4 ms·

> Being able to understand that there are different points of view present, and finding the bridge between them, is a super power for facilitating teamwork. Lik

by an9n 5y ago

> Being able to understand that there are different points of view present, and finding the bridge between them, is a super power for facilitating teamwork. Like any other skill, some people have more natural talent, but training and practice can help almost anyone. > Studying the humanities, which sometimes comes in for scorn among technical folks, can be a way to do this. Learning to read and write critically about literature and art really starts with learning to detect and think carefully about different points of view: among characters, and between the artist and various members of their audience. This strikes me as highly ironic given the incredible narrowing of permitted opinions on campuses over recent years. Try seriously challenging the doctrine and one is liable to be cancelled, reprimanded, chucked off a course - even physically attacked.

ok_dad 5y ago
Please don't start flame-war topics on HN. This is way out of scope for the article. The GP was simply saying that when you study the humanities, you read a lot of different POVs, and those help you to understand that your way of thinking might not always be perfect, or the best, but that there are many angles to looking at a problem. Thanks! > Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments
- crateless 5y ago
  > Please don't start flame-war topics on HN. This is a disingenuous attempt to dismiss a valid criticism by categorising it as a flame-war topic. The humanities today, in general, are by no means either tolerant or open (at least in the English speaking portion of the globe).
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    You're painting things with too broad of a brush. Not only do things vary by professor and institution, the issues you raise aren't particularly relevant ir prominent to a course on Shakespeare's Tragedies, Ancient Rome, most of the field of linguistics... I could go on. Critics in this area have latched on to a few prominent outliers or bad actors and used that to create a false narrative about the entire system.
    - crateless 5y ago
      You are right. What is happening in the major universities is not representative of the majority of universities. Therefore I agree that, depending on where you look and how you look at it, the state of the humanities is largely intact. I think, though it is a leap, that the current <insert-dogma-of-the-day> will extend downstream but who knows...
huetius 5y ago
It’s probably a bigger argument than I can articulate in the time I have available at the moment, but I’ve long believed that this phenomenon, among many other crises, is driven by the rise to dominance of a constellation of philosophical worldviews which center around positivism (and which extends to various failed attempts to overcome it). The categories of thought which underpin a humanistic education are denied (a priori), except insofar as they are immediately useful to material well-being. The importance of contemplation of the truth is relativized downwards, and thought must justify itself in terms of action: social change, market value, “impact”, etc., which is all another way of saying that truth is made an instrument power[0]. We are living the consequences. In this light, it becomes apparent that the crisis crosses contested political boundaries (although it is admittedly progressives who currently have the upper hand). The main beneficiaries are, as one might expect, the powerful. [0]: some may reply that truth has always been a socially constructed instrument if power, and that announcing it as such is simply a reduction in hypocrisy. This criticism must be reversed upon the critic: the proposition is itself a construct only believable in a social idiom which made it so.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > It’s probably a bigger argument than I can articulate in the time I have available at the moment, but I’ve long believed that this phenomenon, among many other crises, is driven by the rise to dominance of a constellation of philosophical worldviews which center around positivism (and which extends to various failed attempts to overcome it). I don't think this is right at all. First, positivism is dead. Michael Polanyi killed it (I forget the name of the book at the moment). Second, when people complain about "the incredible narrowing of permitted opinions on campuses", they don't mean that only positivist voices are allowed. And those doing the narrowing aren't doing so from a positivist position at all. They're doin so from a position that regards positivism as an attempt by a power structure to assert dominance (and probably racist besides).
  - huetius 5y ago
    Let me clarify: I like Polanyi, but positivism is still very much alive. I mentioned in my post various failed attempts to surpass it, in which I would include Pragmatism, continuations of Marxism, the critical school (excluding some late works by Horkheimer), and postmodernism, all of which retain positivism’s negations. EDIT: to supply some evidence, in Book III of Science, Faith, and Society, Polanyi argues that unchecked Positivism would result in a society not fundamentally dissimilar from the Soviet society which had prompted him to write the book in the first place. I encourage you to read it and compare it against your experience, asking whether Polanyi secured victory, or whether crucial aspects of his thought went unheeded.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ineedasername 5y ago
The good/bad implementation of instruction by any one professor or institution is irrelevant to the point made by the GP, especially when they didn't stipulate study at a college level. There are more ways to learn than in a classroom.

