Why does the world need humanitarians?
8 Answers
-
So, as one person said above: “It's stupid to divide the world into techies and humanities. No one in the DNA code has such a division.”, (sorry, of course, for such a free retelling). I tend to agree with him�point of view, but only partly: I feel stupid a complete denial of specialization of the individual; the explanation is simple-if you studied something thoroughly, we spent huge amount of time then you're just not physically can learn some other field of knowledge, (that immediately come to mind modern movies, where a nuclear physicist sometimes computer hacking quicker than some professional hackers); no, of course, I'm not saying that, having become an astronomer, for example, you can easily and calmly forget who the same Pushkin or Linnaeus is: after all, there is a necessary minimum of knowledge in every field of human life, necessary for anyone who considers himself intelligent, a person. But I'm avoiding the question. To answer this question, I think we should first draw a line between pseudo-humanitarians-people who have forgotten the multiplication table and therefore began to consider themselves simply not predisposed to exact sciences-and real humanitarians – people who can , depending on their specialty, both conduct an artistic analysis of the text and the prerequisites for the Bourgeois Revolution in the Netherlands. So, having drawn this line, it becomes clear that many myths as if humanitarians are stupid and so on, so on, come just from the first type of representatives of this branch of science. The world hardly needs such “specialists”. What about the second ones? Where can they be applied? The humanities field covers a huge number of sciences, from history to philosophy. It is humanitarians who painstakingly record human history, analyze it and display it, removing all unnecessary things and leaving only the essence. “Those who do not know their own history are doomed to repeat it,” Confucius said, and he was right.
-
It is obvious that social and humanitarian sciences and technical sciences differ: some study society and the person himself, while others(i.e. technical) are designed to help a person improve their standard of living, improve the technical side of research. Nowadays, scientific and technological progress is measured by the number of innovations in technology, and it is almost impossible to imagine what discoveries are waiting for us. Research in the technical sciences is spontaneous, not focused on the future, they are not able to assess the consequences of their inventions, since the tasks are different from those of humanitarian researchers. Scientific and technological progress should be regulated, it is not known what consequences it can lead humanity to. One of the tasks of the humanities is the ethical, aesthetic socio-economic and political assessment of scientific innovations,in other words, the regulation of scientific and technological progress.
-
This issue is particularly acute in the design of university programs. In 1961, the German philosopher and cultural critic Joachim Ritter made a report “Problems of the sciences of the spirit in a modern society”, which influenced the course of higher education reforms in post-war Germany and justified the need for a fairly broad inclusion of humanities in university courses.
So how did Ritter convince the public and government of the value of the “spirit sciences”? The text is available only in German, and I don't know it, so I'll just show you a retelling of the report from M. V. Rumyantseva's article “Compensatory theory in the works of Hermann Lubbe and Odo Marquard” (https://wp.hse.ru/data/2014/11/26/1101762268/WP20_2014_06_ff.pdf)
Ritter ” emphasizes the ahistorical and abstract nature of Art Nouveau culture. The historicity of modernity is manifested in the fact that the modernization of individual societies is not related to the peculiarities of the historical formation of individual cultures. The indifference of certain elements of modernity in relation to the features of the original cultures allows it to spread “without borders”, forming a number of features, thanks to which we can talk, including about the process of globalization. This neutrality of modern culture turns society into an abstract entity, detached from its own origin and historical formation.
Ritter notes that along with the expansion of modern culture and the modern way of life, a number of phenomena appear in society that do not fit into the “logic of modernization”. Emancipation from tradition within the framework of modernization processes is accompanied by special attention to the historical formation of cultures: it is in the Art Nouveau era that museums, restoration works, and projects for the restoration and preservation of monuments first appear. “The Disenchantment of the World “(Moscow). Weber) leads not only to an ahistorical rationalization of life, but also leads to the appearance of external consequences that are unpredictable within the framework of this rationalization. Thus, the technical nature of modern civilization is compensated by the” discovery ” of nature as an untouched landscape. The reification of man – the perception of him as a substitutable function-also generates the opposite trend: a specifically modern attention to subjectivity and individuality.
