This question was prompted by Binyam's contribution on the "observer effect" thread.
Do you think that the human sciences (such as psychology) or the arts (such as drama, or novels for that matter) provide better descriptions of human nature? Do we learn more about the human condition (what it is to be human) from the objective scientific modelling approach or the more subjective artistic narrative approach?
Objective versus subjective
Scientific versus artistic
Model versus story
Are these useful dichotomies or a gross over-simplication?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Comments
1 comment:
I will start by making a broad and over-confident statement; all binaries/dichotomies are reductive in nature! Now that we have that out of the way, let me address the question.
I think the arts capture best our human condition. Chris Abani (TED talks, let’s make this available to students,) talks of the places we go to find our identities. He claims that we usually find our humanity in the novels, the tv shows, the paintings in our galleries. We do not look at the numbers on Wall street or Ghana Stalk Exchange to know who we are as a people.
Of course, lately this has changed. George Bush after September 11th told Americans to go on shopping to make sure that the terrorists do not win. Maybe I’m underestimating the value of Economics. A country and a person’s self worth seems to be measured on how well they are doing financially nowadays.
Post a Comment