Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What liberal arts education is for (2024)

innig.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: What liberal arts education is for (2024)

#71

Post by SanjayMehta »

vineyardmike wrote: post #66
SanjayMehta wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

STEM majors are inherently better overall. Are you trying to be sarcastic or funny? I can't tell. I've yet to find a liberal arts grad who even knows what a partial differential equation is.

> Are you trying to be sarcastic or funny? I can't tell. Take a liberal arts class and your reading comprehension may improve. > knows what a partial differential equation is. I’ve met a few but tbh that’s a pretty weird way to judge “inherently better”.

I don't need to take any liberal arts classes, all I have to do is chat with a barista at Star Bucks. None of them can even spell PDE without help from a smartphone.

Re: What liberal arts education is for (2024)

#72

Post by snapplebobapple »

gdwatson wrote: post #32
mlsu wrote: post #24

The liberal arts education was originally conceived to educate the leaders of society. That is where the free-minded pedagogical angle comes from, it's explicitly privileged. The idea was that if the leaders of society learned what it means to have values, integrity, what it is to be virtuous, etc, then they would diffuse those values into society and create a just world. Society would transcend in the image of the g…

There are two angles on this. There is the rejection of the humanities in favor of science and wealth, which are good things in themselves but are not everything. But, on the other hand, what many modern humanities faculties offer is a very time-bound activism that rejects books from 500 years ago and is not interested in the permanent things.

They offer generalized marxism (that isn't even generalized well. Had that slop taken over a physics department instead of humanities we would have gotten all the * studies currently plagueing us and all the rest they havent generalized to yet in the firat two weeks. Its not a good or productive look, which is why i have given up on humanities despite holding a humanities degree in economics.

Re: What liberal arts education is for (2024)

#73

Post by selfhoster1312 »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #72
gdwatson wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two angles on this. There is the rejection of the humanities in favor of science and wealth, which are good things in themselves but are not everything. But, on the other hand, what many modern humanities faculties offer is a very time-bound activism that rejects books from 500 years ago and is not interested in the permanent things.

They offer generalized marxism (that isn't even generalized well. Had that slop taken over a physics department instead of humanities we would have gotten all the * studies currently plagueing us and all the rest they havent generalized to yet in the firat two weeks. Its not a good or productive look, which is why i have given up on humanities despite holding a humanities degree in economics.

Materialist analysis is not marxism although marxism is a kind of materialism-based economic analysis. Plenty of radical movements are not marxists (because Marx had a narrow understanding of the materiality of social relations), and plenty of marxists are very conservative.

As someone who's not a marxist myself, i find it weird and scary how the US neo-fascist movement lumps every social study together under the guise of "societal marxism". Or as the french neo-fascists call it, "islamo-leftism". Or as the historical nazis used to call it, "judeo-bolshevism".

Re: What liberal arts education is for (2024)

#74

Post by snapplebobapple »

selfhoster1312 wrote: post #73
snapplebobapple wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They offer generalized marxism (that isn't even generalized well. Had that slop taken over a physics department instead of humanities we would have gotten all the * studies currently plagueing us and all the rest they havent generalized to yet in the firat two weeks. Its not a good or productive look, which is why i have given up on humanities despite holding a humanities degree in economics.

Materialist analysis is not marxism although marxism is a kind of materialism-based economic analysis. Plenty of radical movements are not marxists (because Marx had a narrow understanding of the materiality of social relations), and plenty of marxists are very conservative. As someone who's not a marxist myself, i find it weird and scary how the US neo-fascist movement lumps every social study together under the gui…

Its generalized marxism because nearly all the * studies people trace their academic lineage back to butthurt marxists watching the ussr not work and free markets turn the poor underclass marxism preys on for its power into middle class families too busy picking out their second car to have time for intensely stupid and radical marxism. Those butthurt marxists generalized the bad ideas to other dichotomies and today we have the * studies programs.

Re: What liberal arts education is for (2024)

#75

Post by snapplebobapple »

selfhoster1312 wrote: post #73
snapplebobapple wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They offer generalized marxism (that isn't even generalized well. Had that slop taken over a physics department instead of humanities we would have gotten all the * studies currently plagueing us and all the rest they havent generalized to yet in the firat two weeks. Its not a good or productive look, which is why i have given up on humanities despite holding a humanities degree in economics.

Materialist analysis is not marxism although marxism is a kind of materialism-based economic analysis. Plenty of radical movements are not marxists (because Marx had a narrow understanding of the materiality of social relations), and plenty of marxists are very conservative. As someone who's not a marxist myself, i find it weird and scary how the US neo-fascist movement lumps every social study together under the gui…

Doing a little more reading, I am concerned you don't understand the point. It sounds like Materialist analysis is pretty much exactly the definition of generalized marxism. It's the framework that marx applied to the mode of production generalized to whatever you want to moan about. It's basically missing the requirement for praxis and the application of the dialectic for analysis purposes, which is present in the vast majority of the * studies generalizations of marxism I was talking about, as well as marxism itself. Which makes sense, given most of the * studies were created by butt hurt marxists by generalizing marxism away from the mode of production to
Post reply on HN