The key concept for Ritter is the concept of split, split (Entzweiung): bifurcation is understood here as the preservation of the heterogeneity of a culture in which progressive aspirations are balanced by an appeal to origin. Ritter works with a model of culture in which two poles stimulate each other's development, but at the same time they are in constant conflict. The productivity of this conflict will be maximal if both poles are legitimized in the culture. Their legitimation is expressed not only in the recognition of two types of practices: the practice of modernization and the practice of cultural preservation. The same two trends are found in the field of knowledge and science: the humanities (“spiritual sciences”) are no less important in modern society than the experimental and natural sciences. The modern era is shaped by the unprecedented success of experimental sciences, whose relevance to practical problems is obvious. The sciences of the spirit can support trends aimed at compensating for the ahistorical nature of modernity. Despite their impractical nature, the sciences of the spirit, focused on the appeal to the historical origin and restoration of the historical genesis of original cultures, perform an important social function in modern society.
Society needs the sciences of the spirit as an ” organ of spiritual compensation (Kompensation)”, they maintain a balance of “historical” and “ahistorical”, since “the future without the past is no less bad than the past without the future”. The task of the spiritual sciences is to harmonize the bifurcation of modern culture. Ritter's position, based on the recognition of the need for division in society, avoids two extreme positions: the exaltation of progress as the pinnacle of modernity and the constant “complaints about progress” within the framework of cultures-a critical position according to which progress is considered the main cause of spiritual decline.”
-
At least, in order to sell what the techies came up with, manage these same techies in most cases. Who is more likely to start a business, a tech guy or a humanist? Here it is. Techies solve trivial problems for the most part and nothing more, and this is not as difficult as it may seem, you just need to know the solution algorithm. And you can compare this with interaction with people, which requires a lot of energy and intelligence. The problem can always be solved, but with a person… Pavel Durov talked about the role of a humanist and why he chose such a specialty. If there were such work as “mom” and “dad”, they would also be humanitarian in nature, they teach us how to behave in society, in certain situations. So there is still a question why do we need humanitarians? If so, why do you need Mom and Dad?
PS I don't know about the rest of them, I think many people will support me, but it makes me sick that people began to consider techies as someone out of the ordinary and it's not appropriate to ask such questions as for me, just because of some trend.
-
So, let's remember the recent history. On September 11, 2001, a terrorist attack occurred. And after that, everyone suddenly realized that there is such a thing as terrorism, which we must somehow fight. It's been 16 years. We have long lived in a world that takes into account the existence of terrorism-airport checks, obsession with security, world politics. But during all this time, not a single effective way to combat terrorism has been found. Security measures do not help – terrorist attacks around the world continue. Anti-terrorist operations are useless-terrorists lie low and a new leader immediately appears instead of the killed one. There remains only one method of struggle – cultural. No one really understands who terrorists are, what their psychology is, and what they are guided by in their actions. This is why historians of the Middle East, historians of Islam, specialists in Middle Eastern literature, in the anthropology of religion and the anthropology of war, and psychologists have taken up the issue. And it was they who were able to answer some important questions: why is terrorism so popular in the Middle East, how do they manage to recruit so many people in the West, how is Islam associated with terrorism in its radical twist and how does it determine the actions of these people, and so on.�
Another example. Everyone once came in contact with the Heroes of Might and Magic series of games. The fifth part was made by the Russian company Nival. So the soundtrack to this fifth movement, if you listen carefully, is built on Requiem sequences. The creatures you control-angels, magical creatures, and demons-are borrowed from medieval bestiaries, manuscripts on demonology and angelology, and theological treatises. And, in general, this Christian visual series is based on this whole series, and almost every fantasy game that has ever been released. It would seem that such a modern thing as a video game, deeply rooted in popular culture – what does it have to do with medieval theological issues? The most direct one. Culture is never equal to itself, never exists in a vacuum. It constantly draws sources of nourishment from other cultures – different times and different languages.�
