New Humanities Forum?

#1
This forum is looking a bit empty so it could do with threads from other parts of the site moving in here and/or new ones created.

If there are threads that need moving then pse post the links below this one and I'll do the honours ....
Noted... could we establish a humanities forum of some sort Bad? The natural world now has science (should this be Science and Technology say?)

Could we have also: Faith, Philosophy, Languages, Culture and the Arts (with the subsets of music and film and broadening religious/moral debate under 'faith' )? Thus allowing a more humanistic emphasis.
 
#2
I'm not opposed to the idea but am just trying to figure out exactly how it is going to work? Are you suggesting that we juggle round our forums under the 'Life Forums' section to include the following:

Humanities
˪ Faith
˪ Philosophy
˪ Languages
˪ Culture
˪ Films, Music & All Things Artsy

Science & Technology
˪ The Science Forum
˪ Gaming & Software
˪ Mobile Phones
˪ Hardware - PCs Consoles & Gadgets

If so, I can see how the Science & Technology section would work really well but am not 100% convinced that we have enough threads for the Humanities section. It might be useful if you could pull up 5-10 examples for each of the 4 new boards (Faith, Philosophy, Languages, Culture).
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#3
Very much in favour of having a place for discussions in this style. However as many discussions of this nature quickly deteriorate into NAAFI/Hole type slagging matches it will need robust MODding. IMHO
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#4
Very much in favour of having a place for discussions in this style. However as many discussions of this nature quickly deteriorate into NAAFI/Hole type slagging matches it will need robust MODding. IMHO
Agreed.

History & Archaeology - would be a good place to put both Military History and General History in together, having both together widens the oppurtunities for subject inclusion whilst corralling them nicely for easy access

Philosophy proved rather tricksey the last time we tried a thread on it so might be better as Theology & Philosophy combining the two as they are closely related.

Unsure about Languages - how much distance can we get out of that?

Culture & (Anthropology?) are we looking at Culture in its widest sense and expression (see Films Music etc) or how it may be applied to knowledge of society and its functions which would have resonance for Military Studies, Reading Lists for Afghanistan or Africa etc etc

edited to add it could be History, Archaeology & Anthropology then Culture can be home to Films Music & all Things Artsy, Literature etc
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#5
Sounds good as you could move all the religion threads out of science!
 
#6
I'm not opposed to the idea but am just trying to figure out exactly how it is going to work? Are you suggesting that we juggle round our forums under the 'Life Forums' section to include the following:

Humanities
˪ Faith
˪ Philosophy
˪ Languages
˪ Culture
˪ Films, Music & All Things Artsy

Science & Technology
˪ The Science Forum
˪ Gaming & Software
˪ Mobile Phones
˪ Hardware - PCs Consoles & Gadgets

If so, I can see how the Science & Technology section would work really well but am not 100% convinced that we have enough threads for the Humanities section. It might be useful if you could pull up 5-10 examples for each of the 4 new boards (Faith, Philosophy, Languages, Culture).
No, agreed currently not sufficient threads to populate the individual sub-fora of say Culture alone, but what about aggregating existing sub-threads that would fit a humanities section:

Faith, Philosophy, Religion, Belief and Values (quite a few threads already)
Art, Culture, Society, Literature, Law and Languages (encouragement to discuss Art and Culture away from 'popular culture' alone)
Music, Film and Books (more popular media)
General History
Military History and Militaria

I think 1 has a major thread on religion, 2 is emergent (hopefully over the next year at least) and 3,4,5 are established.

Thread 1:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/science-forum/155091-reality-v-our-perceptions-neurology-strikes-back.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/science-forum/104757-you-religious.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/149071-militant-muslims-demonstrate-popes-event.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/140886-pattern-muslim-non-muslim-interaction.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/140370-serving-iraq-killed-my-faith-god.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/135649-humbling-example-why-i-am-christian.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/135677-witches-druids-services.html

Thread 2: (place to thrash out socialism / capitalism type debates and the nature of society away from news/political sphere)
http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/139539-what-your-attitude-capitalism.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/148933-criminals-propping-up-legal-system.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/153578-what-makes-you-middle-class.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/155035-tesco-takeover-our-towns.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/151839-democracy-best-form-government.html
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence...-all-harrassment-claims-workshy-b******s.html
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
I'm not opposed to the idea but am just trying to figure out exactly how it is going to work? Are you suggesting that we juggle round our forums under the 'Life Forums' section to include the following:

Humanities
˪ Faith
˪ Philosophy
˪ Languages
˪ Culture
˪ Films, Music & All Things Artsy

Science & Technology
˪ The Science Forum
˪ Gaming & Software
˪ Mobile Phones
˪ Hardware - PCs Consoles & Gadgets

If so, I can see how the Science & Technology section would work really well but am not 100% convinced that we have enough threads for the Humanities section. It might be useful if you could pull up 5-10 examples for each of the 4 new boards (Faith, Philosophy, Languages, Culture).
I like the concept for the sections but ignoring the media language, why science and technology? After technology is merely the application of science and the sections indicated seem to indicate "know all about computers, software and fings, but nuffink else" GCSE under 15 syndrome. Surely we could have sections which embrace other applications of science. In fact, some may be surprised to know there is actually an application of science known as engineering which covers so much more.
Tongue in cheek I know, but let's get away from the inevitable discussion of things which only involve software and look at some of the other real things in life.
 
