Opinion: Letter
Columnist needs perspective
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Clegg absurd, biased on CFACT (May 5, 2009)
- Fund peer tutors (April 28, 2009)
- UW policy consistent with nation (April 23, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative not worth it (April 20, 2009)
- A plan for better advising (April 20, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Jim Allard’s piece “Humanities lack guiding principle” (Feb. 18), should have been entitled “Allard lacks basic understanding of humanities.” Mr. Allard has much to say about the humanities, yet none of it insightful or accurate. He seems to view the humanities as a monolithic “citadel of Kantian philosophy” in which the tenants of post-modernism are accepted as gospel truth. He seems unable to grasp the concept the humanities often deal with things that cannot be quantified or proven: There is no formula for good literature; philosophical questions cannot necessarily be answered through empirical study.
Allard smugly asserts, “A common mantra in the humanities is that there are no wrong answers. … Whereas science proudly teaches students to seek truth and rule out uncertainly [sic] by using logical argumentation and fact-finding … ” If Mr. Allard had ever taken a humanities class, I’m sure his professor could verify not only do wrong answers exist, but Mr. Allard is responsible for more than his fair share.
Similarly, Allard claims that in the humanities, “in place of rational, fact-based, ethical principles, students are offered a social-subjectivist version of the Judeo-Christian code of sacrifice to ‘something higher than oneself.’” First, unlike Mr. Allard, students of humanities know that the idea of sacrifice to “something higher than oneself” is by no means exclusive to Judeo-Christian thought. The Romans, for example, revered the idea of self-sacrifice for the good of the state hundreds of years before they sacked the temple in Jerusalem or fed Christians to wild animals as a form of wholesome family entertainment. Second, I would gladly explain to Mr. Allard the usefulness of such straight-forward terms as “social justice” and “public interest” if he would explain how he arrived at the conclusion that ethical principles are rational and fact-based. Mr. Allard would do well to remember that anti-intellectualism harms the sciences as well as the humanities.
Sofia Brichford
Master of Arts, classics
brichford@wisc.edu
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
So, tell me, where do humanities graduates work besides universities? Hint: there is no right answer.
We work as lawyers, businesspeople, professional musicians, social workers, government officials, actors, and other fields.
You’re just angry because lots of us end up being the people who determine science budgets.
12:25: So, tell me, what’s your point if we assumed it’s true that humanities graduates only work in universities? Hint: there is no answer.
“He seems to view the humanities as a monolithic “citadel of Kantian philosophy” in which the tenants of post-modernism are accepted as gospel truth. He seems unable to grasp the concept the humanities often deal with things that cannot be quantified or proven:”
Post-modernism IS the idea that nothing can be quantified or proven. Kantian philosophy says there is no truth - gospel or otherwise (truth meaning knowledge of reality). I grasp the concept - I think it’s wrong.
“the idea of sacrifice to “something higher than oneself” is by no means exclusive to Judeo-Christian thought”
Never said it was.
“I would gladly explain to Mr. Allard the usefulness of such straight-forward terms as “social justice” and “public interest” if he would explain how he arrived at the conclusion that ethical principles are rational and fact-based.”
Ethics studies the basic principles that man needs to follow in order to live. Man cannot live by doing whatever he wants, there are certain things that are good for him and certain things that are bad for him. Production and trade are good for him; murder and theft are bad for him. Freedom is good for him; dictatorship is bad for him. These truths are based on facts about man’s nature; namely that he has a faculty of reason and this is his means of survival.
Here’s how Ayn Rand puts it:
“In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.””
“Post-modernism IS the idea that nothing can be quantified or proven. Kantian philosophy says there is no truth - gospel or otherwise (truth meaning knowledge of reality). I grasp the concept - I think it’s wrong.”
You fail to understand that even in science, one cannot claim all of its conclusions are “truths”. This is especially the case in medicine, but also applicable physics, math, astronomy, biology, etc. In the science community, it appears that truth is merely the agreement of the world’s leading scientists, or the failure to disprove a theory/law. A trivial fact, but I recently remember the “truth” of pluto’s status changing to minor planet, whereas the “truth” during our childhood years was that it was a planet. It’s rather naive of you to assume that in the end, science leads to truth. Rather than rest on the collective arrogance of certain members of the scientific community, it’s better to follow the saying “the more we learn, the less we know”. Science is a fantastic reflection of life: things are a lot more gray that you’d want to believe.