Humanities vs Natural Science which is more important?

Post Reply New Topic

Here I wrote quite a long thread about my Polish native language.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp6079528.html

Our Polish government for a long time supported humanist, but one time Minister of Education said that the humanities are not important, that instead it should be supported natural science.

Uummmm.......

I'm fascinated by both. I never realized there was a "competition" going on.

Frankly, I find it inane.

Authoritarians have always had a hard on for dismantling the humanities, because the humanities provide tools with which we may assess cultural norms and the legitimacy of authority. Additionally, humanities provide an infinite well of distilled insight and contextual information which limit the ability of authority to control the public mind. A benevolent leader; a democratic leader, would not defund the humanities. Engineering a competition between science and humanities in order to marginalise one or both is contemptible.

Last edited by Stannis on 28 May 2014, 7:13 pm, edited 5 times in total.

would humanities refer to stuff like psychology, sociology, study of human behavior and that sort of thing? If so I think both are important, not sure one is more important than the other. I find both to be very interesting.

This, and it just makes better rounded people to have both done right.

Science gives us great tools but really can't give us guidance in and of itself on how to be human in the best senses of the word.

I have studied both, and personally I place more importance on humanities. Though science is extremely important to having all the useful technology and the interesting knowledge that comes with it, humanities teach you how to be an open minded, critical, decent human being. For me the latter is more important than the former. If we had no science we could still have good lives as enlightened individuals, but science without enlightenment (and moral decency) can be hell. The Nazis probably had the most advanced science in many fields but that was pure horror. On the other hand you can go to certain harmonious philosophical communities in ancient times and have a very fulfilling life without science.
I personally like humanities students (who are ignorant of science) more than science students (who are ignorant of humanities.) Far better people in my opinion. Of course both is better. I wish philosophy was a mandatory course from elementary school.

I had one semester compulsory course of philosophy in the first year Bachelor of Library and Information science.

Although this course was mandatory that I wish I was the only one semsetr , our teacher was a graduate of the Catholic University of Lublin , the first lecture he said that he chose these schools because education was free , as in other universities in Poland , the communist government was still not had control over it , because it was not the only public university in Poland. The professor told that he would not of specific points for origin , because communism students from small towns and villages were getting special points at public universities to compensate for differences in education in small towns and villages. Catholic University of Lublin did not recognize them. After the fall of communism, this sytem is abolished . The Professor said that he did not want special favors from the commies , and they do not need those points.


The professor said that if we ever wanted to study philosophy, Catholic University of Lublin, the best university in this regard.

I loved his lectures on Plato and Socrates, you simply. He often rant about Marx and Engels, and dissing their philosophy. And personally called Marx drunk. He didn;t liked Nietzsche called him crazy

I remember once he called "Global Warming" leftist fabrication.

He said that even when the glaciers melted by this water level and so would not increase, because the water would only change the physical state.

My one friend, with a leftist-minded very much offended at these words, and began to argue, said the professor you do not have the competence to express himself on this, because he's philosophies, not a climatologist

This.

An education in humanities helps people to think critically and form a reasonable framework of morals and ethics. Without this we get stuff like greedy, scumbag bankers who crash the world economy just to line their own pockets, and people who think Randian Objectivism is a legitimate school of thought (actually, Objectivism produces the aforementioned bankers).

I think, especially in the west, we need to start teaching the classics again. Our society and governing system is based upon Greco-Roman thought and needs people educated in the classics to run it properly.

It is hard to respect the institutions and traditions that maintain a healthy republic if you do not understand WHY things are the way they are.

I wonder how many Tea Party members of congress have ever read Polybius?

Well looks like you have a good minister of education! Of course humanities are not important. In schools those disciplines quickly degrade into skipped classes, crammed summaries, and they just teach you how to lie and talk about nothing. While an essential skill, you can't get away so easily in science.

Science teaches you to be humble, honest, critical thinking human being unlike anything else ever will. It teaches you appreciation of life and all the amazing natural phenomena, greatly encourages creativity. It teaches that we all are alike, regardless of race and gender and actually proves all the claims. It makes you ask questions.

Ask yourself- have you learned a thing about morals in school? All I learned how women were oppressed throughout centuries and how in every single novel woman was a sex object. People dont like to think, so they of course dont value science, because it requires effort, while humanities are just there, we all know that thing anyway. Also we learn more from TV shows either way!

In one comment you've just dismissed the areas of Classics, History, Languages, Law, Literature, Performing arts, Theatre, Philosophy, and Religion for teaching nothing of value!

Edit Re-reading your post, I now realise that you are probably not serious

Last edited by Stannis on 29 May 2014, 2:52 pm, edited 8 times in total.

I took college philosophy and they don't teach to a particular philosophy. You study many different philosophies and you have to decide for yourself which ones you like.

You may take college philosophy and realize that "Hedonism" is the best one

Philosophy as taught in college today is mostly mental masturbation and does little to inform students about how to live a good life.

If you actually want to learn about potential 'personal philosophies' you're better off taking a class in the history of philosophy or classical literature.

You won't find the ideas of Randianism supported there.

Even the Epicureans would call BS on most of Rand's ideas.

I see the sciences as the tools and humanities as instructions on how to use the tools.

I admit I often radicalize my points, so thanks for consideration but this time I was quite serious.
I strongly believe that these subjects should be combined, called "humanities" and that's it. Classics should be a part of history, as well as literature and general development of human culture, history is a good subject as it is a science to an extent, law is necessary but should be taught in conjunction with "learning what a citizen means", arts not compulsory, theatre worthless, religion worthless (only in history).

Instead, I would propose teaching critical thinking (such as logical fallacies), and all sorts of applied science together with theoretical disciplines to train ones mind. I honestly don't see what I learned from *humanities*, only I learned lots of misanthropy. Maybe it's that I am a psychopath and don't empathize with people.. I dont see any values in humanities..

Very well said.

That's good. I was mostly educated in analytic philosophy. It teaches you how to reason very well but mostly skips the "how to live your life?" type of questions. Nietzsche is quite hard to read. I read mostly the interpretation of other philosophers of Nietzsche. Interesting stuff. I liked reading it