“Men make war. Men (most men) like war, since for men there is ‘some glory, some necessity, some satisfaction in fighting’ that women (most women) do not feel or enjoy”.
“That war is a man’s game–that the killing machine has a gender, and it is male.
I Think that this quote(s) is interesting because it portrays how much our society has evolved from the 1800-1900’s. During the old times this quote would be very correct due to the fact that women weren’t even allowed to vote so much as fight in wars. Therefore since the beginning of humanity (atleast America), wars have been an activity by men, fought in by men, and won by men. This statistic is why today people find it so compelling to adopt a woman as a world leader or president of the United States. The fact that all of the great wars of our country were caused by men supports said argument. I think that back in the day this quote is very evident, and even some men today believe that this quote is ageless and true; however because we are in an age of change I believe that this may not be the future of our country. My question would be on the more philosophical side of things: why did this happen, and what do you think the world would be like if women originally fought in wars?
QCQ #2
“Wars are now also living room sights and sounds. Information about what is happening elsewhere, called ‘news’, features conflict and violence–’If it bleeds, it leads’ runs the venerable guideline of tabloids and twenty-four-hour headline news shows…”.
This quote continues to finish a lengthy sentence but again in my opinion truly represents this “flow of information” that is evident in today’s news broadcasts. My whole life I’ve asked myself: “why is the news so depressing?”, and can finally answer the question. The news was created to know what is going on outside of your house, around the world. While good things or “boring” topics could be shown, the grimy and stressful ones garner more views. This was figured out very early and has now created a subculture today of the news being its own type of unenjoyable entertainment (In my opinion). From my point of view, happy news is shown–while extremely briefly–and is almost treated as a break from the dangerous and scary reality that lies behind the TV screen. News today is much less enjoyable than what it was created to be in the beginning, and I think that this quote demonstrates that. My question is as follows: Do you think the world would be a happier/ better place if the news was never invented?
“In our time, science and technology cannot play an integrating role, precisely because of the infinite richness of knowledge and the speed of its evolution, which have led to specialization and its obscurities”
“But literature has been, and will continue to be, as long as it exists, one of the common denominators of human experience through which human beings may recognize themselves and converse with each other”
I wanted to include two quotations that disagree fairly blatantly with one another and are placed right after eachother as well, because I think they both play a role in the value of literature. The first one states that technology and science cannot play an integrating role due to its evolution, which I agree with. Technology evolves so quickly, especially now it’s very hard for older generations to keep up with the current, but they can always talk about books and literature. Just the fact that the internet itself was created less than 40 years ago and already we have access to the internet, a camera, calculator, telephone, and messaging service in our pockets – is mind blowing. This is why generations are so split with the understanding of technology. We have some who are born knowing it, then others who were alive during its creation and have to adapt to a completely new world. However my question would be regarding the second quote: Wouldn’t utilizing technology (iPad or Laptop) to analyze and read text and literature – even writing – be considered integration of technology?
QCQ #2
“A person who does not read, or reads little, or reads only trash, is a person with an impediment: he can speak much but he will say little, because his vocabulary is deficient in the means for self-expression. This is not only a verbal limitation. It represents also a limitation in intellect and in imagination”
This statement is one that I personally disagree with, especially with a large chunk of my generation not reading as much as old ones due to the uprising of a plethora of modern pastimes. I don’t read many books. I truly enjoy creative writing, and enjoy reading novels that I’m interested in, but don’t very often. However I also do know how to read and write therefore am not a true representative to challenge this statement. I think that it is ludicrous to say that knowledge of literature limits expression and imagination. Expression can be described as feelings that you show and feelings can be described with words, but they don’t have to be. Many artists – for example Chella Man – produce extremely imaginative and expressive work, but are hindered by disabilities that can stunt or slow their literary understanding. Elvis Presley didn’t know how to read music, but could create it extremely captivatingly. In my opinion knowledge of literature is a vocally expressive impediment and one that regards vocabulary, but not creativity. My question would be: what is the explanation of visual artists that are dyslexic or don’t read literature creating expressive art?
