The Bible as Literature in Schools

[Arumdaum]

No. I don't like getting 0's.

[Risottia]

Again...why? We are not studying the Bible as religion, we are studying it as literature. Why would I break out the 95 Theses? What impact has that had on literature? I don't care about the impact upon culture...I care about the impact upon literature.

The impact of the Bible over literature is definitely negligible if compared to other works and authors.

[Lauchlin]

Again...why? We are not studying the Bible as religion, we are studying it as literature. Why would I break out the 95 Theses? What impact has that had on literature? I don't care about the impact upon culture...I care about the impact upon literature.

The impact of the Bible over literature is definitely negligible if compared to other works and authors.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Buffett and Colbert]

No. I don't like getting 0's.

Why would you get a zero?

[Risottia]

The impact of the Bible over literature is definitely negligible if compared to other works and authors.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I do, actually.
Just about English literature: Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare, Scott, Austen, Dickens, Poe, Melville. All of them have had a greater impact on English literature, and their works are written better than the Bible.

[Maxen von Bismarck]

The impact of the Bible over literature is definitely negligible if compared to other works and authors.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

x2.

From a literary perspective, it'd be easier (and a hella lot shorter) to just say who the Bible hasn't influenced. Just thinking about the subject for approximately .1 second I can tell you that T. S. Eliot, Sylvia Plath, Lord Alfred Tennyson, Samuel Clemens, Ted Hughes and Robert Frost have all used Biblical allusions. I'd bet my left hand and say that virtually every significant poet has used, at least once, some sort of Biblical [allusion/symbol/discourse/what-have-you to further their work.

[Lauchlin]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I do, actually.
Just about English literature: Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare, Scott, Austen, Dickens, Poe, Melville. All of them have had a greater impact on English literature, and their works are written better than the Bible.

Every single one of those people you listed were writing in the cultural context of basically all of their contemporaries being able to recognize and understand Biblical allusions, and their works are full of those allusions.

[Buffett and Colbert]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I do, actually.
Just about English literature: Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare, Scott, Austen, Dickens, Poe, Melville. All of them have had a greater impact on English literature, and their works are written better than the Bible.

You think that the Bible didn't influence Milton, the author of Paradise Lost?

I'm sorry, but I too have to assume you don't know what you're talking about.

[Sarkhaan]

No, it doesn't. It teaches that anything goes if it can be supported and defended using the text.

There is no difference. A complex enough ad hoc narrative can be used to support absolutely any interpretation one wants to find. Essentially, you're giving kids practice at having even stronger selection biases.

Categorically untrue. Read a literary criticism essay. They make a claim and back it with examples from the text. Everything within literary analysis and criticism requires evidence.

To provide depth to the text.

How? How would an essay on a philosophical point lack depth? If the philosophical point is the entire point, then what purpose does the story serve?

to illustrate the point. One of the main themes of Moby-Dick is the consumption and eventual destruction of those that chase an obsession to the point of ignoring everything else. Yes, you could write an essay about this...but would it be as effective?

I can lecture on a topic for hours. Frequently, there are more effective means to convey the message.

To make it so it isn't just a cute little story, but actually conveys meaning beyond the words on the page.

But why bother? Deeper meaning is best conveyed in essays, studies, proofs, arguments, etc. Deeper meaning makes the most sense in an academic context.

Depends what you mean by "deeper meaning". A study isn't providing something I would consider "deeper meaning". Deeper meaning can be drawn from it, but the study itself is not providing it.

Horrible that one should have to work to discover the meaning, I know.

Clarity is a virtue. There's no need to artificially make the meaning harder to get. If I wanted to explain calculus, would it be better to just explain it explicitly and directly, or should I write a 500 page novel that vaguely alludes to derivatives, limits, continuity, integration, and the various theorems thereof?

You can be clear and still hold depth.

There is a purpose for each method of transferring information...one must select the means that is most effective. You're right. explaining calculus is something best explained clearly, explicitly, and directly. Why? Because it is concrete.
Predicting and explaining how and why a person reacts the way they do to a stimulus is likely best explained with studies. Why? Because one is looking for trends.
Exploring an abstract is better handled through literature. Why? Because it is an exploration...a journey. As an abstract concept, it is not something that can be lectured upon. It is not consistent from person to person.

