Re: however, this is a tragic situation

It's not that the work is seen as stupid, Daniel. It's that it's almost
never seen at all except through media caricatures, and when it is seen
it's not understood (sometimes due to the complexity of thought,
sometimes because of the use/abuse of jargon, sometimes a mixture of
both). But this is besides the point, because most of this work isn't
intended for mass public consumption (and shouldn't be).

There's a difference between a "humanist" and a "humanities scholar,"
just to keep our terms straight. A bad scholar is a dishonest one or a
lazy one or a sloppy one, that's all. A good scholar is honest, hard
working, and careful about methodology.

You know, you could almost say a good ______ (fill in the blank) is
honest, hard working, and careful about methodology.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>That is a major part of the problem Jim, in today's supposed purposeless
>world, a good hunk of humanities is pointless. Don't miss-read this, there
>is great humanities work but your "stupid people" are more often than not
>sold a bill of crap masquerading as purposeful work. The very thing that
>the humanitist is proud of, intelligence, is the very thing (for the modern)
>that should deflate this error. But the oft contradicting and crossing work
>of the humanitist is seen as, well, stupid. Now again, there are capable
>humanitists like there are Doctors, lawyers, and engineers but the bad
>Doctors are called quacks, the bad lawyers - ambulance chasers and the bad
>engineers unemployed. But what exactly do you call a bad humanitist? I
>have yet to hear of such an animal.
>Daniel
>
>
>
>...while these same stupid people cannot see the point of
>humanities work.
>
>Jim
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Sep 29 18:16:52 2003