Our existence has a twin in a general prospect, and that is Humanities. Humanities is the study about human culture, such as literature, philosophy, and history.These have become some of the subjects that conventionally fall under the Humanities umbrella. Expertise on these categories of human aspects give us the opportunity to feel a sense of connection to everyone who have come before us, as well as those who will live after our lifetimes.
We can’t deny that Humanities has contributed a lot. One is how we look at things differently. This illuminates the importance of critical thinking, historical consciousness and creating competent democratic citizens. This allows us to gain a new perception of everything from arts to business models to politics; humanities subjects have been the center of liberal arts tutelage since the ancient Greeks first used them to educate their people.
Inquisitions into human experience speeds up our knowledge about the world. Through the contributions of Humanities scholars, we learn the norms of different cultures, like what goes into creation of art, and how our history was made. Their legacies preserve the great accomplishment of the past, help us to better understand today’s world, and give us ideas on how to rock the future.
Humanities also brings a bit of clarity to the future by providing the conceptual foundation in searching and understanding the human experience. Furthermore, the study of different language can ease the appreciation for the parallelism of cultures .Pondering a sculpture can give an idea on how artist life affects an artistic thinking.
Vigorous, Dynamic and deep that’s what Humanities is and it would until generations to come.
It seems that colleges everywhere are getting together to speak up for the humanities. A couple of weeks ago, in London and Oxford, an activist humanities conference gathered Oxford, Soas, Delhi, Nanjing and Virginia. Just hours before, in the US, George Washington University huddled with Turkey’s Bogazici and Morocco’s Al Alkhawayn to begin a worldwide humanities initiative. Next month, at Going Global, the biggest yearly worldwide higher education gathering run by the British Council in Miami, ways to mobilize the humanities, will be one of the main subjects of discussion. And the conversation won’t stop at the higher education surfaces. It will need to pay attention to how to move on from the groundhog times of such workshops and to free this discussion from the academia cycle and into that challenging “real world” which the humanities claim to be able to impact and enhance.
So what’s up with our cloistered researchers and philosophers, our fictional experts, classicists and students of the fine, performing and otherwise liberal arts? Clearly there’s some gathering worldwide anxiety within the academia and it’s mainly around the problems of getting wider public identification for the two beliefs about humanities that are encouraging these discussions. The first conviction is that humanities graduates are very employable and are qualified with exclusive abilities which bring serious benefits to the world of work. Last week saw phone calls in the UK to decrease the expenses for learners of technological innovation and mathematics in order to generate a bigger pool of certified graduates, particularly to educate these crucial subjects in educational institutions.
At the same time in the US, we can see the obverse of that harmless purpose. Political figures in Texas are suggesting that liberal arts learners should anticipate paying full charges and more, with no suspicion of subsidy. Their conversation is that such research is self-indulgence and of no forward value to community, so there’s no reason why such niceties as art appreciation, the history of Russia or the theologies of Hinduism should be openly reinforced. Instead, resources should be completely devoted to STEM subjects (science, technological innovation, engineering and mathematics) and business studies.
The actual dogma is that learning the humanities makes physicians human. It appears to be good. It might even sound naturally right. But the “common” in common sense is often the unprocessed variety. Hiding within the medical humanities’ manifesto is a way of associative thinking, a kind of causal fallacy: it is the idea that fictional or philosophical consumption and sympathy for a one’s fellow beings, adhere to a simple straight line direction.
And herein can be found the problem. There is no efficient proof that learning literary works enhances stages of sympathy among doctors. This is not to say the dogma won’t yet be vindicated. And it is not to say educating or enhancing stages of concern among medical care learners and physicians is an insignificant process. In fact, the very opposite is the case: sympathy and concern form an important part of the doctor-patient connection. Doctors need to be aware of the variety of experiences that diseases and personal conditions can bring. Empathy is also essential in developing the kind of environment where sufferers can connect successfully and when sufferers aren’t forth-coming about signs, physicians skip a significant item of the challenge.
The point is that nobody, least of all medical care educationalists, can manage to be glib about how this aspect of medical care professionalism and reliability can best be found or obtained. And what about other medical care professionals? Exponents of the fictional medical care humanities appear less desperate to ingratiate themselves among nurses, for example. Couldn’t our nurses, home health aides and other medical care employees use some of this (purported) fictional elixir? An educational Google search located one book suggesting the use of (specifically) “popular literature” among nurses. According to this thinking, we should recommend Danielle Steele to our medical staff, while providing Dostoyevsky to the medics.