by an9n 5y ago

ok_dad 5y ago

Please don't start flame-war topics on HN. This is way out of scope for the article. The GP was simply saying that when you study the humanities, you read a lot of different POVs, and those help you to understand that your way of thinking might not always be perfect, or the best, but that there are many angles to looking at a problem. Thanks! > Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments

crateless 5y ago
> Please don't start flame-war topics on HN. This is a disingenuous attempt to dismiss a valid criticism by categorising it as a flame-war topic. The humanities today, in general, are by no means either tolerant or open (at least in the English speaking portion of the globe).
- ineedasername 5y ago
  You're painting things with too broad of a brush. Not only do things vary by professor and institution, the issues you raise aren't particularly relevant ir prominent to a course on Shakespeare's Tragedies, Ancient Rome, most of the field of linguistics... I could go on. Critics in this area have latched on to a few prominent outliers or bad actors and used that to create a false narrative about the entire system.
  - crateless 5y ago
    You are right. What is happening in the major universities is not representative of the majority of universities. Therefore I agree that, depending on where you look and how you look at it, the state of the humanities is largely intact. I think, though it is a leap, that the current <insert-dogma-of-the-day> will extend downstream but who knows...

huetius 5y ago

It’s probably a bigger argument than I can articulate in the time I have available at the moment, but I’ve long believed that this phenomenon, among many other crises, is driven by the rise to dominance of a constellation of philosophical worldviews which center around positivism (and which extends to various failed attempts to overcome it). The categories of thought which underpin a humanistic education are denied (a priori), except insofar as they are immediately useful to material well-being. The importance of contemplation of the truth is relativized downwards, and thought must justify itself in terms of action: social change, market value, “impact”, etc., which is all another way of saying that truth is made an instrument power[0]. We are living the consequences. In this light, it becomes apparent that the crisis crosses contested political boundaries (although it is admittedly progressives who currently have the upper hand). The main beneficiaries are, as one might expect, the powerful. [0]: some may reply that truth has always been a socially constructed instrument if power, and that announcing it as such is simply a reduction in hypocrisy. This criticism must be reversed upon the critic: the proposition is itself a construct only believable in a social idiom which made it so.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> It’s probably a bigger argument than I can articulate in the time I have available at the moment, but I’ve long believed that this phenomenon, among many other crises, is driven by the rise to dominance of a constellation of philosophical worldviews which center around positivism (and which extends to various failed attempts to overcome it). I don't think this is right at all. First, positivism is dead. Michael Polanyi killed it (I forget the name of the book at the moment). Second, when people complain about "the incredible narrowing of permitted opinions on campuses", they don't mean that only positivist voices are allowed. And those doing the narrowing aren't doing so from a positivist position at all. They're doin so from a position that regards positivism as an attempt by a power structure to assert dominance (and probably racist besides).
- huetius 5y ago
  Let me clarify: I like Polanyi, but positivism is still very much alive. I mentioned in my post various failed attempts to surpass it, in which I would include Pragmatism, continuations of Marxism, the critical school (excluding some late works by Horkheimer), and postmodernism, all of which retain positivism’s negations. EDIT: to supply some evidence, in Book III of Science, Faith, and Society, Polanyi argues that unchecked Positivism would result in a society not fundamentally dissimilar from the Soviet society which had prompted him to write the book in the first place. I encourage you to read it and compare it against your experience, asking whether Polanyi secured victory, or whether crucial aspects of his thought went unheeded.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ineedasername 5y ago

The good/bad implementation of instruction by any one professor or institution is irrelevant to the point made by the GP, especially when they didn't stipulate study at a college level. There are more ways to learn than in a classroom.