But it is that work that makes the study of literature relevant and a worthwhile exercise.

Hard work doesn't make something worthwhile. WoW can eat up a huge amount of time and effort, so much so that people quit their jobs just to have more time playing it. It's still a waste of time, not that there's anything wrong with wasting time.

The difference being that the study of literature has documented benefits. Educational studies have examined how different course materials influence others.

This is getting a bit off the main topic, so I'll likely leave it here.

[Sarkhaan]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I do, actually.
Just about English literature: Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare, Scott, Austen, Dickens, Poe, Melville. All of them have had a greater impact on English literature, and their works are written better than the Bible.

You're joking, right? You do realize that all of them use Biblical references constantly, yes?

If all of the most influential authors have been heavily influenced by the Bible, one can easily figure out that the Bible might just be more influential than all of them.

[Unhealthy2]

Categorically untrue. Read a literary criticism essay. They make a claim and back it with examples from the text. Everything within literary analysis and criticism requires evidence.

But without some structured methodology, then two people can point to the same exact piece of textual evidence and use it to reach two mutually incompatible and radically different conclusions. What effort is made, what techniques are employed, to prevent the abundance of selection bias and wishful thinking? I found, a while ago, that I could pretty much lead to the conclusion that a given text supports existentialism, no matter what that text is, and yes, this conclusion was always backed by textual "evidence." You can find whatever you want in a text. Just look for the parts that support your conclusion and craft a narrative that ties it together.

Yes, you could write an essay about this...but would it be as effective?

Yes. In an essay, you could provide clear, rational arguments to support your conclusion in such a way so that your argument isn't open to multiple interpretations.

I can lecture on a topic for hours. Frequently, there are more effective means to convey the message.

Short examples can help to explain something, but these examples are always placed in the context of an explanation about a particular topic, so the individual hearing the example is never confused as to what it's an example of. Novels are 1) Pretty freakin' long examples. and 2) Have no clearly accessible meaning unless they are either horribly written Ayn Rand screeds, or they have a preface explaining exactly which interpretation is the correct one.

In other words, how do you KNOW that Moby Dick is supposed to mean that? Couldn't you be wrong? There are 400 some years of analysis on Shakespeare's plays, with myriad "meanings" found therein, many of which are mutually exclusive. Several of these literary critics must be wrong.

Depends what you mean by "deeper meaning". A study isn't providing something I would consider "deeper meaning". Deeper meaning can be drawn from it, but the study itself is not providing it.

There is no deeper meaning than truth itself.

There is a purpose for each method of transferring information...one must select the means that is most effective. You're right. explaining calculus is something best explained clearly, explicitly, and directly. Why? Because it is concrete.

No it isn't. Can you touch derivatives? Can you experience topology? Can you see infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces?

Exploring an abstract is better handled through literature. Why? Because it is an exploration...a journey. As an abstract concept, it is not something that can be lectured upon. It is not consistent from person to person.

What exactly do you mean by an abstract anyway? I would consider mathematics, metaphysics, and epistemology to be abstract, but I wouldn't explain such technical subjects with a painting or a story.

The difference being that the study of literature has documented benefits. Educational studies have examined how different course materials influence others.

Experimental evidence? Studies?

This is getting a bit off the main topic, so I'll likely leave it here.

No this is getting interesting, but if you insist, I suppose I could split off and make a "Purpose of Literature" thread.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Of course, I'm being somewhat facetious, but certainly, the only bits of the Bible that influence modern works...people already know about them. We know who David is, and how it went down with Goliath. We know about the many different Jacobs and Josephs. We know about Abraham and Moses and Noah, and the book of Revelations. We don't need to read it in class to get it.

Is that so?

Tell me, off the top of your head, without ever reading the Bible, the story of Susannah.

Tell me, off the top of your head, without ever reading the Bible, exactly who the biblical Ahab was.

I'd bet the average person who hasn't read the Bible has absolutely no idea of the answers to these questions - and yet knowing them is rather important when reading "Peter Quince at the Clavier" or Moby-Dick, both of which were assigned reading in my high school English classes.

[SD_Film Artists]

I believe in two things: education and the Bible. Here you'll receive both. Put your trust in the Lord; your ass belongs to me. Welcome to School.