#8
Noted... could we establish a humanities forum of some sort Bad? The natural world now has science (should this be Science and Technology say?)

Could we have also: Faith, Philosophy, Languages, Culture and the Arts (with the subsets of music and film and broadening religious/moral debate under 'faith' )? Thus allowing a more humanistic emphasis.
This could be read in the wrong way BLS... Science is certainly a valid human activity and the study of humanity is becoming more of a science as we take a look in more detail at what is actually going on, especially as part of evolution. Religions and faith need to be examined from a human psychology perspective IMO... A debate on morality certainly has no special place under faith! We could debate that now...indeed anywhere. Are you really trying to attract reinforcements to your weak and woolly contributions in the religious thread? Faith as a subset on it's own where god heads can collect to discuss who's crazy ritual is one that actually works... or how all atheists are baby rapists? I can promise you that it will be invaded and ridiculed as Auld-Yin has spotted.

As for the arts and philosophy...excellent... but I see these being hijacked as some form of higher faith based experience as opposed to subjective material available to all open minds. Mankind is confused enough already...there is no holy grail in either subject that will provide you with a higher standing my educated friend. Your appreciation of music or an oil painting is no deeper than that of the average joe... it may however carry with it supercilious delusional baggage. Take care....
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#9
H-Boson, in his (her) usual fashion has opened up argument for argument sake. Not a bad thing usually. However, it must be recognised that many arguments cross boundaries especially where science/religion/morality and a very big etc are discussed. Once a decision has been made on what forums to have then we should accept that and carry on, at the same time recognising that there are grey areas and that sometimes arguments can spill over from one forum to another quite naturally.

For instance:

A debate on morality certainly has no special place under faith!
This could be discussed to infinity, and I believe has been since man first thought of religion and morality. Where it sits in the discussion is a discussion in itself!!!

My point, (I think!) is that to have a full discussion then you have to accept it may not sit in the area you personally are comfortable with. Live with that, make your point and continue the discussion rather than send off track purely by saying that this should not be discussed here.
 
#10
H-Boson, in his (her) usual fashion has opened up argument for argument sake. Not a bad thing usually. However, it must be recognised that many arguments cross boundaries especially where science/religion/morality and a very big etc are discussed. Once a decision has been made on what forums to have then we should accept that and carry on, at the same time recognising that there are grey areas and that sometimes arguments can spill over from one forum to another quite naturally.

For instance:

This could be discussed to infinity, and I believe has been since man first thought of religion and morality. Where it sits in the discussion is a discussion in itself!!!

My point, (I think!) is that to have a full discussion then you have to accept it may not sit in the area you personally are comfortable with. Live with that, make your point and continue the discussion rather than send off track purely by saying that this should not be discussed here.
Well spotted Auld-Yin.... Yes I do confront potential godmongering and welcome debate in all areas that may have a murky religious agenda. In fact you have noticed that few subjects are far away from claims of divinity and faith....connected by wormholes one could say, perhaps a can of worms...

It seems to me that my educated colleagues seek to blind us with an array of baffling jargon and mystical woo woo in order to support their delusional condition. But when one extracts the nuts and bolts it becomes apparent that the smoke screen conceals only the most basic, primitive and fallacious material.

The topic of science is where we can at least open up these claims to scrutiny.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#11
Well spotted Auld-Yin.... Yes I do confront potential godmongering and welcome debate in all areas that may have a murky religious agenda. In fact you have noticed that few subjects are far away from claims of divinity and faith....connected by wormholes one could say, perhaps a can of worms...

It seems to me that my educated colleagues seek to blind us with an array of baffling jargon and mystical woo woo in order to support their delusional condition. But when one extracts the nuts and bolts it becomes apparent that the smoke screen conceals only the most basic, primitive and fallacious material.

The topic of science is where we can at least open up these claims to scrutiny.
I would disagree my Quixotic friend, I think you are tilting at windmills, a Humanities forum or indeed discussion of philosophy does not necessarily invoke divinity; for example I would happily yammer away for hours regarding systems of thought, pouvoir/savoir and connaissaisance without recourse to divine reference. Or discuss archaeology and anthropolgy of stone age Britain the near east etc etc etc all without the need for god.

