it's too early for me to know. Unfortunately they wish the public fund their work.
- greenlblue 16y ago
  Ya but at least you could ask a biologist why he was cataloging all those things and he would be able to give you a clear answer and point to possible uses of that catalog, same for the astronomer. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for some of postmodernist theories.