[Sarkhaan]

Categorically untrue. Read a literary criticism essay. They make a claim and back it with examples from the text. Everything within literary analysis and criticism requires evidence.

But without some structured methodology, then two people can point to the same exact piece of textual evidence and use it to reach two mutually incompatible and radically different conclusions. What effort is made, what techniques are employed, to prevent the abundance of selection bias and wishful thinking? I found, a while ago, that I could pretty much lead to the conclusion that a given text supports existentialism, no matter what that text is, and yes, this conclusion was always backed by textual "evidence." You can find whatever you want in a text. Just look for the parts that support your conclusion and craft a narrative that ties it together.

Yes. Two people can come to mutually incompatible conclusions...but the question is "What does the text say?" and "What are the implications?". It isn't enough to say that Poe presents a labyrinth in Cask of Amontillado...what does this say about the text? How is this statement helpful in understanding it?

Yes, you can find existentialism in a lot of literature...but why does that matter? What does the reader gain from identifying existentialism? Finding and understanding a Biblical reference tells us more about the character being drawn for us...going back to Ishmael, we are told more about him by the name given than we discover in the first 43 pages before the ship goes to sea. It isn't enough to say "This is an existentialist text".

Yes, you could write an essay about this...but would it be as effective?

Yes. In an essay, you could provide clear, rational arguments to support your conclusion in such a way so that your argument isn't open to multiple interpretations.

And what if multiple interpretations are desired? Multiple interpretations allow for something of a personal connection. Sometimes, the factual isn't the only truth.

I can lecture on a topic for hours. Frequently, there are more effective means to convey the message.

Short examples can help to explain something, but these examples are always placed in the context of an explanation about a particular topic, so the individual hearing the example is never confused as to what it's an example of. Novels are 1) Pretty freakin' long examples. and 2) Have no clearly accessible meaning unless they are either horribly written Ayn Rand screeds, or they have a preface explaining exactly which interpretation is the correct one.

In other words, how do you KNOW that Moby Dick is supposed to mean that? Couldn't you be wrong? There are 400 some years of analysis on Shakespeare's plays, with myriad "meanings" found therein, many of which are mutually exclusive. Several of these literary critics must be wrong.

I don't know in the way that I know that, say, 2+2=4. Why? Because it isn't a concrete piece of information. The issue isn't about "right" and "wrong". I'm not wrong, because I have studied the text. I've dug through it, I've found supporting evidence and compiled it, and it is the conclusion that makes the most sense given the evidence I've found. I'm sure someone could find a contradictory meaning in the text...but that doesn't make mine wrong. Interpretations don't work that way.

Depends what you mean by "deeper meaning". A study isn't providing something I would consider "deeper meaning". Deeper meaning can be drawn from it, but the study itself is not providing it.

There is no deeper meaning than truth itself.

I'd agree. But where you and I differ is that you value objective truth above all else. I value subjective, personal truth on the same level as objective truth. To you (and correct me if I'm wrong), everything should be able to be boiled down to an objective truth or be deemed inferior, along the lines of AJ Ayer's theory that if a statement lacks objective, concrete backing, it is worthless.

The great irony being that his very theory lacks objective, concrete evidence, thus declaring itself worthless.

To me, many things should be backed objectively. There are, however, aspects of human beings that are not concrete, are not objective...often aren't observable. Those shouldn't be ignored.

There is a purpose for each method of transferring information...one must select the means that is most effective. You're right. explaining calculus is something best explained clearly, explicitly, and directly. Why? Because it is concrete.

No it isn't. Can you touch derivatives? Can you experience topology? Can you see infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces?[/quote]
No. But you can demonstrate them in a concrete manner. I can't touch a number...that doesn't mean it isn't a concrete concept.

Are there abstract concepts within calculus? Yes. Are those abstractions still functioning within a fairly strictly contained frame of rules? I'd say so.

Exploring an abstract is better handled through literature. Why? Because it is an exploration...a journey. As an abstract concept, it is not something that can be lectured upon. It is not consistent from person to person.

What exactly do you mean by an abstract anyway? I would consider mathematics, metaphysics, and epistemology to be abstract, but I wouldn't explain such technical subjects with a painting or a story.

