4 ms·

It's valuable because people are, and have always been, interested in discussing and analyzing literature in order to gain a better understanding of it. ... Mus

It's valuable because people are, and have always been, interested in discussing and analyzing literature in order to gain a better understanding of it. ... Music and art don't obviously contribute anything either, but presumably you don't think these are without value. But people can discus and analyze literature without there being a formal discipline for it. In fact arguable your average person could do it better without the formal discipline because they would not have be concerned about if they were doing it "right" The analogy to music and art appears false, they do contribute things other than themselves. They contribute first entertainment, second the ties that bind culture together, and third (at least in some cases) they provide an introspection on society. Art and music add all of those things, but at least as I understand it now, literary criticism as an academic discipline provides none of them. As I have very limited knowledge of literary criticism please let me know if I am missing something. * Some things are valuable in and of themselves.* An interesting possibility, but it is not obvious that it is true. (I am not claiming it is false, merely that it demands justification). At least one argument is that things are valuable precisely in proportion to their utility to mankind. Excluding those people who make their living at it directly, I am unclear as to what value literary criticism provides to anyone else.

foldr 17y ago
>But people can discus and analyze literature without there being a formal discipline for it. People can do anything without there being a formal discipline for it. I'm not sure what your point is here. As with most other subjects (e.g. physics, chemistry, history) extensive training in a professional environment is one moderately effective means of getting people to produce high quality work. > In fact arguable your average person could do it better without the formal discipline because they would not have be concerned about if they were doing it "right" No, this is not arguable. Average people suck at literary criticism in more or less the same way that average people suck at theoretical physics. Given that you admit to knowing nothing about literary criticism, so I'm curious to know how you can be so sure of what you say here. > They contribute first entertainment, second the ties that bind culture together, and third (at least in some cases) they provide an introspection on society. At the very least, literary criticism provides introspection on society. The first two things you mention are a little more vague (and in any case, don't apply to most work in the sciences). >An interesting possibility, but it is not obvious that it is true. It is obviously true in the sense that if nothing has value in itself, then you get an infinite regress. It can't be that everything is valuable only in terms of some other thing. (Of course, an infinite regress is mathematically conceivable, it just doesn't seem plausible in this particular case.) >At least one argument is that things are valuable precisely in proportion to their utility to mankind If you think this then you clearly agree with me that there is something that is valuable in and of itself (i.e. utility to mankind). But valuing utility above everything else is clearly wrong. For example, beauty, love and compassion would be valuable whether or not they had utility. >Excluding those people who make their living at it directly, I am unclear as to what value literary criticism provides to anyone else. It provides value to people who value literary criticism. And there are certainly some such people who are not literary critics. (You yourself are clearly not one of these people, but you are not the only person in the world...)
- timwiseman 17y ago
  Average people suck at literary criticism in more or less the same way that average people suck at theoretical physics. Given that you admit to knowing nothing about literary criticism, so I'm curious to know how you can be so sure of what you say here. In theoretical physics there is an absolute authority by which to judge what is good and bad, namely the degree to which it conforms to reality. Appealing to this authority may be challenging and may not ever be practical, but it exists and it therefore means something specific to say something is wrong in theoretical physics. Also, when that theoretical physics is later applied being wrong about it can be have real negative consequences. It is not clear to me that saying something is wrong in literary criticism even has a meaning, and even less clear that it would ever matter if something was wrong. If you think this then you clearly agree with me that there is something that is valuable in and of itself (i.e. utility to mankind). But valuing utility above everything else is clearly wrong. For example, beauty, love and compassion would be valuable whether or not they had utility. I actually do agree with you that some things (including beauty, truth, and love) have intrinsic value. But I take that belief starting from a Christian view point. If one were to examine it a priori or from an athiestic viewpoint it is not at all obvious or clear that anything has a value outside of its practical utility to mankind.
  - foldr 17y ago
    >In theoretical physics there is an absolute authority by which to judge what is good and bad, namely the degree to which it conforms to reality. There might be an absolute authority of this sort if we could just ask God whether or not a given theory conformed to reality, but in practice there is no absolute authority for judging work in science -- and you certainly find plenty of disagreement between scientists once you go beyond textbook material. Personally, I'm not a complete subjectivist about aesthetic and critical judgments, so I think that an "absolute standard" exists in principle for a lot of work in the humanities. For example, I think it is a fact that Jane Austen wrote good novels. However, I'm a little uneasy about your reliance on the correspondence theory of truth (the idea that a true theory is one which is some obscure sense "conforms" or "corresponds" to reality). Although I am not a skeptic or subjectivist about truth, there are well known problems with conceiving truth in this way. > Also, when that theoretical physics is later applied being wrong about it can be have real negative consequences. Being wrong about the kinds of subjects that the humanities touches on (e.g. relations between human beings) can also have real negative consequences, if you are not a robot. >It is not clear to me that saying something is wrong in literary criticism even has a meaning, and even less clear that it would ever matter if something was wrong. I'm sorry that these things aren't clear to you, but the notion that critical and aesthetic judgments are "meaningless" is one that's been thoroughly discredited over the past 50 years. Logical positivism has been dead for quite some time now. >If one were to examine it a priori or from an athiestic viewpoint it is not at all obvious or clear that anything has a value outside of its practical utility to mankind. Again, if you believe that, then you believe that there is something which has intrinsic value -- utility. In any case, it's not clear to me why someone looking at things from an atheistic viewpoint would choose utility as his yardstick for value. I'm an atheist and I value a whole bunch of different things. I do value things for being useful, but I don't give utility any privileged place, or see any reason to do so.

