Here is
another set of arguments in favour of the humanities. In my last post, I wrote
about the very subject of the humanities, that is – the human creation. Its
worth makes also knowledge and investigation thereof worthwhile. Today, I am
going to write about positive ‘side-effects’ of such activity.
The
polemicists expressing their disapproval for the humanities represent most of
the time a clearly defined yet often in a way subconsciously adopted
ideological stance: one based on utilitarianism and materialism (‘How will you
make a living?’, ‘Why should taxpayer’s money be wasted on such things?’, ‘What
specific measureable benefits will it
bring anybody?’) with its quantitative approach (‘At best, only few specialists
will read your article’). Certainty of some such judgements suggests that they
are often seen as dogmas rather than just opinions, ones of many, only
particularly wide-spread nowadays.
Values such
as truth, goodness and beauty may be set against materialism and
utilitarianism; this kind of alternative attitude is presented not only in the
Bible teachings, but also in the major part of European philosophy. Also, it
can be easily noticed that the quantitative criterion brings poor results when
applied to cultural activity. The degradation of popular culture which we
witnessed in Poland after free market economy had been introduced would form
here a good example (of course free market doesn’t exclude good culture, but in
this particular case the negative co-incidence seems quite obvious). A never-ending
soap opera is emblematic of this new reality – the characters can only talk
about their feelings and everyday life. Everything else – slightly more
intelligent jokes, alluding to history or politics, distinct opinions, presenting
experience different than that of painstakingly average people – might result
in decreased numbers of viewers, who would be exposed to not getting something.
The news are now produced in a similar fashion: they contain almost no
informative content, the aim of them being primarily to trigger in the spectator
shallow compassion and thoughtless laughter.
The very
presence of the humanists in the society reminds of values different than
commonly taken for granted. And it’s not just about some empty declarations – a
humanist patiently chooses a salary that is comparatively low and hard to get
(I’m talking here about current employment reduction at the universities and
high competitiveness in applying for research grants) and does so only to commit to a ‘useless’
activity. Thus, he continually undermines the above-described dogma. His work
reminds us also of variety of human talents, which, for common good, should
develop naturally, rather than be suppressed by a stereotypical idea of a
‘decent job’. Saint Paul gives, in my opinion, the best description of
different ‘gifts’ in his I Epistle to the Corinthians. Today, his rhetorical
questions (1 Cor. 12, 29) could be replaced by some other ones, like: ‘Are all
doctors? Are all businessmen? Should everybody study law? Should everybody
start up a charity?’
The most
conspicuous effect of this largely anti-materialistic choice made by humanists is
teaching students. PhD candidates are not paid for didactic work they do.
Nonetheless, they often invest a lot of commitment in it – all in good cause.
This intellectual formation of students wouldn’t be successful, if the teachers
didn’t occupy themselves primarily with thinking, reading and writing. Teaching
and learning have to go hand in hand.
I’m writing
here, of course, about some ideal of humanists’ activity. But just as
charlatans shouldn’t make us doubt the importance of medicine, harmful as they
are, so the existence of unwise humanists wouldn’t be a sufficient reason to
reject all the humanities.
 |
| This book tells the story of people saving cultural property during WWII - their attitude should be a model for today's humanists |
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz