[nilaykumar]

My university (in USA) has a rather large set of required "core" courses, the inner core of which are a full year of literature and a full year of western philosophy. We read and discuss, in these two years, on the order of 40 classic works (!) of philosophy and literature. I personally believe that this is an excellent experience for those who have had minimal contact with the world of humanities.

As a math+physics student with a bunch of friends in my university's engineering school, I hear all too often engineers disparaging the humanities as "useless", "bullshit", etc. and it's really quite disappointing and close-minded. They simply miss out on an incredibly important and fundamental part of the human experience. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance (historical or otherwise) of philosophy and literature, to the point where I would expect anyone who considers himself an "intellectual" to have had at least brief experiences with the humanities (or at least thought about difficult philosophical questions or whatnot on his own time).

[giardini]

For better or worse, a great deal of humanities (especially philosophy) has been rendered defunct (i.e., it's "bullshit") due to advances in science. So before studying philosophy one should study science, so that one knows what to keep and what to discard.

There's nothing worse than listening to a young person who is an eager proponent of, say, "postmodernist philosophy" when you know that he hasn't a whit of knowledge about evolution or science in general. I usually mumble "that's interesting" and shuffle off to another conversation.

But your point is well taken: philosophy still has much to contribute - a great deal of it passes through the scientific filter unscathed. But it is important to study science first. Only then does one have a firm foundation for examining philosophy.

[nilaykumar]

Agreed.

But keep in mind, the content is not all there is to it; the historical context and influence on society is also an integral part of the humanities. Or at least, that's what I think -- I try to take a historico-contextual approach to it, especially when I know, say, Aquinas' arguments don't hold water.

[Jacqued]

I would have thought "intellectuals" to be mostly (if not only) people focusing on the humanities (be it litterature, philosophy, history, social sciences...). For me (and every frenchman I think) at least, this word does not apply at all to people who are only proficient in hard sciences or engineering.

[nilaykumar]

Yes, I see what you mean.

I guess my intellectual is anyone who has built up a strong foundation of techniques for analytical thinking, whether it be from the sciences or the arts. In some sense, I think that any such intellectual should be aware of this huge background of literature/philosophy that has come to shape Western civilization; it is important for scientists and engineers, who make a significant practical impact on the world in all sorts of ways, to understand the basic ideas and assumptions of Western civilization, especially in today's increasingly cross-cultural world.

[charlieflowers]

I think you meant to say "impossible to overstate"

[nilaykumar]

Oops! Thanks!