<p>I frankly have more important things to do than argue about the “21st century mindset” with you, like applying to college or reading Act 4 of Hamlet. </p>
<p>Cicero was a lawyer, but in the Roman Republic, that meant orator. We have no modern equivalent. Cicero was also a philosopher and great thinker who published such influential works as de Natura Deorum and De Finibus. </p>
<p>Business men and engineers are not the most valued people in the world. They simply tend to make more money ;). </p>
<p>My uncle went to the University of South Carolina law school afterward because my grandfather was the dean of it at the time. </p>
<p>What’s ironic is that his younger brother also went to Princeton, majored in aerospace engineering, and teaches at a fine university. By your definition, my second uncle seems less “successful” than the first; yet the first majored in humanities, and the second in the sciences. </p>
<p>Generalizations, remember, can always break down at an individual level. </p>
<p>Now, I have to go read all of Act 4 of Hamlet. I’ll enjoy it too, and probably get more out of it than I would if I had math work to do tonight ;).</p>
<p>Cicero was a lawyer, but in the Roman Republic, that meant orator. We have no modern equivalent. Cicero was also a philosopher and great thinker who published such influential works as de Natura Deorum and De Finibus. </p>
<p>No S**t, and that is what I said before. Most famous philosophers have multiple descriptors other than “philosopher”. You helped with my argument there.</p>
<p>Business men and engineers do make a lot of money compared to others, yet they are also the most influential too. If you want to move towards lawyers and doctors too, both need to maintain private practices and firms most of the time (business).</p>
<p>I was right about your uncle, yet you not fully explaining your other uncle’s situation fully. It seems that he seems "retired’ in a sense. I will guess that he worked for a company before as an aerospace engineer. My AP physics teacher did the same thing, and is now a teacher. He seems like he wants to pass his knowledge to the next generation. However, he was still a aerospace engineer before.</p>
<p>lastly, you state
By your definition, my second uncle seems less “successful” than the first; yet the first majored in humanities, and the second in the sciences. </p>
<p>I never had a definition, all I said was if you focus your who life on liberal arts, you will not get far in today’s economy. Both you and your uncles want/did the same thing. You/they majored in humanities, and moved into real fields for graduate school. That is the key. It does not matter how you get there.</p>
<p>And now, I have to edit a BS English paper and read economics hw. I have an A in english and a B in economics. Can you guess why?</p>
Even if I can’t say that Einstein was better than Newton, I can say that both were great scientists and back that claim up. It is much harder to support the claim that Shakespeare was a great playwright.
Even if you don’t care about the study of T-cell activation, its utilitarian applications to treating cancer make a scientist like James P. Allison important to you regardless of your personal preference.
How do you know that it “sucks”? That’s just your opinion, right?
Thanks for sharing.
I know this was aimed at TCBH, but I’m defending the same position in this case. My entire argument is built around the idea that no suitable framework or standard exists. That’s my advocacy. I am actively arguing that we can’t evaluate literature objectively in any way that matters.
I like to play devil’s advocate, but I’m really a pretty easygoing guy on this issue. Except when people do that. This is just about the only argument on this topic that genuinely makes me angry. “Useful” majors are externally not internally limiting. A chemist can go to law or med school just like you. The only difference is that you can’t become a chemist. You are more limited because the demand for chemists is greater than for classics experts.</p>
<p>Very well… heaven, as you are no longer offering any coherent response, I see no need to establish my point further. It is quite obvious to me that you have been avoiding my arguments for a while now, so until you provide a response that actually warrants acknowledgement, I will direct my attentions to actually helping the OP. Hey, it was fun while it lasted.</p>
<p>Personally, I tend to see people whose talents chiefly lie in science/math more intelligent than those whose talents lie in the humanities because I’m pretty alright at the humanities, more than that I guess, and it comes very, very easily. I work hard, but writing’s always been a natural talent. </p>
<p>Math though, is a struggle for me. Even if I spent triple the time I do writing on reading math textbooks and doing problem sets, I still wouldn’t be very good at math. So I’m really in awe of people who are “math intelligent.” My narcissism alarm going off like mad, but that’s just what I instinctively feel. Rationally, I know what I’m saying is bull crap.</p>
<p>I think in general, people believe that people who are better at math are more intelligent than humanities kids due to years and years and years of propaganda, news articles, and parental badgering (because obviously the only successful [successful apparently meaning making tons of cash] people ever are engineers or doctors).</p>
<p>Absolutely. But there are only so many people like Goethe that you will run into. He was a cornerstone of at least two literary epochs (depending on who you ask), was a political advisor to a prince, and also did research in chemistry. </p>
<p>However, it is much more common to have your genius focus in on one area. I think math/science people seem smarter because their skills are more easily demonstrable. You can either solve the equation or not. While there is a need for eloquence in some cases (i.e. proofs), there is not nearly the level of subjectivity that exists in the humanities.</p>
<p>As heaven seems to be unable to address my point once again, instead trying to distract others from the topic of this thread, I feel that my case is closed. I see that many of you agree with me, which I will take as proof that my original answer was correct, or at least on the right track.</p>
<p>This is STILL going on? How about we just say that those that are intelligent in one area are equally as intelligent as someone who’s intelligent in another area. Are we happy now?</p>
<p>Their seen as more intelligent, because we are brought up to believe that math and science is something that propelled humanity forward during our history, especially in the 20th century. It has to do with the era we live in. We live in a more technical society and humanities doesn’t really have a strong place in that setting. Now rewind that back after the scientific revolution during the heart of the Renaissance and the Middle Ages and you will see that humanities was the central part of society. Writers, artists, and composers may have been seen as intelligent, probably more than scientist during those days. </p>
<p>Think about it, composers in the past were seen as geniuses because of the great pieces they produced, like Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Bach. When that period was over math and science came into the forefront and people like Einstein, Hawking, Darwin, and Edison were seen as great minds. Who knows what we may see as intelligent in the future, anything is possible. But everyone is intelligent in their own way to put it simple.</p>
<p>Every era since the dawn of man has been more technical than earlier eras (for the most part). Math and science have always been what propelled humanity forward and always will be. And I’m not sure the idea that humanities don’t have a strong place in society is really supportable. There’s plenty of music being produced, there are plenty of writers out and about, and I’m sure there’s plenty of art being produced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>History isn’t nearly that linear. For one, Darwin was older than Tchaikovsky. But it’s also true that there have been plenty of musical geniuses since Tchaikovsky (even if you limit yourself to “high” music, and I don’t see why that should have to be the case) and there were plenty of scientific geniuses before Darwin. (as I pointed out earlier, Calculus is the youngest branch of math taught at the high school level, and it was first developed more than 400 years ago)</p>
<p>Mathematicians and scientists need writing skills and, to an extent, social science skills. Their success if partially determined by their knowledge of the humanities and social sciences. Thus, they need a good control of both logic and creativity. In math, proofs and analysis require an abundant amount of creativity. In science, developing new methods and making new discoveries all require much creativity.</p>
<p>Writers, sociologists, etc., however, need little to no math and science and minimal logic, relatively speaking. They may have better understanding in the humanities, but they will find it difficult to grasp many math and science concepts while mathematicians and sciences will have some ability to grasp the concepts in the humanities and social sciences. </p>
<p>Mathematicians and scientists, because of the nature they think, tend to be more intelligent. That’s just how out society works.</p>