Different abstract. I can definitely see what you mean by "abstract" when thinking about those fields. When I'm using abstract, at least in this discussion, I'm referring more to abstractions like emotions. In abstract math, I can still lay it out and explain exactly what I mean without question. When explaining "hate", I can't. I can explain it using the most precise and accurate language I posses, and yet, it's still somehow going to fall short of what I feel when I feel hatred, and even if I perfectly explained it, won't necessarily line up with what you feel when you feel hatred.

The difference being that the study of literature has documented benefits. Educational studies have examined how different course materials influence others.

Experimental evidence? Studies?

Yes. Which I don't have links to, as all of mine are in various text books which are in boxes on their way across the country...perhaps if one of our other teachers is reading, they could help a brother out. The studies, however, have demonstrated links between literary analysis and mathematical abilities, physical motion and sculpture and painting helps with spacial understanding in physics, etc.

This is getting a bit off the main topic, so I'll likely leave it here.

No this is getting interesting, but if you insist, I suppose I could split off and make a "Purpose of Literature" thread.

I agree that it's interesting. And, after reconsidering, I have the feeling the Biblical aspect of this thread may have run most of it's course...might as well continue on.


Also, sorry for any incoherence...I'm packing while posting, which has me a bit distracted.

[Caninope]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I do, actually.
Just about English literature: Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare, Scott, Austen, Dickens, Poe, Melville. All of them have had a greater impact on English literature, and their works are written better than the Bible.

Except all of the used the Bible in some way or another in their writings.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Not really, no. We learn words much more efficiently by seeing them used. A dictionary will teach denotation, but is not able to teach connotation.

I suppose so.

There's little difference between the study of philosophy and the study of literature, to be entirely honest.

Nonsense. Maybe if you're dealing with touchy-feeley continental philosophy, but analytic philosophy is quite different.

No, it doesn't. It teaches that anything goes if it can be supported and defended using the text.

There is no difference. A complex enough ad hoc narrative can be used to support absolutely any interpretation one wants to find. Essentially, you're giving kids practice at having even stronger selection biases.

To provide depth to the text.

How? How would an essay on a philosophical point lack depth? If the philosophical point is the entire point, then what purpose does the story serve?

To make it so it isn't just a cute little story, but actually conveys meaning beyond the words on the page.

But why bother? Deeper meaning is best conveyed in essays, studies, proofs, arguments, etc. Deeper meaning makes the most sense in an academic context.

Horrible that one should have to work to discover the meaning, I know.

Clarity is a virtue. There's no need to artificially make the meaning harder to get. If I wanted to explain calculus, would it be better to just explain it explicitly and directly, or should I write a 500 page novel that vaguely alludes to derivatives, limits, continuity, integration, and the various theorems thereof?

But it is that work that makes the study of literature relevant and a worthwhile exercise.

Hard work doesn't make something worthwhile. WoW can eat up a huge amount of time and effort, so much so that people quit their jobs just to have more time playing it. It's still a waste of time, not that there's anything wrong with wasting time.

A few comments on a discussion that doesn't really deserve the waste of time:

1. I can't imagine that UT or anyone else would actually perfer a class where one read the dictionary to a class on literature.

2. Education is not just about memorizing "stuff" but learning to use one's mind, a skill that can be developed in fields other than science. One could well argue that the sciences neglect may ways of using one's minds to acquire information and gain insight.

3. Are you (UT) seriously going to contend that there is nothing of value to be learned from studying literature like Brave New World, The Grapes of Wrath, Night, Slaughterhouse-Five, Heart of Darkness, All the King's Men, Crime and Punishment, The Stranger, One Hundred Years of Solitude, The Trial, Go Tell It on the Mountain, All Quiet on the Western Front, Hamlet, Things Fall Apart, Antigone, Candide, The Satanic Verses, The Jungle, Nausea, The Power and the Glory, and Blindness?

[Unhealthy2]

1. I can't imagine that UT or anyone else would actually perfer a class where one read the dictionary to a class on literature.

2. Education is not just about memorizing "stuff" but learning to use one's mind, a skill that can be developed in fields other than science. One could well argue that the sciences neglect may ways of using one's minds to acquire information and gain insight.