Humanitarians study culture in its various forms. Philologists study texts – the main mechanism for transmitting the experience of a particular culture; historians – how culture manifested itself in political, economic, and social practices; philosophy deals with understanding modern culture, based on the experience of thought of the entire world philosophy before itself; you can list for a long time. At the same time, humanitarians are not artists or poets. Creativity is fine, but humanitarians do something fundamentally different. Creativity creates culture, and the humanities study it. Developing technologies is fine, but new technologies are immediately involved in new cultural mechanisms. It is impossible to create a particular technology if the culture is not ready for it. That is why the Romans, who knew the power of steam, never invented the steam engine. Culture is like a system of seas and oceans-they are constantly communicating with each other, and buries everything that gets there, whether it is a sunken ship or an atomic warhead. Our entire life is defined by the culture we live in, the language we speak, and the literature we read (or our parents read, or our children read). And if we imagine that the humanities have suddenly disappeared, then we will remain in a vacuum, unable to explain to ourselves why we do this and not otherwise, where we came from, how to interact with all these people who surround us. That's why the humanities and Humanitarians working with them are needed. And only a very short-sighted person who does not want to turn on his head can claim that they are needed exclusively to replenish the ranks of cashiers.�
If you were wondering what kind of animals they are, Humanitarians, and what kind of garbage they are still doing there, I can send you to the sites
There, good people explain well what a humanitarian discipline is and why it is needed.
-
Humanitarians are not needed, because this is a made-up term that does not reflect reality in any way. People are not divided into techies and gamanitarians, this is not recorded in our DNA. Yes, people have a penchant for certain activities, but people are not strictly either techies or humanities: a physicist can easily draw or write poetry in his spare time. Those people who call themselves humanitarians and think that they should not even try to understand technical sciences are mistaken: you can not understand whether it is yours or not until you try. If you love history , this doesn't stop you from understanding the engine design. Unfortunately the myth of dividing people into techies and humanitarians is so widespread that many people who are faced with difficulties in mathematics immediately decide that they are humanitarians and do not even try to understand other technical sciences. So you don't need to push yourself into a rigid framework, look for those classes that you like, if you like different disciplines, then there's nothing wrong with that. Humanitarians and techies do not exist, and those who call themselves so simply put a label on themselves, limiting their potential.
-
Counter question: what do you think is the difference between “techies ” and”humanities”? My vision is as follows: if engineers,chemists,physicists and the like study the “outer” part of the world (phenomena,technologies, reactions),then representatives of the humanities study the “inner” part of the world: a person,his behavior as an individual and part of society,group movements. The internal struggle between these types is due to a lack of understanding of the sphere of influence of the antagonistic “faction”.�
How will you, dear tech guy, control the political process? Do you know the principles of mass movement (other than Brownian motion)? Or maybe you could raise your heir without having a concept of education (without the same pedagogy, teaching “technical” knowledge is impossible).
On the part of the “engineers”, the explanation is simple:”go ahead, talking head, try to build a house.” And they are also partly right.
The meaning of different hypostases is precisely in the diversity of our modern world. There is no need to divide, we must act together for the benefit of civilization!
-
Does the world only need techies? In your opinion, history is a stupid subject and does not teach you anything? And literature? Knowledge of languages? The benefits of humanitarians are just as important to society as the benefits of techies.
We just bring benefits in different ways. And sometimes they overlap. Good luck selling your new wunderwafle without the humanities guys.
You use the term “humanitarians” in your question – and this is not a technical term, there is no technical discipline that would distinguish between techies and humanitarians. Just as there is no discipline that says what it means to “invent something”, “create something”, what is “thinking” and what is “meaning”. Try to reformulate your question in purely technical terms, and then ask it again – so why do we need the humanities?
Here's a little thing to think about that breaks your logic: if the humanities didn't invent or discover anything, then Roman law never existed and you don't have natural rights; obviously, this is absurd.
Just because something doesn't make sense to you personally doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to anyone. You are not the center of the universe, and your needs and opinions are not primary.