“They feel artistic value is not so intrinsic in the work as much as a function of when the stance of a certain artistic approach is introduced to the public. A brown painting exhibited today could appear to derive from an obsolete concern to everyone, but, if shown tomorrow, it could be called fresh and new”.
I think that this quote pulled from the Exhibiting section of the article is very true to how genres of art change today. When in the past (1800’s – 2000’s) art genres that were popular would be almost set in stone, especially in the older eras where art was at its peak evolution. For example in the 1850’s during the revolution against romanticism, realism was created and was extremely popular during this time. Whereas today, so many styles of art exist and we kind of draw from the old ways in my opinion. The ancient eras of art can be drawn from for inspiration, but today’s “genre” is such an amalgam of techniques and styles that constantly change with trends. One year acrylic pouring could be trending and the next impressionism or abstract painting.
Why do you think in today’s society this flurry of styles came to be, were these trends a byproduct of social media and the internet?
“There has been futile debate about whether photography, film, television, advertising, or industrial design are complete arts or not.”
This quote from the Fabrication section of the article is just a very good conversation point when it comes to the age-old question, “What is Art”? I ask myself and friends this question often because I am someone who does personally view photography as a form of art in some ways. Composition and rules of photography make it more difficult to do perfectly and to master in my opinion. Of course there is a huge grey area, and the reason this argument exists is rooted in history that dates back to the invention of the camera itself. In 1888, when the first camera was invented, realism painters now had to compete with a machine to capture reality. This sparked the first argument of many, and created this issue of whether a photo is “real art”. I personally view both hyper-realism and photography lower than most genres of art because I enjoy viewing an artist’s unique view or vision on a subject when painting, sculpting, etc. When copying reality what makes you different from a camera? Sure technique is there and it can be difficult and time consuming, but most pieces made this way lack flair in my opinion.
What is your personal opinion on this age-old argument, and how can you justify your opinion? Why or why not are these forms of media considered art in your opinion?
One of my short-term personal goals this semester/ year is to meet more new people on campus. This doesn’t mean ‘make friends’ with everyone on campus, but instead get to know the names of more of my peers and get to know them, which could in turn lead to friendship. I think this is a very important goal because especially for me last year, going to a smaller school during the pandemic; it was extremely difficult to meet a lot of people (I was mainly restricted by the schools population). A related passage from “Why do we need the Liberal Arts” in Scheuers’ article states “The overall goal is to foster vibrant and prosperous communities with broad and deep participation , in public conversations marked by fairness, inclusion, and (where critical thinking comes in) intellectual rigor”. This small quote is actually one of the reasons I picked UNE to transfer to. I enjoy small inclusive communities, but still want there to be a more diverse population than my old school, which I feel like UNE stands for in some ways.
One of my short term goals that could be considered long term is to learn how to utilize academic knowledge that I learn at UNE in the “real world” after college. I feel that in High School this isn’t as focused on, usually leading to students asking questions like “Well how can I use this math equation in my life after school?” and most of the time teachers can’t answer them. I feel that now we are following a looser curriculum and taking classes that we choose, this is much more important not just from a professional standpoint, but from one for the sake of learning itself, as well. The quote I chose is from the UNE Core Handbook under section III, “Created to provide a foundation in the liberal arts, the core reflects the values of the college and is designed to prepare students for living informed, thoughtful, and active lives in a complex and changing society”. This quote reassures me that we will be learning how to apply out academics learned at UNE, to the outside world and beyond.
After looking at the title of this article I predict that It will be about how critical thinking is used in a liberal arts education, and might also be about how both critical thinking and a liberal arts education are utilized in society today. I wouldn’t be surprised if the article is more focused on how to use your L.A.E today, reasons not to neglect it, and why so many people treat it as a “nothing degree”. To me the liberal arts are a way of thinking, or a very important set of skills and tools that you can use when you leave college. I think a liberal arts education teaches how to ask questions, communicate efficiently, and analyse situations with a view different from a degree in – for example – business, or mathematics.
