English class

[sirknightingfail]

My school is known more for liberal arts, whilst I am more of a math and science person. I often feel that some portions of English are unnecessary and just useful for conversation topics if you want to discuss movies and literature. If Someone goes into a scientific field, the analysis of books feels flamboyant and pointless for me, as I have no interest in analyzing books and such if I am going to do what I am good at. I know that the majority of the analysis and such are a basis for straight logic and organization of our reasoning whilst writing essays. I feel that I can write proofs in mathematics that show the same level of reasoning that is required in essays.

I want to know why you think we have English programs that require things that only students who go into literary analysis and become poets/English proffessors/authors, who are all probably in the advanced/honors classes.

[*Emelia K. Fletcher]

Because not everyone is interested in mathematics and the like

[lordpat]

Well, I am Latin, so English Class is different for me. I do have Spanish class, though to generalize a bit more, I'd recommend changing the title to "Literature Class" instead of "English Class". While I don't say that the two are the same, they do seem to share a lot of what you are talking about, and I think I can take a gender on that.

Well, to my eyes, obligatory Literature on school is as important as obligatory Maths. Not only because of a matter of intrest (though MK is right there), but also because it allows you to make your mind and intelligence grow. A different kind of intelligence, but not less important. Trying to analyze the human emotions, the way they are portraited on a stetic marc and so forth is very useful in life. It allows your cultural competition to grow and exchange opinions with other people about them. It allows you to see life from a different point of view and from a different reality as well. And learning how to express the emotions and ideas you have through art is useful and intresting as well. Of course that I am againts some teaching methods on these subjectis (they tend to be the most morally complex and at some points they contradict themselves) but by no means I believe they are less important. It is like asking "Why should I learn Maths if I want to study Literature?". I say it is because learning Maths allows you to develop your logical intelligence, useful for almost any road you chose on life. (which applies for example when making an essay)

Still, though, I do not fully understand why Literature is always above the other arts (at least in my school) in terms of educational importance. I guess it is because it shows the highest cultural value out of all, but I still dislike that concept.

[*Emelia K. Fletcher]

Literature has higher worth than other subjects? ( Pfffffhahaha / There's something I learned today. )

[lordpat]

Literature has higher worth than other subjects? ( Pfffffhahaha / There's something I learned today. )

Oh, at least that it is like that on my school, and for what I got, on schools in Argentina in general (except technical schools or comercial schools).

[darthbrowser]

Literature, and liberal arts, are the embodiment of humanism. Humanity is celebrated - deified.

The sciences present a nearly alien opposite - they are everything humanity, in its natural, 'feral' state, is not.

It is subjectivity vs. objectivity. The play of opinions contrasted with the dominance of facts.

The sciences have been said to be everything from misanthropic to blasphemous, for their excisment of emotion and lust for the forbidden fruit of enlightment.

...some look upon the equation and see an obvious answer. Science has given us everything while subjectivity has provided nothing of physical value. They say we should simply abandon the liberal arts in pursuit of logic beyond limit - but they miss the question of purpose.

They dream of a viewpoint unobstructed by humanity - a completely objective view of the world, and all the potential that comes with it.

Yet, they forgot why they dream.

Science and math will never give you a reason to lust for such power. Only one's humanity can be blamed for such a creation. To excise humanity is to lose every reason to pursue knowledge, to pursue objectivity.

Of course, all the above is just my lovecraftian late-night philosophy, as I wage my own personal war against my humanity under the comfort of shadows.

From a socialogical perspective, well, you've all heard the jokes.

"What did the engineer say to the Liberal Arts major?
"I designed the glass you got drunk with," or "Make that fry a large.""

Countries will push math and science because countries with higher amounts of students in those areas with be at a technological advantage.

But from a personal perspective, I fear I must allocate equal weight to the humanities, because the exploration of humanity is needed to identify one's purpose - and the purposes of others. I disagree with the holistic tendency to glorify the human state, but I will not argue understanding that state is unimportant.

I have meet very few people who truely believe they could find a purpose in the science fields alone, regardless of the strength of the philosophical arguments one could present for such a case.

Just my thoughts. Sleep deprivation makes me suicidal and veers my contentions into the misanthropic spectrum at the severity I am currently experiencing, so I will not guarantee the logical validity of this post.

[Mr_SaxMan]

Authors.

Let me repeat.

Authors.

Not just authors of mere authors of novels that you get in the fantasy section, though granted, novel authors are artists of the language and conveyors of modern composition and story, and books are a great commercial entity as well as entertainment entity. No, I mean beyond that as well when one must look deeper. Authors and English majors also write other things that are imperative and necessary in modern life, for example, advertisements, where uses in language arts and conveying messages are necessary to convey a point. Movie scripts, political speeches, news articles, magazines, and more, it all requires a fair amount of language arts dedication to be able to lead and sustain anything that requires both the written word and creation, or else we would merely be stuck in a world of grammar, engineered deductive answers, proofs, and language would be purely mathematical, for example, instead, just using technology to send brain waves into a person's mind about everything that is in fact true about the subject, not even what the perception should be or what may be changed/lied about/altered for different effect.

[darthbrowser]

Authors.

Let me repeat.

Authors.

Not just authors of mere authors of novels that you get in the fantasy section, though granted, novel authors are artists of the language and conveyors of modern composition and story, and books are a great commercial entity as well as entertainment entity. No, I mean beyond that as well when one must look deeper. Authors and English majors also write other things that are imperative and necessary in modern life, for example, advertisements, where uses in language arts and conveying messages are necessary to convey a point. Movie scripts, political speeches, news articles, magazines, and more, it all requires a fair amount of language arts dedication to be able to lead and sustain anything that requires both the written word and creation, or else we would merely be stuck in a world of grammar, engineered deductive answers, proofs, and language would be purely mathematical, for example, instead, just using technology to send brain waves into a person's mind about everything that is in fact true about the subject, not even what the perception should be or what may be changed/lied about/altered for different effect.

I believe you missed the OP's point. Your description of the sociological usages of literature/composition/english classes is correct, but the OP wasn't arguing that such classes are not useful to the world, he was asking how thay are useful to him and others like him - i.e., people who are specificly NOT going to be doing the things you described, such as writting advertisments or speeches. He isn't trying to say that language arts arn't useful to society as a whole, only that they are not to him.

[Mr_SaxMan]

I believe you missed the OP's point. Your description of the sociological usages of literature/composition/english classes is correct, but the OP wasn't arguing that such classes are not useful to the world, he was asking how thay are useful to him and others like him - i.e., people who are specificly NOT going to be doing the things you described, such as writting advertisments or speeches. He isn't trying to say that language arts arn't useful to society as a whole, only that they are not to him.

Haha, this is true. Maybe I should read the article before reasoning arguments about society.

Well, either way, just reword my post before. Many and most people want to persuade anybody for something to happen, and the magic of language and variation/perception of words is one of the only ways how to learn.

[darthbrowser]

Haha, this is true. Maybe I should read the article before reasoning arguments about society.

Well, either way, just reword my post before. Many and most people want to persuade anybody for something to happen, and the magic of language and variation/perception of words is one of the only ways how to learn.

Once again, such an observation is valid but still off-topic. The OP is trying to say he shouldn't have to learn Language Arts because he doesn't feel he is going to be convincing anybody with those tools in his field - where any persuasion would ideally happen with numbers alone.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on you, things like this just tend to irritate me.

Compared to the reasoning patterns of certain people on this site (or, should I say, lack of any such patterns), I find you quite agreeable.

Make of that what you will.