Big Think

Scott Murphy commented on Re: the Humanities on May 7, 2008, 12:53 PM

Your characterization of the humanities as a chance to get "diverse opinions from diverse view points" is insightful. Those of us who work in the humanities, particularly the "interpretive" side, have trouble formulating the purpose of our profession. Your statement works, though, at the most basic level. Humans exist alongside one another and it is a biological imperative that they exist in networks of interconnections with other humans. We are not given, however, an instinctive way to understand the world from each other's perspective. The humanities provide that. At the very least a creative act---an artwork, a novel, a play, a film, a song---can be seen as the effort of one human being to translate his or her perspective into a refined and compressed product that others can experience and gain access to that perspective. The interpretive disciplines, then, exist to map out the ways in which this refinement and compression occur and the many ways of drawing out that experience.

Scott Murphy commented on The Media Today on May 7, 2008, 9:52 AM

I agree that John McCain's enthusiasm for the war in Iraq makes the prospect of his presidency very disturbing. I also agree with Sen. Reid that some of McCain's previous efforts at bipartisanship (which alienated him from the core conservatives) have largely been overwritten by his recent move to the far right.I am not sure, however, that Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are equally qualified. I think that Sen. Clinton shares some of the Kriegslust that so bothers me about McCain. Her initial vote for the war in Iraq and her recent comments on Iran point to this similarity between them.

Scott Murphy commented on The Media Today on May 7, 2008, 5:52 AM

I agree that John McCain's enthusiasm for the war in Iraq makes the prospect of his presidency very disturbing. I also agree with Sen. Reid that some of McCain's previous efforts at bipartisanship (which alienated him from the core conservatives) have largely been overwritten by his recent move to the far right. I am not sure, however, that Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are equally qualified. I think that Sen. Clinton shares some of the Kriegslust that so bothers me about McCain. Her initial vote for the war in Iraq and her recent comments on Iran point to this similarity between them.

Scott Murphy commented on The Historical Narrative on April 26, 2008, 10:38 AM

I agree with Roakes. As Michel de Certeau has pointed out, history (as an academic project) cannot record every detail of existence because there is just too much. Thus, there is always a process of selection, and the act of choosing what to record, what to analyze, what to deem important carries an inherent political bias. The myth of the "objective historian" is just a code for a historian whose work advances the agenda of those in power.Nonetheless, at the level of an individual historian, as Roakes points out, the choice can be made not to ignore evidence. This choice cannot mean recording everything (every detail of every action of every life), because there is just too much data. It can mean, however, recognizing neglected discourses and making an effort to give them a voice. Recognizing this need validates the practice of recovering histories that have been erased, overwritten, or distorted.A book like James Wilson's The Earth Shall Weep is a step in the right direction. It seeks to recover the Native American perspective on the history of the United States.

Scott Murphy commented on The Historical Narrative on April 26, 2008, 6:38 AM

I agree with Roakes. As Michel de Certeau has pointed out, history (as an academic project) cannot record every detail of existence because there is just too much. Thus, there is always a process of selection, and the act of choosing what to record, what to analyze, what to deem important carries an inherent political bias. The myth of the "objective historian" is just a code for a historian whose work advances the agenda of those in power. Nonetheless, at the level of an individual historian, as Roakes points out, the choice can be made not to ignore evidence. This choice cannot mean recording everything (every detail of every action of every life), because there is just too much data. It can mean, however, recognizing neglected discourses and making an effort to give them a voice. Recognizing this need validates the practice of recovering histories that have been erased, overwritten, or distorted. A book like James Wilson's The Earth Shall Weep is a step in the right direction. It seeks to recover the Native American perspective on the history of the United States.