[Serious] The Humanities

[Belacqua]

There's an idea that's revived every now and then. It says that as religion loses its influence in society, the arts and humanities are necessary to pick up the slack. I've seen this attributed to Matthew Arnold, though others seem to come up with it too. 

Like it or not, in European history it was largely through the framework of religion that people considered questions of value, sympathy, and the good life. Any standard other than monetary was usually given a Christian setting, and any push-back against the selfishness of the rich was usually framed in Christian terms. This doesn't mean it was consistent at all -- Christianity has been used to justify the rich as well as the poor. But Christianity supplied the vocabulary and the tools to consider these issues. 

I think there is reason to worry that in the absence of religious values, nearly the only other option we are given is the value of the marketplace. 

So Arnold and others said that if we're going to toss out the church, and we don't want to just accept the rule of capital, the humanities are going to have to step in. 

The trouble seems to be that the humanities may not have done the job. People haven't turned from the Bible to Proust and Bach. They have accepted instead the values of the market and the status quo, which are often propagandized in corporate "cultural" products like hit movies and best selling books. 

Atheist discussions tend to set up religion and science as a dichotomy, yet science can't do what great literature does. 

Here is an article about the subject. The author uses the term "cultural secularization" to talk about how the humanities have been pushed to the sidelines, just as in some circles religion has:

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/2...OEFmX0hiRQ

and a passage from the article:

...cultural secularization involves a loss of status and perceived functionality on the part of “high” cultural canons and intellectual lineages. Quite suddenly, having a detailed knowledge of and love for Bach’s music, say, stopped being a marker of a “cultured” or “civilized” person and became just a matter of opinion and personal interest.

On the other side, cultural secularization entails the loss of belief in the ethical and intellectual value of the traditional academic humanities disciplines — what we can call the “high humanities.” The idea, current since Kant, that the disciplined humanities lie at the basis of academic life cuts little ice today. 

These two forms of cultural secularization — the erosion of canonicity and the loss of authority — are joined. That is why it has become almost impossible today to affirm the social or ethical value in studying, say, verse forms in John Dryden’s poetry; Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s relation to Moses Mendelssohn; the early modern Dutch ship-building trade; differences between humanist thought in Florence and Milan in the quattrocento; contemporary analytic philosophy’s technical debate over free will. Such topics are of course still researched and even taught, but they have become socially and culturally peripheral precisely because they are not connected to a communal acknowledgment of the high humanities’ value. Thus, at least in Anglophone countries, it has become all but impossible publicly to defend the use of taxpayer money on them.

[Abaddon_ire]

There's an idea that's revived every now and then. It says that as religion loses its influence in society, the arts and humanities are necessary to pick up the slack. I've seen this attributed to Matthew Arnold, though others seem to come up with it too. 

Like it or not, in European history it was largely through the framework of religion that people considered questions of value, sympathy, and the good life. Any standard other than monetary was usually given a Christian setting, and any push-back against the selfishness of the rich was usually framed in Christian terms. This doesn't mean it was consistent at all -- Christianity has been used to justify the rich as well as the poor. But Christianity supplied the vocabulary and the tools to consider these issues. 

I think there is reason to worry that in the absence of religious values, nearly the only other option we are given is the value of the marketplace. 

So Arnold and others said that if we're going to toss out the church, and we don't want to just accept the rule of capital, the humanities are going to have to step in. 

The trouble seems to be that the humanities may not have done the job. People haven't turned from the Bible to Proust and Bach. They have accepted instead the values of the market and the status quo, which are often propagandized in corporate "cultural" products like hit movies and best selling books. 

Atheist discussions tend to set up religion and science as a dichotomy, yet science can't do what great literature does. 

Here is an article about the subject. The author uses the term "cultural secularization" to talk about how the humanities have been pushed to the sidelines, just as in some circles religion has:

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/2...OEFmX0hiRQ

and a passage from the article:

...cultural secularization involves a loss of status and perceived functionality on the part of “high” cultural canons and intellectual lineages. Quite suddenly, having a detailed knowledge of and love for Bach’s music, say, stopped being a marker of a “cultured” or “civilized” person and became just a matter of opinion and personal interest.

On the other side, cultural secularization entails the loss of belief in the ethical and intellectual value of the traditional academic humanities disciplines — what we can call the “high humanities.” The idea, current since Kant, that the disciplined humanities lie at the basis of academic life cuts little ice today. 

These two forms of cultural secularization — the erosion of canonicity and the loss of authority — are joined. That is why it has become almost impossible today to affirm the social or ethical value in studying, say, verse forms in John Dryden’s poetry; Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s relation to Moses Mendelssohn; the early modern Dutch ship-building trade; differences between humanist thought in Florence and Milan in the quattrocento; contemporary analytic philosophy’s technical debate over free will. Such topics are of course still researched and even taught, but they have become socially and culturally peripheral precisely because they are not connected to a communal acknowledgment of the high humanities’ value. Thus, at least in Anglophone countries, it has become all but impossible publicly to defend the use of taxpayer money on them.

