Humanities don’t need funding for expensive laboratories
i suppose so as long as all your humanities knowledge is already solved with no need to travel to new places, study new locations, or talk to new people
According to wikipedia, humanities neither include archeology nor sociology:
The humanities include the academic study of philosophy, religion, history, language arts (literature, writing, oratory, rhetoric, poetry, etc.), the performing arts (theater, music, dance, etc.), and the visual arts (painting, sculpture, photography, filmmaking, etc.)
There is no need to travel. The people who research are either there or can be reached via internet.
It’s difficult to not get snarky. You obviously have studied but you argue against my position that humanities with limited funding is possible with the demand that a new university must be able to fund nieche topics. How is that necessary?
because a humanities without “niche topics” is going to cover a very limited subject matter, and in particular, a very certain bias of subject matter! if we design humanities with cost-savings in mind, this is the most inexpensive and readily available culture, language, history: the mainstream, the corporate owned, the majority opinion. funding in humanities expands the horizons and the populace that humanities covers, and without diversity, humanities is not worth teaching
I mean sure sociology may not be classified as a humanities but archeology clearly is: “include the academic study of history”
And sure maybe philosophers don’t need to travel but what do you do when you’re a historian and you need to consult historical records in another country? You are listing"the study of the performing art" how do you think people are studying these without going to the representations?
And i may be biased because it’s what i am currently studying but how are we supposed to study geography without travelling???
i suppose so as long as all your humanities knowledge is already solved with no need to travel to new places, study new locations, or talk to new people
According to wikipedia, humanities neither include archeology nor sociology:
There is no need to travel. The people who research are either there or can be reached via internet.
the pama-nyungan language family is indigenous to Australia and all the languages in that umbrella are either endangered or extrinct already.
pick one:
a) it is already safely and thoroughly catalogued or reachable via the Internet
b) there’s already enough embedded researchers in indigenous Australian communities to study these endangered languages
c) it’s not humanities for some reason
d) probably should spend some money getting more students and professors out there to study it
It’s difficult to not get snarky. You obviously have studied but you argue against my position that humanities with limited funding is possible with the demand that a new university must be able to fund nieche topics. How is that necessary?
because a humanities without “niche topics” is going to cover a very limited subject matter, and in particular, a very certain bias of subject matter! if we design humanities with cost-savings in mind, this is the most inexpensive and readily available culture, language, history: the mainstream, the corporate owned, the majority opinion. funding in humanities expands the horizons and the populace that humanities covers, and without diversity, humanities is not worth teaching
I mean sure sociology may not be classified as a humanities but archeology clearly is: “include the academic study of history” And sure maybe philosophers don’t need to travel but what do you do when you’re a historian and you need to consult historical records in another country? You are listing"the study of the performing art" how do you think people are studying these without going to the representations? And i may be biased because it’s what i am currently studying but how are we supposed to study geography without travelling???