Section 1
This section was about what a liberal arts education actually means, and how it relates to other degrees. Liberal arts are talked about as being a notion of free mindfulness, and critical thinking is a huge part of the key skills that are applied to a liberal arts education. It also talks about how the liberal arts somewhat exclude the sciences and focus more on the humanities, and how the many disciplines of philosophy create a way to understand human beings, societies, and nature. The main way to describe a liberal arts education is not a set of skills or data to absorb, but as a collection of ideas or questions – a way of thinking to promote flexibility and a free mindset.
“However unloved or misunderstood by many Americans, philosophy is the mother of liberal learning”.
I just really enjoyed reading this part and thought it was very interesting to learn about. I had never known that economics, psychology, sociology, political science, and linguistics – all different majors – were all connected and related to philosophy.
Section 2
This section focuses more on why the liberal arts are needed in today’s society and highlights our nation and how critical thinking and citizenship are key roles of democracy, and the three forms of citizenship. The traditional civic dimension embraces many activities within the public political sphere. Economic citizenship regards being a productive member of society and critical consumer. The third and most important humanities based form is cultural citizenship which focuses on cultural community engagement. This section finishes by discussing the importance of all occupations and how the liberal arts prepare students for civic, economic, and cultural sensitivity.
“One could argue for other forms alongside or within them: environmental, informational, moral, or global citizenship…”
I just wanted to relate this quote to the core handbook by saying that two of the forms listed (Environmental, Global) are two of the types of awareness included in section 3. This proves that many aspects of the liberal arts span and connect to different media within the subject.
Section 3
This section covers what critical thinking actually is by definition, and also talks about philosophy and its relationship with critical thinking. Because critical thinking is such a broad subject and is a way of thinking instead of a definable single skill, it’s very hard to describe. Most people can agree that critical thinking is defined by the ability to identify assumptions, draw inferences, distinguish between facts from opinions, draw conclusions based on data, and judge or weigh out the authority of a source. However, even including these many general skills, critical thinking still has more that defines it. The use of facts, ideas, and conceptual frameworks with the development of critical minds are all parts of a liberal arts education, with critical thinking being less of a describable skill but more a set of them to help students navigate the world today.
“Students who are college-ready have already absorbed at least the rudiments of this kind of critical thinking, even without formal training…”
I just thought it was very interesting to read how a lot of students are able to pick up critical thinking naturally, almost like how we pick up grammar by listening, reading, and writing. It makes me wonder how much students use critical thinking skills without even realizing it.
Section 4
This fourth and final section goes over the importance of critical inquiry, its relation to philosophy, and its use in today’s world. Like critical inquiry, there are many disciplines that define the liber arts curriculum including truth, nature, value, causality, complexity, morality, freedom, excellence, and language. Linguistic issues affect critical inquiry and philosophy in similar ways, and linguistic problems tend to be regarding meaning, reality, and our minds; and most people have to deal with these issues. The mentioned topics above aren’t shortcuts for understanding the liberal arts, but can help pave the way and show what students can learn and what useful skills they will acquire by gaining a liberal arts education. Finally, of course STEM courses are very important; however the spectrum of ideas, humanities, knowledge, and the ability to critically think are also very important.
“The STEM disciplines are obviously important to economic productivity, but so is the entire rainbow of human knowledge and the ability to think critically”.
I read this and could help but challenge/ question this statement. If this is true, then why have liberal arts education and critical thinking skills gone down in popularity more recently?
Core Handbook Connection
While many correlations and connections are tied to the UNE Core Handbook from this article, there is one in particular that I wanted to mention. As I said above this article mentions in the “Why Do We Need the Liberal Arts” section: Environmental, informational, moral, or global citizenship as types of communal engagement. In the “Core Themes” section of the handbook, they mention Environmental and Global awareness as themes “Created to provide a foundation in the liberal arts”. These two issues mentioned in the article and handbook show that they are necessary not only to build a foundation in liberal thinking, but also as reasons to keep liberal educations relevant in today’s society.