3. Are you (UT) seriously going to contend that there is nothing of value to be learned from studying literature like Brave New World, The Grapes of Wrath, Night, Slaughterhouse-Five, Heart of Darkness, All the King's Men, Crime and Punishment, The Stranger, One Hundred Years of Solitude, The Trial, Go Tell It on the Mountain, All Quiet on the Western Front, Hamlet, Things Fall Apart, Antigone, Candide, The Satanic Verses, The Jungle, Nausea, The Power and the Glory, and Blindness?

1) I would. I would much rather study words out of a dictionary than read utter crap like Madame Bovary that literary critics have decided is wonderful. Plus, I don't have to play the intellectual masturbation game of "analyzing" literature when I read a dictionary.

2) True, you can also develop it in mathematics, philosophy, history, etc.

3) People keep saying that there's "great value" that they get out of these things, but they can't seem to explain this so-called value in any more than some really vague sense.

[Unhealthy2]

Yes. Two people can come to mutually incompatible conclusions...but the question is "What does the text say?" and "What are the implications?". It isn't enough to say that Poe presents a labyrinth in Cask of Amontillado...what does this say about the text? How is this statement helpful in understanding it?

Yes, you can find existentialism in a lot of literature...but why does that matter? What does the reader gain from identifying existentialism? Finding and understanding a Biblical reference tells us more about the character being drawn for us...going back to Ishmael, we are told more about him by the name given than we discover in the first 43 pages before the ship goes to sea. It isn't enough to say "This is an existentialist text".

But what's the point in discussing what you got out of the text? It's like arguing over taste in music. It's nothing but intellectual masturbation leading nowhere. If two logically incompatible "interpretations" are both considered valid, then anything goes, because (A AND ~A) -> B, where B is any proposition at all. To avoid absurdity, a non-cognitivist view of meaning must be taken, and I'm not willing to accept that. Meaning is whatever the author intended. Period.

Sometimes, the factual isn't the only truth.

Yes it is. Truth is necessarily a function of propositions, which requires the framework of logic. Anything which permits multiple "correct" answers which are logically incompatible is non-cognitivist.

Interpretations don't work that way.

If there is no right or wrong answer, then what is the point?

I'd agree. But where you and I differ is that you value objective truth above all else. I value subjective, personal truth on the same level as objective truth. To you (and correct me if I'm wrong), everything should be able to be boiled down to an objective truth or be deemed inferior, along the lines of AJ Ayer's theory that if a statement lacks objective, concrete backing, it is worthless.

There's this word concrete again. Essentially, everything that's subjective arises from poorly defining terms. Subjectivity is a result of not nailing down the meanings of your terms well enough.

To me, many things should be backed objectively. There are, however, aspects of human beings that are not concrete, are not objective...often aren't observable. Those shouldn't be ignored.

What about humans is "unobservable" exactly? Surely you're not suggesting that humanity is more than the brain?

There is a purpose for each method of transferring information...one must select the means that is most effective. You're right. explaining calculus is something best explained clearly, explicitly, and directly. Why? Because it is concrete.

What things are more effectively conveyed indirectly? If direct communication fails, why would indirect communication work better?

Different abstract. I can definitely see what you mean by "abstract" when thinking about those fields. When I'm using abstract, at least in this discussion, I'm referring more to abstractions like emotions. In abstract math, I can still lay it out and explain exactly what I mean without question. When explaining "hate", I can't. I can explain it using the most precise and accurate language I posses, and yet, it's still somehow going to fall short of what I feel when I feel hatred, and even if I perfectly explained it, won't necessarily line up with what you feel when you feel hatred.

Let's assume that you can't explain what hatred is like for you. Let's assume that this just can't be done, as you claim it can't. Okay, how does literature bridge this gap? How does literature allow you to communicate exactly what your experience is like in a way that can't be done without it? If you can't convey what it is like to be you with technical prose, how can poetry do it? In fact, does not the very "multiple interpretations" nature of poetry make it even LESS effective at communicating what it's like to be you than prose?

I'll leave the rest alone. I'll let you show me those studies later if you want to.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I don't think whole books of the Bible should ever be assigned reading unless it's something where people are given a choice of books and some of the other choices are secular. The Bible is quite long and would take up a disproportionate amount of time if all of it was required reading. A lot of it is not relevant to anything a non-Christian needs to know.

