[Serious] The Humanities

[brewer]

Ugh, apparently somebody needs a Way-Back machine to be content. 

Globally there is an improvement in living conditions, life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, gender equality, income status,.................. way past anything from even 100 years ago. 

If you don't like the way society is evolving you can always check out to a place like Madagascar, or the Amazon rain forest.

[Belacqua]

This is a thread about the humanities.

It asks: because religion provided certain benefits in a certain time and a certain place, and now no longer does so, can the humanities play the same role instead? Or will the market take over completely? Or is there a third alternative?

[Succubus]

This is a thread about the humanities.

It asks: because religion provided certain benefits in a certain time and a certain place, and now no longer does so, can the humanities play the same role instead? Or will the market take over completely? Or is there a third alternative?

I'm struggling to identify this group of people you are so concerned with. Who are they and what is they've actually lost and why does it need replacing?
Not everyone takes religion as seriously as you do, especially the religious.

[brewer]

What if those benefits of the past are no longer as important was they once were? If they continue to be necessary/important, an alternative will evolve by itself. 





You do understand that the author of the article has a bias.

[LadyForCamus]

I’m still not sure what has been lost, and why we need supplement religion with something else.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think that, if religion (full stop) is given kudos for supplying 'the vocabulary and tools to consider these issues', there's a fair case to be made.

But singling out Christianity only works once Christianity became the (or at least 'a') dominant force in a society.  To use Europe (per your example), prior to the advent of Christianity people were still able to consider questions of value, sympathy and the good life.  But they approached it through the framework of other religions (Roman, Greek, Celtic, Norse, etc).  Historically, religion has been an extremely powerful cultural force, so it makes sense that the dominant religion would have a large say in cultural development.

But to single out Christianity seems particularly unfair as, for the majority of European history, Christianity was NOT a dominant cultural force.

Boru

Yes, but not singling put Christianity would defeat the entire purpose of his being here while pretending assiduously not to be a Christian. 

By being “Christian”, I don’t mean one who necessarily buys the crap about messiah, trinity, salvation, or that bullshit as being literally true.  If we use that standard, there would be precious few christians amongst the Christians.   I would venture very few of those Christians who were most responsible over the last 2000 years for casting the baleful shadow of Christianity so thoroughly over the west has been would have qualified as being Christians.

By being Christian I mean one who feels the crap about messiah or trinity should continue to exerted it’s baleful shadow, regardless of whether it is true or not, because so misanthropic are they that they would think humanity deserve nothing better,  are so worthless and misbegotten that collectively they can not make a go of anything better than the vile Christianity shit, and so wretched that they collectively should hold “Christians” as these in reverence.

If you wish to attack Belaqua, please do so directly.  I don't appreciate you using me as an intermediary.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is a thread about the humanities.

It asks: because religion provided certain benefits in a certain time and a certain place, and now no longer does so, can the humanities play the same role instead? Or will the market take over completely? Or is there a third alternative?

People currently consider questions of values, sympathy and the attainment of the good life outside of a religious framework, so it would appear to be a moot point.

Boru

[Belacqua]

This is a thread about the humanities.

It asks: because religion provided certain benefits in a certain time and a certain place, and now no longer does so, can the humanities play the same role instead? Or will the market take over completely? Or is there a third alternative?

People currently consider questions of values, sympathy and the attainment of the good life outside of a religious framework, so it would appear to be a moot point.

Boru

That's right. And since the religious framework is no longer as persuasive, we can ask, "what framework do we use instead?" 

Matthew Arnold and others suggested we should look to the arts. 

It looks to me as though the norms of the marketplace as propagandized through pop culture are strong now.

---

I’m still not sure what has been lost, and why we need supplement religion with something else.

For many years, in Europe and Euro-centric areas (e.g. the US and parts of South America) Christianity supplied the vocabulary and framework for thinking about non-marketplace questions.

What is valuable in life? What is our duty to others? How should I deal with my own moral failures? etc. etc. 

I AM NOT saying that Christianity gave consistent or even good answers to these questions. Only that Christianity was the framework. 

I AM NOT saying that Christianity is required for people to be moral. Only that if people don't have one system, they almost certainly have another. 

I AM NOT saying that only Christianity has done this in history; different times and places had different systems. 

I agree with Matthew Arnold that if Christianity is not the framework for answering these questions, then we should think carefully about what we do have. I happen to think that the arts and humanities -- the best that has been said and thought -- can help us with these issues. 

I also think that if we don't think clearly about our values we are likely to revert to some sort of unconsidered default system -- the non-thought of the status quo. And I think that since pop culture -- Harry Potter, Marvel movies, etc. -- do get across certain values whether they intend to or not, we should be careful about what influences us.

I don't think that having no system is a real possibility. It's the deepest ideologues who claim to have no ideology. When they say "that's not ideology, that's just the way things are," then you know you've met someone who hasn't examined his own thinking.

[LadyForCamus]

People currently consider questions of values, sympathy and the attainment of the good life outside of a religious framework, so it would appear to be a moot point.

Boru

That's right. And since the religious framework is no longer as persuasive, we can ask, "what framework do we use instead?" 

Matthew Arnold and others suggested we should look to the arts. 

It looks to me as though the norms of the marketplace as propagandized through pop culture are strong now.

---

I’m still not sure what has been lost, and why we need supplement religion with something else.

