What is preventing progress in the humanities?

[Boojatta]

Students of political theory are advised to study Aristotle's politics, but students of physics aren't advised to study Aristotle's physics.

[Burma Jones]

1. Depends on where you study Physics..........n/t

[Boojatta]

5. Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly.

It wasn't my intention to suggest that a physics course shouldn't include any study of the history of physics.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Here's what I think.

1. Sontagist camp and pretextual dialectic theory

“Society is unattainable,” says Debord; however, according to Parry<1> , it is not so much society that is unattainable, but rather the futility, and thus the stasis, of society. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a that includes culture as a whole.

Foucault uses the term ’subdialectic dematerialism’ to denote the role of the poet as participant. In a sense, Sontag’s model of semanticist preconceptual theory states that language may be used to entrench class divisions.

The primary theme of Finnis’s<2> analysis of subdialectic dematerialism is a self-referential totality. It could be said that the premise of Sartreist absurdity implies that sexuality has intrinsic meaning, but only if Bataille’s essay on subdialectic dematerialism is invalid.
2. Consensuses of meaninglessness

If one examines dialectic nationalism, one is faced with a choice: either accept subdialectic dematerialism or conclude that the State is capable of truth. The main theme of the works of Madonna is the failure, and subsequent meaninglessness, of postdeconstructivist society. In a sense, Lacan suggests the use of pretextual dialectic theory to attack class.

The primary theme of Brophy’s<3> model of subdialectic dematerialism is a mythopoetical paradox. Many desublimations concerning not, in fact, discourse, but postdiscourse may be revealed. It could be said that if dialectic nationalism holds, we have to choose between pretextual dialectic theory and prematerial modernist theory.

If one examines subdialectic dematerialism, one is faced with a choice: either reject subcultural deconstruction or conclude that culture is part of the collapse of reality, given that narrativity is equal to art. The characteristic theme of the works of Madonna is the difference between society and consciousness. In a sense, Baudrillard uses the term ‘dialectic nationalism’ to denote the defining characteristic of dialectic class.

The subject is contextualised into a that includes sexuality as a totality. It could be said that McElwaine<4> suggests that we have to choose between patriarchialist feminism and Foucaultist power relations.

The premise of dialectic nationalism holds that reality comes from the collective unconscious. But Lyotard promotes the use of subdialectic dematerialism to challenge hierarchy.

If dialectic nationalism holds, we have to choose between subdialectic dematerialism and substructural discourse. Thus, Foucault suggests the use of dialectic nationalism to analyse and attack consciousness.

La Fournier<5> states that we have to choose between pretextual dialectic theory and the textual paradigm of context. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a that includes culture as a whole.
3. Joyce and subdialectic dematerialism

“Society is used in the service of class divisions,” says Debord; however, according to McElwaine<6> , it is not so much society that is used in the service of class divisions, but rather the paradigm, and therefore the meaninglessness, of society. If pretextual dialectic theory holds, we have to choose between dialectic nationalism and conceptual nihilism. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a that includes consciousness as a reality.

Hanfkopf<7> implies that we have to choose between pretextual dialectic theory and subconstructivist desituationism. But Marx promotes the use of dialectic nationalism to challenge outmoded, sexist perceptions of class.

The example of cultural capitalism depicted in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction emerges again in Four Rooms, although in a more self-falsifying sense. Therefore, Baudrillard uses the term ‘dialectic nationalism’ to denote not theory, but neotheory.

Debord suggests the use of prestructural sublimation to analyse sexuality. But if pretextual dialectic theory holds, we have to choose between dialectic nationalism and Derridaist reading.
4. Discourses of rubicon

“Sexual identity is part of the paradigm of art,” says Sontag. Foucault uses the term ‘pretextual dialectic theory’ to denote the bridge between society and class. Therefore, Dietrich<8> suggests that the works of Tarantino are modernistic.

The primary theme of Drucker’s<9> essay on subdialectic dematerialism is not appropriation, but neoappropriation. Sontag’s analysis of pretextual dialectic theory states that narrativity is used to marginalize the Other, but only if the premise of constructivist nationalism is valid; otherwise, the collective is capable of significance. But if subdialectic dematerialism holds, we have to choose between postdialectic conceptualist theory and Foucaultist power relations.

The characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is the defining characteristic, and eventually the failure, of neodeconstructive language. However, in Count Zero, Gibson denies pretextual dialectic theory; in Virtual Light, however, he analyses dialectic nationalism.

The primary theme of Dahmus’s<10> model of pretextual dialectic theory is the role of the artist as reader. It could be said that Sartre promotes the use of dialectic nationalism to deconstruct capitalism.

The destruction/creation distinction which is a central theme of Gaiman’s Death: The High Cost of Living is also evident in Sandman. In a sense, Sontag suggests the use of subdialectic dematerialism to modify and analyse class.
5. Gaiman and pretextual dialectic theory

If one examines capitalist discourse, one is faced with a choice: either accept dialectic nationalism or conclude that art serves to reinforce colonialist perceptions of sexual identity, given that reality is interchangeable with consciousness. Baudrillard uses the term ’substructuralist feminism’ to denote not sublimation, as Sartre would have it, but presublimation. It could be said that several narratives concerning pretextual dialectic theory exist.

The subject is interpolated into a that includes art as a totality. However, Sartre promotes the use of dialectic nationalism to attack the status quo.

Sargeant<11> implies that we have to choose between pretextual dialectic theory and pretextual capitalist theory. Therefore, the characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is the common ground between society and sexual identity.

The subject is contextualised into a that includes consciousness as a reality. Thus, if neodialectic narrative holds, we have to choose between subdialectic dematerialism and textual appropriation.

1. Parry, R. N. (1988) The Failure of Sexual identity: Subdialectic dematerialism and dialectic nationalism. Schlangekraft

2. Finnis, V. Z. M. ed. (1994) Dialectic nationalism and subdialectic dematerialism. University of Georgia Press

3. Brophy, J. R. (1982) The Vermillion Sea: Subdialectic dematerialism and dialectic nationalism. Loompanics

4. McElwaine, F. ed. (1991) Dialectic nationalism and subdialectic dematerialism. University of Michigan Press

5. la Fournier, D. C. (1983) Consensuses of Stasis: Dialectic nationalism in the works of Joyce. O’Reilly & Associates

6. McElwaine, O. K. C. ed. (1978) Subdialectic dematerialism and dialectic nationalism. University of Illinois Press

7. Hanfkopf, P. E. (1981) The Failure of Reality: Dialectic nationalism in the works of Tarantino. Harvard University Press

8. Dietrich, G. H. Y. ed. (1998) Subdialectic dematerialism in the works of Gibson. University of North Carolina Press

9. Drucker, G. U. (1979) Deconstructing Derrida: Dialectic nationalism and subdialectic dematerialism. And/Or Press

10. Dahmus, N. ed. (1992) Dialectic nationalism in the works of Gaiman. Cambridge University Press

11. Sargeant, K. I. N. (1975) Constructive Deappropriations: Subdialectic dematerialism and dialectic nationalism. Harvard University Press

[leftyclimber]

17. What does it mean that I understood every word of that?

Wait. Don't answer. :yoiks:

[janx]

26. I'm so damned glad I never studied literary theory. n/t

[readmoreoften]

31. Actually, that's not literary theory. It's an analysis of mid-c. politics using philosophical terms.

Dialectics, Sartre, Debord. It's its own language as much as math and social science jargon. Every field has its own interior language. It isn't necessarily meant to be obscurantist. (Tho I can't vouch for the quoted author.) I can talk in the language of my field to other Ph.D.s and roughly translate the meaning to undergrads. No biggie.

[Posteritatis]

34. Actually that one's randomly-generated gobbledygook

There's a few postmodern-academic-prose generators out there and that's the typical output.

[readmoreoften]

37. I didn't read it. I was just looking at the language used.

Sure "postmodern academic prose" can take from philosophy and political theory. It doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Postmodernism makes enough sense for me not to agree with it. I don't think it's nonsense. I actually think it's largely inaccurate. So there you have it.

[BlooInBloo]

52. Nobody much cared what litcridiots said before Sokal...

And they care even less after him.