However, I think it's fine to bring relevant Biblical passages into the classroom to help students understand history from periods when the church was very influential, or to understand references in literature. One class I took in high school discussed the 10 Commandments in the context of the development of law, and that was OK.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Yes. Two people can come to mutually incompatible conclusions...but the question is "What does the text say?" and "What are the implications?". It isn't enough to say that Poe presents a labyrinth in Cask of Amontillado...what does this say about the text? How is this statement helpful in understanding it?

Yes, you can find existentialism in a lot of literature...but why does that matter? What does the reader gain from identifying existentialism? Finding and understanding a Biblical reference tells us more about the character being drawn for us...going back to Ishmael, we are told more about him by the name given than we discover in the first 43 pages before the ship goes to sea. It isn't enough to say "This is an existentialist text".

But what's the point in discussing what you got out of the text? It's like arguing over taste in music. It's nothing but intellectual masturbation leading nowhere. If two logically incompatible "interpretations" are both considered valid, then anything goes, because (A AND ~A) -> B, where B is any proposition at all.

To avoid absurdity, a non-cognitivist view of meaning must be taken, and I'm not willing to accept that. Meaning is whatever the author intended. Period.

Sometimes, the factual isn't the only truth.

Yes it is. Truth is necessarily a function of propositions, which requires the framework of logic. Anything which permits multiple "correct" answers which are logically incompatible is non-cognitivist.

Interpretations don't work that way.

If there is no right or wrong answer, then what is the point?

I'd agree. But where you and I differ is that you value objective truth above all else. I value subjective, personal truth on the same level as objective truth. To you (and correct me if I'm wrong), everything should be able to be boiled down to an objective truth or be deemed inferior, along the lines of AJ Ayer's theory that if a statement lacks objective, concrete backing, it is worthless.

There's this word concrete again. Essentially, everything that's subjective arises from poorly defining terms. Subjectivity is a result of not nailing down the meanings of your terms well enough.

To me, many things should be backed objectively. There are, however, aspects of human beings that are not concrete, are not objective...often aren't observable. Those shouldn't be ignored.

What about humans is "unobservable" exactly? Surely you're not suggesting that humanity is more than the brain?

There is a purpose for each method of transferring information...one must select the means that is most effective. You're right. explaining calculus is something best explained clearly, explicitly, and directly. Why? Because it is concrete.

What things are more effectively conveyed indirectly? If direct communication fails, why would indirect communication work better?

Different abstract. I can definitely see what you mean by "abstract" when thinking about those fields. When I'm using abstract, at least in this discussion, I'm referring more to abstractions like emotions. In abstract math, I can still lay it out and explain exactly what I mean without question. When explaining "hate", I can't. I can explain it using the most precise and accurate language I posses, and yet, it's still somehow going to fall short of what I feel when I feel hatred, and even if I perfectly explained it, won't necessarily line up with what you feel when you feel hatred.

Let's assume that you can't explain what hatred is like for you. Let's assume that this just can't be done, as you claim it can't. Okay, how does literature bridge this gap? How does literature allow you to communicate exactly what your experience is like in a way that can't be done without it? If you can't convey what it is like to be you with technical prose, how can poetry do it? In fact, does not the very "multiple interpretations" nature of poetry make it even LESS effective at communicating what it's like to be you than prose?

I'll leave the rest alone. I'll let you show me those studies later if you want to.

1. We understand that you wish the world, universe, existence lived up to your expectations of neat little check-boxes of true and false, but -- as someone who is familiar with quantum physics and philosophy of science -- you know that isn't true of even "hard science." Why expect us all to pretend as if it were true of everything we experience?

2. Again, you have admitted in past discussions that, although we may theoretically in the future be able to understand human thoughts, emotions, and behaviors at the levels of chemical interactions or electrical connections or even the interaction of atomic or sub-atomic particles, we are far, far, far, far, far from that ability today. In fact, depending on the context, you at times defend and at times ridicule the study of the human brain, psychology--most recently explaining that "Psychology is something that is scientific sometimes and not at others."

So, yes, for now, much of what it means to be human isn't objectively quantified and dissected. The human experience is not just a series of scientifically defined "truths."