foldr 17y ago

>But people can discus and analyze literature without there being a formal discipline for it. People can do anything without there being a formal discipline for it. I'm not sure what your point is here. As with most other subjects (e.g. physics, chemistry, history) extensive training in a professional environment is one moderately effective means of getting people to produce high quality work. > In fact arguable your average person could do it better without the formal discipline because they would not have be concerned about if they were doing it "right" No, this is not arguable. Average people suck at literary criticism in more or less the same way that average people suck at theoretical physics. Given that you admit to knowing nothing about literary criticism, so I'm curious to know how you can be so sure of what you say here. > They contribute first entertainment, second the ties that bind culture together, and third (at least in some cases) they provide an introspection on society. At the very least, literary criticism provides introspection on society. The first two things you mention are a little more vague (and in any case, don't apply to most work in the sciences). >An interesting possibility, but it is not obvious that it is true. It is obviously true in the sense that if nothing has value in itself, then you get an infinite regress. It can't be that everything is valuable only in terms of some other thing. (Of course, an infinite regress is mathematically conceivable, it just doesn't seem plausible in this particular case.) >At least one argument is that things are valuable precisely in proportion to their utility to mankind If you think this then you clearly agree with me that there is something that is valuable in and of itself (i.e. utility to mankind). But valuing utility above everything else is clearly wrong. For example, beauty, love and compassion would be valuable whether or not they had utility. >Excluding those people who make their living at it directly, I am unclear as to what value literary criticism provides to anyone else. It provides value to people who value literary criticism. And there are certainly some such people who are not literary critics. (You yourself are clearly not one of these people, but you are not the only person in the world...)

timwiseman 17y ago
Average people suck at literary criticism in more or less the same way that average people suck at theoretical physics. Given that you admit to knowing nothing about literary criticism, so I'm curious to know how you can be so sure of what you say here. In theoretical physics there is an absolute authority by which to judge what is good and bad, namely the degree to which it conforms to reality. Appealing to this authority may be challenging and may not ever be practical, but it exists and it therefore means something specific to say something is wrong in theoretical physics. Also, when that theoretical physics is later applied being wrong about it can be have real negative consequences. It is not clear to me that saying something is wrong in literary criticism even has a meaning, and even less clear that it would ever matter if something was wrong. If you think this then you clearly agree with me that there is something that is valuable in and of itself (i.e. utility to mankind). But valuing utility above everything else is clearly wrong. For example, beauty, love and compassion would be valuable whether or not they had utility. I actually do agree with you that some things (including beauty, truth, and love) have intrinsic value. But I take that belief starting from a Christian view point. If one were to examine it a priori or from an athiestic viewpoint it is not at all obvious or clear that anything has a value outside of its practical utility to mankind.
- foldr 17y ago
  >In theoretical physics there is an absolute authority by which to judge what is good and bad, namely the degree to which it conforms to reality. There might be an absolute authority of this sort if we could just ask God whether or not a given theory conformed to reality, but in practice there is no absolute authority for judging work in science -- and you certainly find plenty of disagreement between scientists once you go beyond textbook material. Personally, I'm not a complete subjectivist about aesthetic and critical judgments, so I think that an "absolute standard" exists in principle for a lot of work in the humanities. For example, I think it is a fact that Jane Austen wrote good novels. However, I'm a little uneasy about your reliance on the correspondence theory of truth (the idea that a true theory is one which is some obscure sense "conforms" or "corresponds" to reality). Although I am not a skeptic or subjectivist about truth, there are well known problems with conceiving truth in this way. > Also, when that theoretical physics is later applied being wrong about it can be have real negative consequences. Being wrong about the kinds of subjects that the humanities touches on (e.g. relations between human beings) can also have real negative consequences, if you are not a robot. >It is not clear to me that saying something is wrong in literary criticism even has a meaning, and even less clear that it would ever matter if something was wrong. I'm sorry that these things aren't clear to you, but the notion that critical and aesthetic judgments are "meaningless" is one that's been thoroughly discredited over the past 50 years. Logical positivism has been dead for quite some time now. >If one were to examine it a priori or from an athiestic viewpoint it is not at all obvious or clear that anything has a value outside of its practical utility to mankind. Again, if you believe that, then you believe that there is something which has intrinsic value -- utility. In any case, it's not clear to me why someone looking at things from an atheistic viewpoint would choose utility as his yardstick for value. I'm an atheist and I value a whole bunch of different things. I do value things for being useful, but I don't give utility any privileged place, or see any reason to do so.