[Posteritatis]

61. I know folks who *still* believe the Sokal paper was a Real Srs Academic Work (nt)

[tridim]

3. Religion

[Boojatta]

7. What are some indications of a connection with religion?

[RandomThoughts]

4. our school had advance placement classes.

I was in all of them except one, it required a recommendation from a teacher or someone to be in it.

They taught greek philosophy, including the ideas of ruling class from Aristotle's politics. (maybe it was Plato) But anyway they taught aristocracy. And they taught it to a group that was selected for being special.

I remember going and finding the books in the library and reading them, and even back then I thought it was wrong to teach a selected class, how selected special people should rule, while others work and are ruled.

If you believe in Aristocracy, then you should let the entire society know that is how they are being ruled, many won't care, unless you start wars and drive there wages down while increasing work hours and making health care not affordable.

The problem is it needs to be done in secret because what is done would never be allowed, if they want to rule in the open, then they would be forced to take responsibility.

It also supports evil first amoral look at society, leading to many leaders having rationalizations for actions against others.

Maybe everyone should go read it. Just to know what some believe, and why some act the way they do.

[Viking12]

6. But students of political theory are NOT advised to stop with Aristotle

Thus, your implied point is a classic straw-man.

[Boojatta]

12. If a biology teacher advises the students to study the first book of the Bible (Genesis)...

then I'm not going to have a very high opinion of the biology class. It will do no good for the teacher to say, "They aren't advised to stop with the Book of Genesis; we also advise them to study Of Pandas and People."

If Aristotle had written and then hidden some documents about what we call the Lorentz transformations, and Lorentz had found and translated those documents, then Lorentz might not have deserved credit for original research in physics, but physics itself would have nevertheless progressed.

[Posteritatis]

20. Because newer ideas are automatically better ideas, right? (nt)

[Boojatta]

25. No, in the message that you replied to, I made the point that

describing the Lorentz transformation would have been progress for physics in the age of Lorentz even if it had actually been invented by Aristotle. If Aristotle had invented it and hidden the manuscript, then the manuscript would have been newly discovered, but the ideas in the manuscript wouldn't have been new. I don't understand why you would think that I am claiming that new ideas are always better.

[Viking12]

36. I think you should read Aristolte's writings on logic...

...as it appears you are grossly lacking.

[Boojatta]

66. Can you give a specific example?

[readmoreoften]

8. Because the humanities aren't the sciences.

The humanities trace the trajectory of human history. Sciences overturn incorrect theories with correct theories. The goals are different. If you want to understand the politics of the Catholic Church, you have to understand the effect of Aristotle on Aquinas. Knowledge in the humanities is cumulative and recursive. Knowledge in the sciences is linear and makes earlier, incorrect hypotheses irrelevant. The humanities studies how those "earlier, incorrect hypotheses" of the sciences lead to human suffering and non-scientific invention (art forms, architecture, etc.)

[Boojatta]

14. This may be a bit garbled, but are you suggesting that...

no hypotheses in the humanities have ever been incorrect and the goal of the humanities is to trace the history of human suffering?

[readmoreoften]

18. No. That's taking my explanation and turning it into hyperbole.

Of course hypothesis in the humanities (if you mean current academic research, as in dissertations) have been incorrect. But the goal of the humanities isn't to "prove" Aristotle right or wrong. Science discards bad ideas, the humanities looks for good ideas. Herman Melville wrote some mediocre books and two masterpieces that inspired artists for a century. Aristotle's explanation of gender structures is unfortunate, but the distinction of deliberative speech vs. epideictic speech is an important analysis even today.

Quite obvious the "goal" of the humanities is not to trace the history of human suffering, but fighting to ensure that sequences of suffering are preserved is one of its tasks. For example, in 100 years from now it will be historians who make sure that the Holocaust is not reinterpreted as the death of 600,000 Jews at the hands of a gay Germans. In fact, humanities scholars who study LGBT history have traced the ABSENCE of human suffering (social acceptance) for many same-sex couples in 13th century Europe or within indigenous societies in Latin-America. The "goal" of the humanities is to record, revisit, and preserve and question human history and human inventions. It preserves and promotes the study of languages and histories. It gives history a context.