3. I fully understand your argument, but I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Are you denying the existence of pathos (or emotional appeal in general) as a means of communication? Are you truly saying you have never read, watch, heard something that communicated a feeling perhaps more effectively than a technical description of what that feeling should be like?

[Unhealthy2]

1. We understand that you wish the world, universe, existence lived up to your expectations of neat little check-boxes of true and false, but -- as someone who is familiar with quantum physics and philosophy of science -- you know that isn't true of even "hard science." Why expect us all to pretend as if it were true of everything we experience?

2. Again, you have admitted in past discussions that, although we may theoretically in the future be able to understand human thoughts, emotions, and behaviors at the levels of chemical interactions or electrical connections or even the interaction of atomic or sub-atomic particles, we are far, far, far, far, far from that ability today. In fact, depending on the context, you at times defend and at times ridicule the study of the human brain, psychology--most recently explaining that "Psychology is something that is scientific sometimes and not at others."

So, yes, for now, much of what it means to be human isn't objectively quantified and dissected. The human experience is not just a series of scientifically defined "truths."

3. I fully understand your argument, but I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Are you denying the existence of pathos (or emotional appeal in general) as a means of communication? Are you truly saying you have never read, watch, heard something that communicated a feeling perhaps more effectively than a technical description of what that feeling should be like?

1. Don't play the quantum new age bullshit game. Quantum mechanics does not invalidate right and wrong answers, nor does it invalidate logic, nor does it mean that we make our own reality, or any of the other nonsense that people try to insert into QM. Hell, it's based on logic. The entirety of quantum mechanics is based on a set of mathematical axioms laid out by Paul Dirac.

2. Nonsense. I don't ridicule the study of the human brain sometimes and defend it at others. I just ridicule the pseudoscience that exists in the field of psychology. I have no problem with Stephen Pinker, or others like him.

3. Due to the subjectivity of feelings, is it not entirely possible that I watch something and get the wrong emotion out of it? I laugh at a movie that's supposed to be sad, maybe because I find the acting over the top, or the dialogue shitty, or I get pissed in a movie that's supposed to be funny, because I empathize with the comic victim. At least this danger is greatly ameliorated with technical descriptions.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Just thinking about the subject for approximately .1 second I can tell you that T. S. Eliot, Sylvia Plath, Lord Alfred Tennyson, Samuel Clemens, Ted Hughes and Robert Frost have all used Biblical allusions. I'd bet my left hand and say that virtually every significant poet has used, at least once, some sort of Biblical [allusion/symbol/discourse/what-have-you to further their work.

That doesn't mean you have to read the Bible to study their work. A lot of Biblical allusions are self-explanatory or can be explained in about 5 seconds. The most popular Biblical symbols are the ones that require the least amount of explanation because people naturally relate to them. That's what makes them popular in the first place -- that fact that they are easy to understand.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. I can't imagine that UT or anyone else would actually perfer a class where one read the dictionary to a class on literature.

2. Education is not just about memorizing "stuff" but learning to use one's mind, a skill that can be developed in fields other than science. One could well argue that the sciences neglect may ways of using one's minds to acquire information and gain insight.

3. Are you (UT) seriously going to contend that there is nothing of value to be learned from studying literature like Brave New World, The Grapes of Wrath, Night, Slaughterhouse-Five, Heart of Darkness, All the King's Men, Crime and Punishment, The Stranger, One Hundred Years of Solitude, The Trial, Go Tell It on the Mountain, All Quiet on the Western Front, Hamlet, Things Fall Apart, Antigone, Candide, The Satanic Verses, The Jungle, Nausea, The Power and the Glory, and Blindness?

1) I would. I would much rather study words out of a dictionary than read utter crap like Madame Bovary that literary critics have decided is wonderful. Plus, I don't have to play the intellectual masturbation game of "analyzing" literature when I read a dictionary.

2) True, you can also develop it in mathematics, philosophy, history, etc.

3) People keep saying that there's "great value" that they get out of these things, but they can't seem to explain this so-called value in any more than some really vague sense.

1. Some literature appeals to some and not to others. That isn't in dispute and is non-responsive. If you would truly perfer to spend a semester reading the dictionary day after day after day, than reading Shakespeare's Hamlet or some of the other books listed under my third point, I pity you. Regardless, just reading a dictionary teaches you nothing about how to string words together to communicate, let alone the art of doing so well.

