Stanley Fish, apparently not content with the absurdity of his first exposition on the Humanities, seems determined, in memory of Sir Edmond Hillary's ascent of Mount Everest, to ascend to a peak of ridiculousnesses never before attained by man.
He hoped to clarify his original argument by stating that he did not find great works of literature worthless, but that he did find the analysis of them worthless. What is so different about the humanities than other areas of study? Imagine saying that while technology is useful, basic science is useless. One would be laughed out thinking society.
The humanities play a larger role in our lives than at any other time since hunting and gathering societies. More and more, technology and manufacturing are only used as a means of conveying content. While the auto industry is slowly dying in the United States, the movie studios and software companies are bringing in the hard currency that our nation so needs. The last century was the century of technology changing the minds of humanity. Though this century will still see gains in technology, it will be our stories that change the nature of technology.
Just like every other pursuit, training in the basics creates breakthroughs. America has been the leader in creating new intellectual properties. If we follow Fish's advice we won't be for long.
Why News Aggregators Can Never Replace the News
13 years ago
1 comment:
your response to stanley fish's recent op-ed on independent voters seems a bit misguided in its hyper-defensiveness. the man isn't out to misrepresent "liberal" agenda on behalf of the right. i think it's very sensible to disagree with his particular and, ultimately, more generally anti-essentialist arguments, but i don't see a good reason to come at it from the pro-liberal standpoint. it's not pertinent to the argument he's making.
Post a Comment