Indeed it could easily be said that you, in your absolute rejection of the divine you have been the one to bring it into discussion where it is of no need, the Science Forum is the most obvious example.

Now go check Rocinante's nose bag she needs feeding up before your next foray.:-D
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
Alas, all seems to have descended to the usual scientific technology church/school of thought.
 
#13
I would disagree my Quixotic friend, I think you are tilting at windmills, a Humanities forum or indeed discussion of philosophy does not necessarily invoke divinity; for example I would happily yammer away for hours regarding systems of thought, pouvoir/savoir and connaissaisance without recourse to divine reference. Or discuss archaeology and anthropolgy of stone age Britain the near east etc etc etc all without the need for god.

Indeed it could easily be said that you, in your absolute rejection of the divine you have been the one to bring it into discussion where it is of no need, the Science Forum is the most obvious example.

Now go check Rocinante's nose bag she needs feeding up before your next foray.:-D
See what I mean Auld-Yin...? :) Happy with all of that actually except "connaissaisance" (connaissance probably) ... The point missing is that some of the science that was discussed in the religious thread was exported like a Trojan Horse by others into what should have been pure science ... I only made a limited reference to ulterior motives and let it go...The topics are very intersting and all subjects should be kept clean... You have my word that I will be the last one to invoke the G word but others may be less accommodating... We'll see...

Looking forward to learning a lot from you guys...
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#14
See what I mean Auld-Yin...? :) Happy with all of that actually except "connaissaisance" (connaissance probably) ... The point missing is that some of the science that was discussed in the religious thread was exported like a Trojan Horse by others into what should have been pure science ... I only made a limited reference to ulterior motives and let it go...The topics are very intersting and all subjects should be kept clean... You have my word that I will be the last one to invoke the G word but others may be less accommodating... We'll see...

Looking forward to learning a lot from you guys...
:-D Yeah, I can be notoriously slapdash at times.

Lovin the second point Higgsie, with you on that one!
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#15
Anthropology...science or humanity? Now there's an ongoing debate. I recently satirised the favourite axiom of anthropology "the most scientific of the humanities, and the most humanistic of the sciences" for a college paper as “The most pretentious of the inanities and the most inane of pretences”.
 
#16
Anthropology...science or humanity? Now there's an ongoing debate. I recently satirised the favourite axiom of anthropology "the most scientific of the humanities, and the most humanistic of the sciences" for a college paper as “The most pretentious of the inanities and the most inane of pretences”.
Perhaps some of us are ahead of the game... knowing that there is little in science that anyone here can bring to the table as a new revelation and feeling that philosophy is old hat. So what happens is we debate stuff back to the primitive roots....

In this world everything is subject to science...yes everything and until we can understand the principles of looking at truth it will be a chicken v egg situation. Some will argue that nothing is true and there is no such thing as proof...ad infinitum.

We may as well sit in our darkened caves and suck on theoretical thumbs. :)
 
#17
Perhaps some of us are ahead of the game... knowing that there is little in science that anyone here can bring to the table as a new revelation and feeling that philosophy is old hat. So what happens is we debate stuff back to the primitive roots....

In this world everything is subject to science...yes everything and until we can understand the principles of looking at truth it will be a chicken v egg situation. Some will argue that nothing is true and there is no such thing as proof...ad infinitum.

We may as well sit in our darkened caves and suck on theoretical thumbs. :)
Wittgenstein pointed out a similar limit I believe, though he clamed it was not as a limit to truth or thought, but as a limit to our language. This is because a sentence makes sense just insofar as it refers to something meaningful. The limits of what exists in reality then are the same as the limits of language.

"In order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought). It will therefore only be in language that the limit can be drawn, and what lies on the other side of the limit will simply be nonsense."

Just because we can't explain or indeed CAN refer to something, it is wrong to invoke/justify metaphysical or spooky/quasi religious explanations IMO ........

Cognitive closure (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

;-) The 'round square' REALLY doesn't exist btw ..............
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#18
Wittgenstein pointed out a similar limit I believe, though he clamed it was not as a limit to truth or thought, but as a limit to our language. This is because a sentence makes sense just insofar as it refers to something meaningful. The limits of what exists in reality then are the same as the limits of language.

"In order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought). It will therefore only be in language that the limit can be drawn, and what lies on the other side of the limit will simply be nonsense."

Just because we can't explain or indeed CAN refer to something, it is wrong to invoke/justify metaphysical or spooky/quasi religious explanations IMO ........

Cognitive closure (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

;-) The 'round square' REALLY doesn't exist btw ..............
What about the boxing 'ring'? :) ( OK it's square round)
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
What about the boxing 'ring'? :) ( OK it's square round)
Nonsense, it's not a square round. It is usually a three minute round. Bringing the tone right down.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top