It will be humanities scholars who decide the context of GWB's legacy 500 years into the future. They will be interpreting our blogs, translating them into "new English" or "25th century global Indonesian" or whatever the language of the day is.

The humanities are generally considered important around the world, but not so much here.

[damntexdem]

9. Humans.

They're much-more complex than atoms, quarks, or even stars.

[Boojatta]

13. If they're so complex, then how was Aristotle able to write

things about politics that aren't yet obsolete?

[readmoreoften]

22. If science is so complex, then why hasn't the atomic weight of gold ever changed?

If the sun is so complex, then why is it still made of fire? Why hasn't it upgraded?
If science is so complex, then why hasn't Galileo been disproved yet?

Your questions don't seem honest. What's your *real* question? Sounds like you just don't want to read Aristotle. :shrug:

[Boojatta]

27. No, actually there are some interesting things in Aristotle's politics.

It's not a problem. It's simply an indication of the existence of a problem.

[readmoreoften]

30. Can you clarify what you see as a problem?

Are you saying that you're concerned that the human subject hasn't changed significantly enough to make Aristotle's ideas obsolete? Or are you concerned that the academic field of humanities hasn't considered his ideas obsolete? (Certainly, many individual academics do.) I'm not sure what's bothering you here. (I'm not being snarky. It's the professor coming out in me. ;))

[Boojatta]

32. Why would the complexity of theories of nature cause instability in nature?

"If the sun is so complex, then why is it still made of fire?"
Fire is a process, not a substance, so it doesn't make sense to say that the sun is made of fire.

"If science is so complex, then why hasn't Galileo been disproved yet?"
The Galilean transformation has been replaced with the Lorentz transformation.

[readmoreoften]

40. Okay then. "If the sun is so complex, why is it still made of matter?"

Yes, but nobody argues with Galileo's discovery that the earth revolves around the sun. And, moreover, the earth hasn't stopped revolving around the sun.

The idea that the consistency of an object's ontological structure admits some sort of failure of complexity in the object is a weak argument. Math doesn't change and it isn't structurally non-complex.

If you're saying that "the methodology of the humanities" doesn't change, that's simply an ignorance of the field. There are numerous methodologies: hermeneutics, structuralism, post-structuralism, new historicism, etc.

[Boojatta]

45. "If you're saying that the methodology of the humanities doesn't change"

I'm not saying that. You can have change without progress. For example, Bush changed Iraq, but I don't think that it was change for the better.

[readmoreoften]

53. Well if your criteria for the humanities is that it be measured by either scientific definitions or

your opinion, then you're not really communicating. Your hiding declarative statements behind rhetorical questions. "For the better" is opinion, not science. Progress towards what? You haven't made that clear.

[Posteritatis]

63. I do think his problem is that history isn't physics or something similarly inane (nt)

[sohndrsmith]

10. absence of ethics/abundance of greed n/t

[cobalt1999]

11. Define "progress" and why you don't think it is occuring in the humanities.

I think the humanities are doing just fine. There are lots of liberal srts degrees and students out there right now.

[Posteritatis]

21. OP's declaring various ideas obsolete and suggesting we shouldn't study them at all, I guess (nt)

[Boojatta]

33. I didn't say that you shouldn't study them.

If you're interested in the history of physics, then it might be a good idea to study Aristotle's physics.

[Posteritatis]

35. But you said students studying Aristotle's politics is proof that the humanities don't "progress"

Your conclusion doesn't follow at all.

Never mind the silly idea that "the humanities" is a monolith, which is a great heaping mound of bullshit in and of itself. You seem to simply be dismissing a few score seperate disciplines because students in one, at one point, might read something you dislike.

[Boojatta]

41. "Your conclusion doesn't follow at all."

You're right about that. However, I think that a more important issue is whether or not the conclusion is true. My intention was to put the emphasis on the question why. If you don't believe the conclusion, then there's no puzzle for you to solve.

If you study Galileo's writings, you will find that he was studying very simple phenomena. It's really the ground floor of physics. In the 200 years prior to his research, how much progress do you think was being made in physics? If you could go back in time and talk to a person who was perfectly comfortable with the Aristotelian approach and who was pursuing physics research within the Aristotelian framework, and if you suggested that no progress was being made, then the person would probably be insulted and insist that progress was being made.

