Monday, September 1, 2008
Why do we study the humanities?
Snow's Two Cultures makes me question the value of the PLS education. If there are in fact two cultures, it seems to me that the scientific culture is clearly superior to the non-scientific culture, as the scientific culture provides "the only hope for the poor" (25). It is the scientific culture that actually contributes to the betterment of society. What then is the role of the non-scientific culture? Is the non-scientific culture important, or is it a waste of time? Why should we really care if scientists have ever read Shakespeare or Dickens when it is the scientists, not the "traditional intellectuals," who actually contribute to society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
John, John, John, I thought we discussed this already in class. How can you say that the scientific culture is the the only thing that contributes to the betterment of society. Snow may feel that all scientist have the "future in their bones" and that they are the ones that progress. However, history shows that not all progress is good, especially if it is blind progress without a moral reflection. Take Germany under the Nazi regime for an example. They were the most scientifically advanced country in the world. Yet look at all the horrific things they did against humanity. It should not be a question of one culture or the other. There needs to be a dialogue between the sciences and the humanities, especially philosophy and theology. So that we can reflect on where science is pushing society. Of course we need to be wary of a repressive traditional society, but the liberal studies free us not confine us. And they allow us to understand the world around us in a totally different and beneficial way than the study of atoms does.
Post a Comment