All right, go learn foreign languages to a physicist. Let chemists work at the school:) By the way, even the physical education teacher at school is a humanist – to become a teacher, you need to study pedagogy, psychology and philosophy. That is, without humanitarians, the school system and the education system will collapse. Next – where are you going to relax? The theater, ballet, and cinema will all be closed. How are you going to analyze political reality without humanitarian knowledge? Did you know that economics is half a humanities field? Without taking into account the humanities, it turns into Oceania. I'm not even talking about small things like books that won't be available. Note that humanitarians were the first to become atheists, the first to question the authority of absolute power, and so on.
What other “your food”? You, Azamat, don't forget, humanitarians eat their own food, which you have nothing to do with. But when you grow up and get tired of such a meaningless thing as programming, contact a psychologist-do not forget to tell him about how he is not needed. And pay the money.
Sipping typical Soviet snobbery – you don't need it, it's useless to you, and from here it's not far to the idea of superman, eugenics and other fun gizmos, which were very much quoted by one failed Austrian artist.
The world doesn't need anyone at all. Nature doesn't care if all of humanity dies tomorrow.
The correct question is: why do we need knowledge and skills that are not limited to physics, chemistry, medicine, and mathematics? Yes, because human needs are not limited to purely physiological material ones. If a person is only interested in eating and sleeping, then such a person really does not need nafing humanities.
Another thing is that “humanitarians” often flirt in their own games, leading and leaving where they lose all meaning. Any connection with reality. Not only physiological, but also psychological. The human psyche is also a reality. Often no less violent than the physiology. But humanitarians are often buried in such wilds that no one else needs them and are absolutely useless. Like black squares and bull holes. Which are based only on PR and credulity (“I don't see a damn thing, but if the art creators say – see there is something there”). A lot of dissertations on topics that no one needs and are not interesting…
HUMANITARIANS can potentially make a huge contribution to scientific, technical and socio-economic progress and increase the productivity of scientific and technical sciences and the comprehensive quality of life by orders of magnitude (in the future). 10 – 100 – 1000 …once) – new proven working methods.
The main barrier is the negative grief-principle “it will come down as it is, and so it is very good, it will be enough for our age, even after us there will be a flood”.
The positive principle is “any records and achievements can and should be surpassed many times and by orders of magnitude.”
The long-outdated technologies of unproductive work of humanitarians still hint at a tragic and gloomy bad question: “Why does the world need humanitarians? They don't invent or create anything, just think about meaningless things and take up space and consume our food? “
Was Leonardo Da Vinci a tech guy or a humanist? And Mikhail Lomonosov? The humanities structure all human knowledge, systematize it. And they are arranged inside themselves very, very uneasily. Humanitarians despise us techies for being primitive and one-sided. And in some ways they are right.
Something pogorala with the question (especially with the line about food), but if you answer seriously:
But what about the music that you can hardly imagine your current life without?
Great works of literature?
A movie?
After all, design the clothes you wear? Plots and visual components of computer games? This and many other useful and important things have been done by humanitarians. All these things have a direct impact on human culture, including science, and on our perception. These things give rise to emotions, feelings, certain judgments in you, mold you into a person, make you who you are. (The movie “Equilibrium” will answer the question of why we need this with you)
To put it crudely, in fact: a humanitarian is a creator, a technician is a performer. You can draw an analogy with creating websites: a creative person creates a visual image, a technically minded person writes code to make this whole image work)
The film “Philosophers”can also answer your question. This is all explained in an interesting and popular way there)
The question is similar to trolling, which was successful by the way)
but I will answer with all seriousness. I'm a programmer, your question doesn't bother me, but I want to stand up for the humanities.
I think you're confusing the humanities and couch potato philosophers.
For example, lawyers are real humanitarians, not techies. But their work is very important, in the modern world there is no way without them.
And there are also, for example, journalists. How would it be to live completely without information about what is happening in the world? Not safe, at least.
And there are also advertising specialists who have a significant impact on the economy.
