Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

End Of The Soul: Decline of the humanities, return of empiricism & the hard problem

#1
C C Offline
On the Value of Not Knowing Everything: http://www.iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_arti...lliams.php

EXCERPT: [...] But it’s unclear how much longer the humanities can nurture the Sam McNerneys of the world. Even at Hamilton—a solid liberal arts college—McNerney was, by his own assessment, something of a black sheep. As he indulged the life of the mind, grappling earnestly with timeless philosophical problems, his friends prepared themselves for lucrative careers in law, medicine, and finance. They never criticized his choice—“They never said, ‘You’re going to live a shitty life, Sam,’” he told me—but they didn’t rush to join him in the mosh pit of thought, either.

For all of McNerney’s curiosity—one deeply reflective of a humanistic temperament—it has led him headlong into a topic (the Hard Problem) that has the potential to alter permanently the place of the humanities in academic life. If, after all, Nagel is proven wrong—that is, if subjectivity is in fact reducible to an identifiable network of neural synapses—what is the point of investigating the human condition through a humanistic lens? If what it is like to be human, much less a bat, turns out to be empirically situated in the dense switchboard of the brain, what happens to Shakespeare, Swift, Woolf, or Wittgenstein when it comes to explaining ourselves to ourselves?

It’s perhaps because of this concern that Nagel’s famous essay stays famous, playing a rearguard role in philosophy seminars throughout the country. By challenging the very notion of a biological understanding of consciousness, by positing individual consciousness as an existential reality that defies objectification, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” breathes continual life into a phenomenon—the inner subjectivity of experience—that science has yet to illuminate with empirical exactitude.

The critic Richard Brody noted as much when he wrote last year in The New Yorker that “the ideas that Nagel unfolds ought to be discussed by non-specialists with an interest in the arts, politics, and—quite literally, in this context—the humanities.” He continued:

If Nagel is right, art itself would no longer be merely the scientist’s leisure-time fulfillment but would be (I think, correctly) recognized as a primary mode of coming to grips with the mental and moral essence of the universe. It would be a key source of the very definition of life. Aesthetics will be propelled to the forefront of philosophy as a crucial part of metaphysical biology…. The very beauty of Nagel’s theory—its power to inspire imagination—counts in its favor.

And thus Nagel’s essay—and the humanities—abide.

Behind Brody’s optimism there’s a much-discussed backstory. You’ve heard it repeated like a mantra: The humanities are in crisis. They’re dying. There is a mass exodus of literature and history and anthropology majors. Some say this is overhyped angst. As a history professor who has seen twenty years of change, I disagree. It’s real. A shift is underway in higher education, and that shift, in many ways, mirrors—or at least is a microcosm of—the frenzied quest to solve the mystery of the Hard Problem.

The numbers don’t deny it. Nationally, the number of students majoring in the humanities has fallen substantially since 1970.5 At Stanford, 45 percent of the faculty is trained in the humanities, but only 15 percent of students major in humanities fields. At Yale, between 1971 and 2013 the proportion of humanities majors dropped from 53 percent to 25 percent among women, and from 37 percent to 21 percent among men. Meanwhile, economics has skyrocketed as a preferred major, with the number of economics majors growing almost threefold at traditionally humanities-inclined institutions such as Brown University. The acronym STEM—science, technology, engineering, mathematics—is now part of every university’s lingua franca.

It hardly helped the humanities when a 2012 Georgetown University study found that students in non-technical majors had unemployment rates ranging from 8.9 to 11.1 percent, while graduates in engineering, science, education, and health care had an overall unemployment rate of 5.4 percent. It is for good reason that the top five majors at Duke are now in biology, public policy, economics, psychology, and engineering. English majors must cringe a little bit when they learn that STEM majors make $32,000 more the year they enter “the real world.”

Plausible explanations for the withering of the humanities run the gamut. Writing in The New Criterion, Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University, blames old-school identity politics: “The minute professors started speaking of literary works as second to race and queerness, they set the fields on a path of material decline.” (Cranky.) The essayist Arthur Krystal points to the rise of postmodern theory—particularly deconstructionism—as a culprit. After a “defamiliarized zone of symbols and referents” gutted Western thought, he explains, the result was “the expulsion of those ideas that were formerly part of the humanistic charter.” (Stodgy.) But by far the loudest and most controversial response to the crisis in the humanities comes from William Deresiewicz. In his recent book Excellent Sheep, he highlights the scourge of “credentialism” among “entitled little shits.” He asks, “Do young people still have the chance, do they give themselves the chance, to experience the power that ideas have to knock you sideways?” Run ragged by status-driven career agendas, they seem not to. They seem pre-channeled, alienated from the whole notion of ideas for ideas’ sake. “Nothing in their training,” Deresiewicz writes of his pressure-cooked subjects, “has endowed them with a sense that something larger is at stake."

