In my last two posts I discussed the relation of philosophy to the humanities and the liberal arts. I would like to complete my thoughts on these topics by presenting a hypothesis that I have been considering for some time. I am not at all sure if it is correct, so I am eager to receive any responses.
I have settled on an understanding of the liberal arts as any kind of study that is pursued for the intrinsic value of its object. I have presented mathematics as the liberal art par excellence because one's concern at least in pure mathematics is simply with the structures and patterns that one is studying without an immediate interest in the applications that any results about these structures may have. The same holds in the case of the "disinterested" study of the natural sciences, where the sheer beauty and complexity of the world is sufficient motive and reward for the scientist's efforts.
Yet this notion that the world is worthy of study for its own sake entails that there is an intrinsic goodness and value to the world. Absent that, one has no adequate justification of the liberal arts. For if all values are impositions on reality by humans based on their interests and purposes, there is no sense to disinterested study but only to knowledge that advances the interests of man. Hence a narrow, pragmatic focus on the value of education.
Now belief in the intrinsic goodness of the world has usually, though not always, depended on a belief in a benevolent creator-god. I don't mean to suggest that secular scientists and scholars do not have a sense of awe and wonder that is in many ways similar to a religious approach to nature. Nor do I ignore the existence of theists who have no place for the liberal arts. But it does seem to me that one can more readily argue for the liberal arts within a certain theistic framework than from without. So perhaps the present decline in the liberal arts is itself a symptom of a crisis of faith?
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Liberal Arts and Belief in God
Posted by michael papazian at 10:03 AM
Labels: humanities, liberal arts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Its interesting that you associate the liberal arts with a narrow,pragmatic focus on the value of education. While I agree that an education is one of the principle values of the liberal arts, it would seem that any pragmatic focus would detract from the true essence of the liberal arts which, I believe, is to capture the complex and sometime condridictory nature of human beings. Basicaly, I dont see how classes on sci fi writing and nature oriented haiku poetry advance knowledge and human interests according to your blog entry. Or do they? How do you compare a liberal arts slanted astronomy class to an in-depth upper divisional class on Nietzsche?
The idea a loss in faith that may account for the loss of interest in the liberal arts is an interesting idea. I always figured the deterministic quality alot of physicists, economists, engineers, and car mechanics would foster a stronger sense of faith in god compared to a holocaust historian or a Feuerbach enthusiast.
How does history, the creepy old guylurckingin the shadows of the liberal arts, help foster the advancement of human knowledge or even acknowledge common interests of humanity? As long as the philosophers are writing down their thoughts and the political scientists are giving speeches the historian will be silently taking note. If the discipline of history teaches anything its that there are no 'models' of human nature or progression of ideas. Or at least that seems to be my experience of it.
Post a Comment