And there are also specialists in cross-cultural communication who allow you to carry out diplomacy and important business transactions.
And many others…
Well, what you described… People are not fools, no one in our time will not pay for reasoning a la “who is faster, Achilles or the turtle”. It is only your leisure time that you can spend like this…
Humanitarians earn their bread in the same way as techies. Someone honestly, someone needs to be driven from work… but that's a different story altogether)
Well, how “why”?�
By thinking about such meaningless things as how you produce and consume food, they give meaning to this process. The very meaningfulness without which this food and you, and they would have long stood across the throat )
Plato also said that the world will be ruled by philosophers. Humanitarians direct public consciousness and determine the development of civilization. Humanitarians also determine the level of social freedoms and what can be considered acceptable and what is not. Humanitarians set the direction and context of public dialogue, while techies simply drive plasma around in circles… if you're lucky. If you think about it, the development of such a technical phenomenon as Eugenics (calculate, measure and reject) was stopped by the humanities.
Because a person is so organized, he becomes bored just to make houses and grow food, he wants something interesting. In addition, humanitarians advertise new technologies to children and they are interested and go to engineers, for example.
“they think about meaningless things.” You wouldn't be able to raise the question of meaning without the humanities. It's funny how you reduced the functions of humanitarians to consuming other people's food, so the tag “animals” must show your irony. An interesting view of the person. But who looks more like an animal? A being who cares about the benefits of things so that they better meet his needs, or a being who thinks about things that are useless for everyday life?
It is the humanities who invent and create first. They create a dream instead of an already fulfilled one, they invent the meaning of life instead of the previous one, which has lost its relevance.
Without these absolutely weightless and materially intangible gizmos-dreams and meaning – there will be no new technical ideas that serve only for their implementation, in the first place, and for the growth of human power – in the second.
Yes, that's right, and nothing else! For even the need for an atomic bomb and an airplane could not have appeared without the idea of energy that surpasses the energy of a bonfire and the dream of flying better than from the roof of a bell tower to the paving stones.
Humanitarians, without creating or inventing anything technically, mark the route for the progress and development of civilization. Their work can be compared to the work of geologists and surveyors-topographers who do not wave shovels and do not operate excavators, but run around with slats and theodolites, knock on pebbles with hammers ,put incomprehensible reference points and hangers… and then a new city grows up in this place, a hydroelectric dam and a network of roads appear.
Those who live in the city remember the builders, but no one remembers those who lived here in tents, removed the crocs and determined the heights, described the morphology and stability of the soil, which are visible to everyone, but no one knows how to use them better.
Without their work, it is impossible to make a plan for the future of a new city, and it is impossible to say for sure whether the city will be comfortable and safe. Especially the modern city.
The further humanity develops, the more it needs humanitarians – pioneers of dreams and meaning, researchers of the interrelationships of the Universe, the relationship between Man and Society.
In addition, it is worth emphasizing that the work of “humanitarian” thought is one of the most difficult jobs, oddly enough. A real philosophy is never straightforward and unambiguous, otherwise it becomes a technology. A true humanist does not work in this visible world – he operates in the next (fourth) dimension and above. Its task is not only to see new possibilities by looking at known truths from a different angle, but also to understand their origins and perspective, extrapolating in seconds in periods of tens and hundreds of years.
No supercomputer can handle such a task today. And the conclusions of a philosopher are always incomprehensible to a contemporary (if he is really a philosopher, and not a tech guy suffering from a delusion of wisdom and counting who ate how much).
These conclusions, my dear ones, always have to be simplified, but even in a simplified form they meet with fierce resistance.
Contemporaries in any era do not like new ideas. But they like the new things that come out of these ideas. And a person for the most part tends to mix up the concepts of ideas and things in a bunch, taking a thing for an idea. But he can't grasp the idea…
However, this is a different section.
It is a human privilege to think about meaningless things. Места There is still enough space for everyone, food too-why don't you chat? Techies love it too. It would probably be boring if everyone just worked like ants.