2. Perhaps. It is also quite arguable there are some skills best learned through reading literature. Also, there are things about the world and the human condition (as I'll address in my next point) that can be easily accessed through literature. More importantly, it is not entirely clear why some liberal arts are acceptable to you and others aren't other than your personal preference -- which, to use your own language, amounts to "intellectual masturbation" not altogether different than if you insisted vanilla ice cream should be the only ice cream anyone eats and the "abomination" of chocolate not allowed.

3. Literature can teach one about just about anything -- including hard science. The particular books I listed give insight into history, politics, different cultures, human emotions, ethics/morality, psychology, war, religion, economics, philosophy, the construction of race and its consequences, etc. Perhaps more importantly, they give insight into humanity and, by reflection, into ourselves -- how we think, act, feel, etc. If you need me to be more specific, I can, but it would help if you identified books we both had read for me to illustrate my point.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. We understand that you wish the world, universe, existence lived up to your expectations of neat little check-boxes of true and false, but -- as someone who is familiar with quantum physics and philosophy of science -- you know that isn't true of even "hard science." Why expect us all to pretend as if it were true of everything we experience?

2. Again, you have admitted in past discussions that, although we may theoretically in the future be able to understand human thoughts, emotions, and behaviors at the levels of chemical interactions or electrical connections or even the interaction of atomic or sub-atomic particles, we are far, far, far, far, far from that ability today. In fact, depending on the context, you at times defend and at times ridicule the study of the human brain, psychology--most recently explaining that "Psychology is something that is scientific sometimes and not at others."

So, yes, for now, much of what it means to be human isn't objectively quantified and dissected. The human experience is not just a series of scientifically defined "truths."

3. I fully understand your argument, but I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Are you denying the existence of pathos (or emotional appeal in general) as a means of communication? Are you truly saying you have never read, watch, heard something that communicated a feeling perhaps more effectively than a technical description of what that feeling should be like?

1. Don't play the quantum new age bullshit game. Quantum mechanics does not invalidate right and wrong answers, nor does it invalidate logic, nor does it mean that we make our own reality, or any of the other nonsense that people try to insert into QM. Hell, it's based on logic. The entirety of quantum mechanics is based on a set of mathematical axioms laid out by Paul Dirac.

2. Nonsense. I don't ridicule the study of the human brain sometimes and defend it at others. I just ridicule the pseudoscience that exists in the field of psychology. I have no problem with Stephen Pinker, or others like him.

3. Due to the subjectivity of feelings, is it not entirely possible that I watch something and get the wrong emotion out of it? I laugh at a movie that's supposed to be sad, maybe because I find the acting over the top, or the dialogue shitty, or I get pissed in a movie that's supposed to be funny, because I empathize with the comic victim. At least this danger is greatly ameliorated with technical descriptions.

You dodged all three points by seizing on side-issues (and/or outright distortions) to object to or make excuses from. You didn't answer a single point directly.

Clearly, you are being disingenuous. No point in discussing this with you further.

EDIT: 1. Although I fully admit my understanding of quantum physics is extremely shallow, I know who Paul Dirac is - as well as Erwin Schrödinger, Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Enrico Fermi, John von Neumann, Richard Feynman, and a few others. Although I've read The Dancing Wu Li Masters and The Tao of Physics, I did so at the request of an actual working theoretical physicist and I don't buy the New Age shit and I find the implication that that is all I meant insulting to both our intelligences.

As you may recall, my knowledge of the philosophy of science is rusty, but a bit deeper and more to the point.

2. It's Steven Pinker and his wonderful research fills a very small niche of understanding all human experience and behavior and/or psychology.

[Nazi Flower Power]

1) I would. I would much rather study words out of a dictionary than read utter crap like Madame Bovary that literary critics have decided is wonderful. Plus, I don't have to play the intellectual masturbation game of "analyzing" literature when I read a dictionary.

I completely sympathize with your hatred of literary analysis, but I still think a lot of classic literature is worth reading. It's not Oscar Wilde or Mark Twain's fault the way high school English is taught is shit. Don't take it out on the books when your teacher gives you a bullshit assignment.