Perhaps an even deeper reason for the humanities’ shrinking status is the intensification of a certain and perhaps temporary habit of mind among today’s undergraduates, a habit that Nagel reminds us has severe limitations: the fierce adherence to quantification. Why this turn has happened at this point in time is difficult to say, but it seems fairly certain that a renewed faith in the power of radical empiricism—not to mention the economic advantages it can confer when judiciously applied post-graduation—has decisively lured students out of the humanities and into fields where the defining questions are reducible to just the facts, thank you.

Those left in the wake of this trend scratch their heads and prove the rule. Consider the experience of Logan Sander, a Princeton freshman majoring in comparative literature. In tenth grade, Sander wrote a paper on Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five in her English class. As with McNerney, the impact of the experience unexpectedly transformed her ambitions. She quickly fell in love with literature and began to read and study fiction with an inspired urgency, reveling in more questions than answers, seeking insights rather than data.

After graduating first in her class at Southview High School in Sylvania, Ohio, Sander was invited to an event celebrating valedictorians from twenty-five public high schools. There she discovered, a little to her dismay, that she was the only valedictorian planning to pursue a non-scientific field of study. Today, Sander has discovered a dynamic humanistic bubble at Princeton, but still, she observes, “there’s this assumption that if you’re pursuing the humanities you’re not likely to get a good job or make a lot of money.” She remains committed to literature. “Those in it seem to really love what they’re doing,” she told me. Plus, she wondered, “Since when is the value of the humanities based on money?"

Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with an undergraduate shift toward empiricism. Nor is there a problem with pursuing money. Gathering and mapping and deploying objective data will produce everything from a cure for cancer to an app for identifying the finest coffee within a ten-block radius to the best fertilizer for sub-Saharan farmers (and probably has, as far as I know). The quality of human life will surely improve because of such endeavors, and those pursuing them are bound to live accomplished and well-remunerated lives. The world will be better off for their contributions. But…

As Sander says, “The humanities…touch the inner parts of our minds and souls the way technology cannot.” Indeed, what about the inner parts of our minds? Our souls?! What about the shimmering but elusive beauty of subjective experience? What about those things you can’t measure or convey?

When it comes to these questions, it’s worth wondering if empiricism hasn’t run amok in the halls of academe....
#2
Yazata Offline
I think that I agree that the humanities are in crisis in contemporary universities.

But I don't think that has anything to do with the philosophy of mind or the so-called "hard problem".

Much of the difficulty is due to the rise of the ideal of universal higher education. Today everyone is expected to go to college. (There was a front page story a couple of days ago in a local paper about college classes being offered in the county jail.)

Universities aren't just finishing schools that teach the children of the rich and powerful to be sophisticated and lettered gentlemen and ladies any more. The goal isn't to produce cultured Renaissance courtiers.

The emphasis today is on career-preparation and on job-skills for a more middle-class market. And today's students aren't really interested in studying literature or philosophy if there aren't any well-paying jobs in those subjects. (We've all heard the "want fries with that?" jibes regarding the humanities.)

Another contributing factor in the decline of the humanities is their pervasive politicization at many universities. History, philosophy and literary criticism are often strongly influenced by race-class-gender theory these days, and by various sorts of 'post-modern' critiques. These subjects are often preoccupied with attacking and morally condemning the same cultural inheritance that forms their ostensible subjects. And then departments that are dedicated to subverting their subjects wonder why they aren't attracting more students who are motivated by their love of those same subjects.


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Humanity’s return to the moon is a deeply religious mission C C 1 58 Apr 12, 2023 02:08 PM
Last Post: Kornee
  Article Why are most of us stuck with a belief in the soul? C C 2 87 Apr 1, 2023 08:29 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Jeffery Kripal, UFOs and the return of the miraculous Magical Realist 15 479 Dec 1, 2021 07:35 AM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Vaxx hesitancy decline + Stabbed preacher update + Ban harmed Muslim American health C C 0 96 Jul 30, 2021 07:36 PM
Last Post: C C
  The hard science of reincarnation? C C 1 85 Apr 1, 2021 07:17 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Machine in the ghost: Can a robot pray? Does an AI have a soul? C C 0 104 Feb 15, 2021 05:47 AM
Last Post: C C
  (US) Christians decline by 13 million since 2009 + (UK) Religious hate-crime on rise C C 16 845 Nov 24, 2019 03:55 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Quest for oblivion: humans & suicide + Quest for the beautiful, self-improved soul C C 4 699 Aug 2, 2017 03:56 AM
Last Post: Secular Sanity
  Return to Theism: A dark version of Abrahamic religion C C 2 913 Nov 17, 2015 12:58 AM
Last Post: elte
  Guns and Zombies: Gimme that end-time religion, Gimme that end-time religion C C 2 848 Oct 28, 2015 09:04 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)