For many years, in Europe and Euro-centric areas (e.g. the US and parts of South America) Christianity supplied the vocabulary and framework for thinking about non-marketplace questions.

What is valuable in life? What is our duty to others? How should I deal with my own moral failures? etc. etc. 

I AM NOT saying that Christianity gave consistent or even good answers to these questions. Only that Christianity was the framework. 

I AM NOT saying that Christianity is required for people to be moral. Only that if people don't have one system, they almost certainly have another. 

I AM NOT saying that only Christianity has done this in history; different times and places had different systems. 

I agree with Matthew Arnold that if Christianity is not the framework for answering these questions, then we should think carefully about what we do have. I happen to think that the arts and humanities -- the best that has been said and thought -- can help us with these issues. 

I also think that if we don't think clearly about our values we are likely to revert to some sort of unconsidered default system -- the non-thought of the status quo. And I think that since pop culture -- Harry Potter, Marvel movies, etc. -- do get across certain values whether they intend to or not, we should be careful about what influences us.

I don't think that having no system is a real possibility. It's the deepest ideologues who claim to have no ideology. When they say "that's not ideology, that's just the way things are," then you know you've met someone who hasn't examined his own thinking.

Sure...okay. But, need it be Bach for me to be Sufficiently Moved by a melody? Need it be Twelve Angry Men or It’s a Wonderful Life to have the waters of our human condition be stirred? I don’t think we should leave our values, and what should move our spirit, up to some small group of humanitarian “elites”. Some of the brightest creative minds killed themselves or drank themselves to death because they were so unhappy. It should be a collective effort. Regina Spektor’s song about a single mom of four who is dying of cancer moves me to tears, even though she won’t be in any history books. Watching It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia not only makes me belly laugh and appreciate being alive, but also reminds me of the mundane and collective self-serving cruelty people are capable of, though they likely won’t be remembered in fifty or a hundred years. I wept throughout the entire final installment of Stephen King’s the Dark Tower, but I’m sure they won’t be teaching it in any high school English classes. The human experience is what unites us. It’s what we can all relate to. Empathy, and a deep-seated, geneticsll driven instinct to care about the well-being of others. Just my two cents.

[Belacqua]

Sure...okay. But, need it be Bach for me to be Sufficiently Moved by a melody? Need it be Twelve Angry Men or It’s a Wonderful Life to have the pillars of our human condition be stirred? I don’t think we should leave our values, and what should move our spirit, up to some small group of humanitarian “elites”. Some of the brightest creative minds killed themselves or drank themselves to death because they were so unhappy. It should be a collective effort. Regina Spektor’s song about a single mom of four who is dying of cancer moves me to tears, even though she won’t be in any history books. Watching It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia not only makes me belly laugh and appreciate being alive, but also reminds me of the mundane and collective self-serving cruelty people are capable of, though they likely won’t be remembered in fifty or a hundred years. I wept throughout the entire final installment of Stephen King’s the Dark Tower, but I’m sure they won’t be teaching it in any high school English classes. The human experience is what unites us. It’s what we can all relate to. Empathy, and a deep-seated, geneticsll driven instinct to care about the well-being of others. Just my two cents.

Thank you for finally getting us back to the OP! It's annoying that every thread has to start with barking dogs who attack me for saying things I've never said.

About the examples you give: I would never scold anybody for enjoying the books or movies they enjoy. I'm in no way against pleasure. 

However I agree with the quote in the OP that cultural productions are not a fully-equal smorgasbord and if I like one thing and you like another there is nothing to it but personal taste. I do think that someone who has a complete command of Shakespeare's plays has accomplished something qualitatively better than someone who knows everything there is to know about the "Marvel Cinematic Universe." 

And the reasons for this have to do with the role that the arts play in the place of religion. High quality stuff is high quality because it enriches life. It increases our knowledge of the world, exposes us to ourselves, demands our humility and skepticism, and makes us more empathetic to people unlike ourselves. Can I prove that these are positive qualities? Not empirically, no. But I still disagree with someone who says that the opposites are just as good. 

Bad art will flatter us, push our contradictions out of sight, tell us that we are the best, and that how we do things demands no scrutiny. I think that once we learn how to spot these traits, a lot of what seems cool becomes a lot less enjoyable. 

The extreme measures that readers of the Bible went to in past times has given us a legacy of subtle hermeneutics. Writers like Proust have a greater range of expression than more simple Aesop's Fables-type stories. Well-informed readers are sensitive to the narrative techniques and the various experiences these give us. (This is not just me; I'm paraphrasing Derrida.) 

As an example: I grew up watching Kirk and Spock go through their weekly morality plays. To a kid, it seemed deep, and I don't regret watching those things. When I tried to watch the most recent Star Trek series, however, the ideological subtext was so horrible that I had to give up after two episodes. We are supposed to be cheered by the fact that the Star Trek world has great diversity of peoples -- black people and Asians and aliens all serving together. But this diversity is expressed because each type of person puts on the uniform of the quasi-military organization and has a chance to obey the Benign Captain. And what is the story about? Our hero starts a war that, although we don't really want it, we know we have to go through with because it is our moral duty. We are the good people and we will fight if we must. In other words, it's good old American values -- violence and power -- projected into the future and made tolerable because it's now a young person of color who starts the war. A viewer who watches unquestioningly will come away stupider and more accepting of America's tradition of solving conflicts through violence.