I suspect that the main progress in physics in the 200 years before Galileo began his research was simply the popularization of the idea that armchair theorizing isn't an adequate substitute for actually performing an experiment. Until someone figured out what experiments to perform, actually performed them, and developed some reasonable explanations of approximately what was happening, there was no foundation to build upon. Somebody had to establish the foundations. Until then, there wasn't progress. A thousand years of talk about a rock's alleged jubilant feeling as it falls down and comes closer to its "natural location" wouldn't suffice to lay foundations for physics.

[readmoreoften]

42. Logic is also studied in the humanities.

It hasn't changed either.

[Boojatta]

43. Actually there has been progress in logic.

Aristotle's logic didn't include the study of sentences involving multiple variables governed by a structure of multiple layers of quantifiers ("For all" and "there exists" are quantifiers).

[readmoreoften]

47. Exactly! There ya go! Progress in the humanities.

That's not progress in logic. That's progress in the study of logic. Your questions are muddled category errors. One minute you're attempting to locate progress in an academic subject, then you're conflating the field with object studied.

Yes, there is progress in the uncovering of logical structures. There is not progress in transforming A=A (i.e. the axiom of identity)

[Boojatta]

48. "you're attempting to locate progress in an academic subject"

Yes. Where in this thread do you see me attempting to locate any other kind of progress?

[readmoreoften]

50. By questioning the "progress" of humans (object of study) and art forms (film/songs)

The idea that political science has not developed innovations is completely untenable, inaccurate, and shows a lack of research into the history of the field. It is also, depending on the university, not generally pursued in the humanities, depending on the methodologies used. That split in itself is an innovation and an attempt to become more rigorous and specific in an analysis.

Are you one of these fools who claims that "only the hard sciences are 'real'"? Because that's where this seems to be going.

[Boojatta]

54. "The idea that political science has not developed innovations"

You can have innovations without progress.

As for "where this seems to be going", Galileo recognized that Aristotle's physics was seriously flawed. If he had concluded that physics is "unreal", then he wouldn't have made his important contributions that allowed for subsequent progress in physics.

[readmoreoften]

57. Okay, I'm done with this obscurantist nonsense.

You're just throwing one rhetorical statement after another and refusing to clarify yourself.

Hey, if you're just trying to flex intellectual muscle to impress people, you really should go on an academic board and not come to a general public forum and throw comment after comment without responding to what people have written in response.

You haven't answered a single question. If you're attempting to use the Socratic method of analyzing a problem (something the humanities has largely discarded through "PROGRESSIVELY" discovering improved ways of forcing inquiry and intellectual discovery) you're doing a piss-poor job.

[Boojatta]

58. "You haven't answered a single question."

Are you sure?

[readmoreoften]

59. Yes. And whenever I disprove your thesis, you avoid those posts.

I usually get paid to deal with obnoxious undergraduates. And then I get to grade them at the end of the course. Epic fail.

[Boojatta]

60. Recently, I was told...

that Galileo was brusque and confrontational. Hence he may have been considered obnoxious. Coincidentally, he didn't win his trial. No, it was an epic fail for him.

whenever I disprove your thesis, you avoid those posts

If you have in fact disproved my thesis, then there's nothing more to be done. If I avoid those posts, then I am avoiding confrontation.

The purpose of this thread was to gather ideas about what might be preventing progress in areas such as the academic study of politics. If you are convinced that nothing is preventing progress in such areas, then for you this thread will seem to be a search for what does not exist and therefore cannot be found.

[Posteritatis]

64. LOL! You're comparing yourself to Galileo now? (nt)

[Boojatta]

46. "you said students studying Aristotle's politics is proof"

Can you quote my actual words? I don't recall claiming that it was proof.

[LooseWilly]

15. Progress *is* being made in the humanities.

The Watchmen film was released this week.
Film is an artform.
Art is a humanity.

Ergo, progress was made in the humanities just this last week.

You want to witness some more progress? Go to www.smartasspress.com and read a story. Or, better yet, buy one of my books...

[Boojatta]

23. What would be required for you to say that progress isn't being made?

When ancient hunters sat in a cave beside a fire and one of them started improvising a song and dance, was progress being made?

