Notes on Introduction to the Humanities -- Hum A211
William Jamison - Instructor
Lecture 1
I begin the course by explaining where the syllabus is and what the course will be like.
Work? Who works? How important is work to success?
How to place a point of view. Cognitive Mapping.
Importance of theory as central to narrative and the nature of the a priori.
What
is my place in the universe?
As part of a Liberal Arts Education:
to learn the craft of Free people
to understand the virtues
because we are curious
To understand other people
why do they believe and act the way they do?
Key issues:
The artifacts and texts are old while the vocabulary is new
Texts are difficult -- Most are in translation
Cultures of the authors and artists are not ours, their ideas are easily misunderstood
You have to read to learn the tradition You have to learn the tradition to read
Some of our problems are different Some of our problems are the same
History
3 approaches to history
encyclopedia
inquiry will lead to truth and knowledge of the world
belief in progress of reason
genealogy
inquiry traces a tradition to undermine it
paradox of truth is there is no truth
tradition
understands truth to belong to a tradition
seeks a view that explains all traditions
Explanation: How should we approach the study of the humanities? For reasons that will be more clear towards the end of the course, we will take the approach of "tradition." This was somewhat discussed but the two alternatives need mention here. The method of "encyclopedia" follows the belief (primarily associated with the "Enlightenment" and the Britannica tradition (!)) that we can use scientific methods to find out all there is to know about the universe. As we find out each fact, and fact by fact compile all the facts we need to know all there is to know, our job will be done. This approach has been discredited and is no longer viable -- as we will see. The method of "genealogy" (primarily associated with Nietzsche) follows the trail of a tradition but then seeks to discredit that tradition by arguing that there can be no truth in mere accident. This tradition becomes hypocritical in the sense that it denies it's own genealogy, or plays with the nature of truth by recognizing that it all becomes nonsense. This is still a very popular view. I argue against using it towards the end of the course.
The approach that studies traditions -- very much as the genealogist does -- but holds that truth only makes sense within a tradition, seems to be the most cogent approach.
http://dingo.care-mail.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07538b.htm
http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_benton_introhuman_2/0,9449,1514830-,00.html