Wow. You have pretended to be an impartial observer for so long. What provoked you to reveal your true christian fundy colours? What was the trigger?

[Belacqua]

Wow. You have pretended to be an impartial observer for so long. What provoked you to reveal your true christian fundy colours? What was the trigger?

Nothing in the OP indicates that I am a Christian. I am not one.

[Anomalocaris]

Like it or not, human evolution is largely through the framework of subsistence hunting and gathering. Belaqua will soon rightfully enlighten us and inform us that with the decline of subsistence hunting and tethering, humanity is going to hell, in non-Christian sense, Of course, in a hand basket.

[Abaddon_ire]

OK then.

There's an idea that's revived every now and then. It says that as religion loses its influence in society, the arts and humanities are necessary to pick up the slack. I've seen this attributed to Matthew Arnold, though others seem to come up with it too. 

Unevidenced claim.

Like it or not, in European history it was largely through the framework of religion that people considered questions of value, sympathy, and the good life.

Demonstrably false. Morals and ethics existed long before you beloved jebus.

Any standard other than monetary was usually given a Christian setting, and any push-back against the selfishness of the rich was usually framed in Christian terms.

False. You are ignoring ALL human history. Next you will be telling us about what your magic book says.

This doesn't mean it was consistent at all -- Christianity has been used to justify the rich as well as the poor. But Christianity supplied the vocabulary and the tools to consider these issues. 

False. Morals and ethics were abundant before your magic book turned up.

I think there is reason to worry that in the absence of religious values, nearly the only other option we are given is the value of the marketplace. 

I think there is reason to worry that religious values get any purchase on reality. Do you really want to stone people to death on a whim? Because that is a religious commandment.

So Arnold and others said that if we're going to toss out the church, and we don't want to just accept the rule of capital, the humanities are going to have to step in. 

Who cares what some apologist might have said? Like all others, he/she simply made it all up out of whole cloth.

The trouble seems to be that the humanities may not have done the job. People haven't turned from the Bible to Proust and Bach.

Nope.You seem fixated upon the notion that there must be some replacement belief to supplant your god. #Or stand as a proxy. It simply is not so just because you claim it.

They have accepted instead the values of the market and the status quo, which are often propagandized in corporate "cultural" products like hit movies and best selling books. 

How amusing. You seem to think you can read everyone else's minds infallibly. Guess again.

Atheist discussions tend to set up religion and science as a dichotomy, yet science can't do what great literature does. 

False. Have you evidence for your peculiar flavour of god? Evidence is all that matters and you have none.

Here is an article about the subject. The author uses the term "cultural secularization" to talk about how the humanities have been pushed to the sidelines, just as in some circles religion has:

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/2...OEFmX0hiRQ

and a passage from the article:

Wow. Bias much?

Give it up. Everyone knows you have the hots for an imaginary deity of your choice.

[Fake Messiah]

There's an idea that's revived every now and then. It says that as religion loses its influence in society, the arts and humanities are necessary to pick up the slack.

Yeah, like the passion plays during Holy Week which would invigorate Christians in their religious feelings.

Also Mel Gibson's "Passion Of Christ" picked up the slack and invigorated Christians. Did you, Belacqua, also enjoy Gibson's movie? Has it moved you, you know, religiously?

[Belacqua]

Morals and ethics existed long before you beloved jebus.

This is true. (Though the part about "you beloved jebus" is not relevant.) There are also morals and ethics in non-Christian countries. 
I think I made it clear that I am talking about the history of Europe as we have it. If you'd like me to specify that I'm talking about the last 1600 years, I'm happy to do that. 

I'm also talking about more than morals and ethics, as I made clear in the OP. "Values, sympathy, and the good life." 

If you'd like to start a thread about values, morals, and ideas of the good life in, for example, Confucian China, that might be an interesting topic. 

Your statement here that Matthew Arnold was an "apologist" and your apparent impression that I'm advocating a return to religion indicate to me that you've jumped to some conclusions. Your critique here doesn't really address the thread topic.

[LadyForCamus]

I don’t follow how religion is necessary for human beings to have values or feel sympathy. Life, on its own, should be more than enough.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Like it or not, in European history it was largely through the framework of religion that people considered questions of value, sympathy, and the good life. Any standard other than monetary was usually given a Christian setting, and any push-back against the selfishness of the rich was usually framed in Christian terms. This doesn't mean it was consistent at all -- Christianity has been used to justify the rich as well as the poor. But Christianity supplied the vocabulary and the tools to consider these issues. 

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

[Anomalocaris]

Like it or not, in European history it was largely through the framework of religion that people considered questions of value, sympathy, and the good life. Any standard other than monetary was usually given a Christian setting, and any push-back against the selfishness of the rich was usually framed in Christian terms. This doesn't mean it was consistent at all -- Christianity has been used to justify the rich as well as the poor. But Christianity supplied the vocabulary and the tools to consider these issues. 

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.