I know thi si bad form when opening a discussion, but I myself don't have any real opinion on the matter.
I AM, however, interested in seeing others' opinions. What do you think of the liberal arts? Do they apply to real life? In comparison to the sciences, which is more relevant in general? Do you think that, despite there being a harder time locating a job in the liberal arts than in the various sciences, the liberal arts are equal to the sciences?
I'm watching a debate on this on another forum, and many of the views and points presented there are interesting and so I'd like to see how others think of them.
I like to think of the global human population metaphorically as a human being, and each member of the population as a cell. Some people make up the hands, that move and make things. Other people make up the blood, that carries supplies where they are needed. Anyways, using this metaphor, the sciences and liberal arts both provide brain functions, one providing the practical side, the other providing the impractical side. I think both are necessary, and it's healthy for this human that represents the world to have both of them.
My gripe on the subject though is that liberal artists are in general overly strict and limited. Sciences have to be regulated and they all have to work together in order to progress, that is how they work. Liberal arts, on the other hand, can and should be much more free, and it annoys me when I see very little change in some areas of liberal arts over great lengths of time.
Finally, science is the practical of the two, so that is why it may be thought of as 'more necessary', or easier to get a job with, because jobs are, well, practical. Liberal arts doesn't fit as well with the concept of a 'job', so it may be a bit harder to find something. Even so, I think that liberal arts operates on a much more fluid timescale, with inspiration or insight occurring at such irregular intervals that a 40 hour workweek is most likely not the best way to produce. Perhaps in the future, there will be an expansion of more free flowing careers in the liberal arts with less strict requirements that will enable us to better support liberal arts as a global community.
Personally, I think science *is* an art. Not necessarily a liberal art, but definitely an art. If you want to learn anything new in either case, you just have to experiment.
Not by definition. Science is about being precise and figuring out how stuff works while art is creating something new, something from your mind. I don't think those have a real connection whatsoever.
Do you think the Liberal Arts makes people "Jaded"?
If so, why do you think so? Because they can't find work? Or because the teaching they get allows them to see what is wrong with the world?
Some do and some don't. I think that some disciplines of liberal arts are less connected with reality than they present themselves, and this doesn't give liberal arts students the tools they need to adequately deal with reality. For example, a philosopher who sees all the pain and suffering in the world would be quick to apply broad generalizations of cynicism and nihilism without stopping to consider how every individual defies these imperfect sets of rules. Or a musician may be quick to think that the world is uncultured and foolish for not liking their music, but they don't realize that the reason that people prefer other artists that perhaps aren't as serious or as skilled is because the audience themselves don't have the same training, or the same appreciation.
What I'm getting at is that many liberal artists are trained a certain way, to be creative in a certain way, to appreciate a certain set of peculiarities, and they find themselves lost or disconnected from those that do not share their training.
Wow wink, you basically put into words what I'd been thinking.
Quote from: Dr. Stewart on June 05, 2011, 01:43:13 pm
Some do and some don't. I think that some disciplines of liberal arts are less connected with reality than they present themselves, and this doesn't give liberal arts students the tools they need to adequately deal with reality. For example, a philosopher who sees all the pain and suffering in the world would be quick to apply broad generalizations of cynicism and nihilism without stopping to consider how every individual defies these imperfect sets of rules. Or a musician may be quick to think that the world is uncultured and foolish for not liking their music, but they don't realize that the reason that people prefer other artists that perhaps aren't as serious or as skilled is because the audience themselves don't have the same training, or the same appreciation.
What I'm getting at is that many liberal artists are trained a certain way, to be creative in a certain way, to appreciate a certain set of peculiarities, and they find themselves lost or disconnected from those that do not share their training.
Dammit stop being right.
@winkio: That's a great point. :)
Ok, this is why we shouldn't have debates about things we all agree on. It makes for terrible spectatorship.