more evidence against the liberal arts

[Kuciwalker]

It's funny, because you haven't made any spelling errors in this thread (that my quick skim has picked up). Check again what Jaguar was quoting

[Jaguar]

Erm, "writting," sir?

[GePap]

At 2:30 AM I really don't care.

But anyways, long live the liberal arts!

[Kuciwalker]

Erm, "writting," sir?

Conceded.

[Last Conformist]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to mention that I sometimes skip GePap's posts on the logic that if he meant us to read them he'd try and make them readable.

[Spiffor]

Re: more evidence against the liberal arts

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
"Liberal communitarian and post-structural social theories which emphasize the social construction of the self-help explain why expression which distorts or undermines one’s self-conception can be a serious social problem."

I submit this as evidence that liberal arts majors cannot write.

Generally, those who write like this are those who want to imitate "hard" scientists.

The artsy people, OTOH, care about style

[MRT144]

Why is it every thread about liberal arts turns into a search for perfect spelling? Is the search for perfection the real reason they are started?

Kuciwalker/Jaguar, don't you have wild oats to sew with college girls like the liberal arts majors are?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MRT144


Kuciwalker/Jaguar, don't you have wild oats to sew with college girls like the liberal arts majors are?

Far be it from me to point out the awfulness of the style of that sentence.

But then I studied 'arts' subjects, so what would I know...

I submit this as evidence that liberal arts majors cannot write.

I submit this as evidence that Bathroom Boy lacks a senzahuma and has difficulty with formulating logical propositions that hold water.

[Colon™]

True liberal arts masters do not use periods except when attempting. to. emphasize. something. or at the end of their multi-page sentence.

[Cort Haus]

Re: more evidence against the liberal arts

"Liberal communitarian and post-structural social theories which emphasize the social construction of the self-help explain why expression which distorts or undermines one’s self-conception can be a serious social problem."

It's not entirely correct to say that the author of the above sentence cannot write. It would be correct, though, to say that they are a boring old windbag.

What always annoys me about these people is that they insist on modelling the world in vocabulary and terminology only comprehensible to themselves. The implication is that only people with these qualifications are able to discuss the world. I find that attitude obnoxious and ultimately stupid.

As for making sense on internet message boards, people who expect the reader to debug the random hammerings on their keyboard are less worthy of being read than those who take the trouble to write properly in the first place.

[BeBMan]

Re: Re: more evidence against the liberal arts

Originally posted by Cort Haus


It's not entirely correct to say that the author of the above sentence cannot write. It would be correct, though, to say that they are a boring old windbag.

People are jumping to conclusions

We don't know if he/she is really old.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
Kuciwalker/Jaguar, don't you have wild oats to sew with college girls like the liberal arts majors are?

My girlfriend is several hundred miles away and a science major

[Elok]

The thing is, there's still plenty to say on literary subjects, but it takes a smart person to figure it out and say it. Due to the open-minded nature of the lib arts--we deal with concepts and beliefs more than hard facts--it's very difficult to weed out the idiot poseurs by peer review, as happens in the sciences. So the imbeciles tend to prosper alongside the genuinely smart folks. Indeed, they prosper more, since they don't have the difficulty of thinking about what they're saying. They disguise it with needless jargon to give the illusion of complexity and depth.

The problem is compounded by the way our society expects *everyone* to go through college, and the fact that English is something of a "default" major that catches many of the untalented masses the system defecates out. Many of them, not all; the remainder go into Sociology, Philosophy, Business Management, etc. These cretins need something to do with their wasted education, so academia has a system of journals and graduate schools and suchlike to act as a playground for its artsy-'***** to live out their delusions in once they're done mauling the classics. It's just an unusually highbrow subsidy to prevent unemployment, is all.

It's unfortunate that the morons tend to drown out the actual sensible discourse on literature. In Shakespearean criticism, for example, the vast majority of journals are given over to "schools" of ideological biases having nothing to do with Shakespeare or his time period: Marxist lit crit, Feminist lit crit, Psychoanalytic, Postcolonial, Poststructural, Queer theory, yadda yadda yadda. The one field that consistently offers thoughtful insights is New Historicism, which examines contemporary documents to gain insight into the Elizabethan worldview. But that's tricky work, so for every one of those there are twelve guys with meaningless phds writing about how Hamlet represents the Bard's repressed fears that a black woman will rape his dead mother with a strap-on.

[Cort Haus]

Elok

[pchang]

fui;WK;JQERG O'q fknFvFDPgarelknv v SdklvmSLDgnrgo jnsdvl fm, vSFv; jdfdmgaer:L bn