[Posteritatis]

24. Evidence would be nice

You seem to be asserting that, since people still read Aristotle, "the humanities" is somehow in stasis. There's a whole variety of reasons why that's a stupid, stupid argument, but I'm open to the possibility that you might try to back up your point at some point.

[readmoreoften]

29. Examples of progress in arts and humanities:

*The writings of Freud influence Andre Breton who creates the Surrealist movement which changes how advertising works
*The pyramids
*The construction of the Acropolis under Pericles in 5th century Greece B.C.E.
*The invention of photography which transformed the fields of war, commerce, psychiatry, medicine, political communication, historical documentation
*The invention of dramatic form, which lead to platonic philosophy/dialectics as well as sit coms.
*The invention of the printing press transformed the history of religion, the spread of democracy, and is responsible for everything from capitalism to the French Revolution
*Costuming and special effects in Hollywood, which have transformed spycraft and warfare.
*The invention of the field of "Queer Studies/LGBT History" which re-examines historical records for factual descriptions of non-heterosexual couplings around the world to counter the ahistorical false claims that LGBT people are a 20th century Western "perversion."
*Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a woman"
*Eistenstein's "Odessa Sequence" and its effect on editing
*Research showing that Hitler blew all his money on the color film Munchhausen in 1943 even though he knew that it would cause the failure of the German War effort
*Alice Dreger's study of the medical treatment of "hermaphrodites" from the 17th to 20th centuries.

Progress is made when new inventions and techniques are developed and when clarifications of historical unknowns occur. If progress isn't being made, there are no formal changes or clarifications of unknowns. When progress isn't being made, its usually because the forces of conservatism demand that "formal perfection" has been achieved and that "we already know why". Progress is made when assumptions are challenged and historical information is uncovered and put into context.

[bananas]

16. Should musicians not study Mozart?

(facepalm)

[originalpckelly]

19. Yes, there's no reason for this glut of government science...

except that none of the people in power want us to know how much they're screwing us.

[Deja Q]

28. Greed.

[BlooInBloo]

38. Zomg. This is like the stupidest post ever.

[tanngrisnir3]

39. WTF? Aristotles 'physics' have zero relevancy to today's quantum theory.

And he thought there were 5 elements.

Try and understand what it is you're posting about before hitting 'enter'.

[Boojatta]

44. Exactly. There has been progress in physics.

Show me some progress in the academic study of politics other than the mere relabeling from "politics" to "political science."

[readmoreoften]

49. And why haven't you answer my list of innovations upthread?

Of course there is progress in the field: political Communication/Propaganda: the study not only of how propaganda functions, but how to make it better. New mathematical formulas, computer analyses, and new methodologies arise all the time?

Demographics?
Political economy?
Critical geography?

Are you asking why POLITICS doesn't change? Because the field of political science has clearly changed over the past century.
And why are you calling political science "the humanities" when it is generally included in the social sciences?

You really haven't made your POINT clear yet.

[Posteritatis]

51. I'm assuming at this point he's just rejecting the notion that there's any improvement at all

Just another one of those "LOL, lookit the dumb artsies" types. He can't see something if he refuses to look, and anyone ignorant enough to refer to "the humanities" as a monolith in this day and age while attacking "it" isn't likely to decide to soon.

[Boojatta]

56. Before Galileo, physics was less rigorous than linguistics.

If Galileo had pointed at people who were studying physics and said, "LOL, lookit the dumb artsies", and identified physics as a subject unworthy of his attention, then he wouldn't have become one of the giants upon whose shoulders Newton stood.

[Posteritatis]

62. Linguistics didn't *exist* before Galileo, but let's ignore that little bit of progress (nt)

[Boojatta]

65. What do you mean by that assertion?

Surely there's are surviving written records that are products of human thought and that demonstrate that, at various times before Galileo was born, people were thinking about linguistic topics and making at least some small steps towards greater understanding.

Of course, they didn't use the label "linguistics", just as map makers didn't put the label "Egypt" on Egypt prior to the invention of the Roman alphabet.

[opihimoimoi]

55. Negative Forces were given too much latitude/control...Positive Forces have only recently

become visible and viable....