3 ms·

The humanities (and liberal arts in general) are important for a functioning society because they endeavor to teach people what it means to be a person in a wor

The humanities (and liberal arts in general) are important for a functioning society because they endeavor to teach people what it means to be a person in a world full of people. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/february/nussbaum-democracy-humanities-020912.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/february/nussbaum-democr... >Increasingly viewed as "useless" by politicians, humanities and arts programming is being replaced by technical training courses in sciences, engineering and technology in the name of economic gain. While technical skills are important for the future health of nations, Nussbaum said that they alone do not make for a fully educated student. Without people with a liberal arts background, she said, the world would be filled with "narrow, technically trained workers, rather than complete citizens who can think for themselves, criticize tradition and authority, and understand the significance of another person's sufferings and achievements." >These so-called soft-skills are essential for developing a "decent world culture" and maintaining healthy democracies, she said. Study of history and culture imparts the ability to approach global issues as a citizen of the world. Study of philosophy teaches the critical thinking skills that help us reason about our choices. Participation in the creative arts fosters an empathetic capacity and, Nussbaum said, "allows us to imagine the challenges facing someone unlike ourselves." >In closing, Nussbaum reiterated that the arts and humanities not only "shape people who are able to see other human beings as full people with thoughts and feelings" but also build "nations that are able to overcome fear and suspicion in favor of sympathetic and well-reasoned debate."

Nasrudith 8y ago
I keep on seeing this unsupported assertion everywhere when the humanities are called upon to justify themselves or feel envious - that humanities are the best for critical thinking. Why does it mean that they can think for themselves when in many cases the humanities slavishly follow what came before even in face of evidence that says no it really doesn't work that way (people who look at Marx for economics for instance)? Why are social skills assumed to stem from them only? Why is the ability to divine objective truths about reality and literally prove something indisputably impossible or true not count as critical thinking? There is nothing more critical than seeing and stating "and yet it moves" despite what everybody thinks. The utility of humanities is done a great disservice by these arguments The author's very thesis is incoherent- complaining both about death of tradition and people not thinking for themselves. Complaining about advertisers while praising soft skills is a similar contradiction.

Nasrudith 8y ago

I keep on seeing this unsupported assertion everywhere when the humanities are called upon to justify themselves or feel envious - that humanities are the best for critical thinking. Why does it mean that they can think for themselves when in many cases the humanities slavishly follow what came before even in face of evidence that says no it really doesn't work that way (people who look at Marx for economics for instance)? Why are social skills assumed to stem from them only? Why is the ability to divine objective truths about reality and literally prove something indisputably impossible or true not count as critical thinking? There is nothing more critical than seeing and stating "and yet it moves" despite what everybody thinks. The utility of humanities is done a great disservice by these arguments The author's very thesis is incoherent- complaining both about death of tradition and people not thinking for themselves. Complaining about advertisers while praising soft skills is a similar contradiction.