Hacker News Reader

Comment by crux_ | Hacker News Reader

The US has a deep divide in academia between folks who wish the study of philosophy and literature had ended in 1950 or so, and those who embraced what came after (perhaps a little too strongly).

(Alternatively you could maybe draw the line with the end of the Enlightenment, but not quite as starkly...)

View on HN

Really? I've never met anyone in academia who wished the study of philosophy (or literature, for that matter) ended in 1950. There's definitely a division between the "Analytic Philosophy" and "Continental Philosophy" folks; and there are definitely warring schools of thought within English departments about what to read, and how-- but I've never seen a division aligned along chronological lines as you propose.

Could you offer an example of an academic who fits the "pre-1950" mode, so I can get a better idea of what you are driving at?

For more information on this see C.P. Snow's over half-century-old lecture, "The Two Cultures." Within it he posits a great rift between the humanities and the sciences. The lecture is very much relevant to this discussion. As a side note, Edge.org posits itself as an abridging third culture in direct relation to antagonisms between the humanities and sciences. Also on this front is 3 Quarks Daily, which is a more or less excellent feed of multi-discplinary geekdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._P._Snow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

http://edge.org/

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/

Great info, but a clarification of my comment may be in order: I wasn't talking about the "sciences" vs "humanities" divide (which is huge), but a divide that goes deeply within humanities itself, which is much more of a left/right divide (hence the "leftist" wording in the original article).

Do you mind expanding on this? I am having trouble seeing an internal divide within the humanities between those that want a continuation of the study of lit and phil and those that would like to see it cease. The reasoning that normally goes into the defense of lit and phil seems to be essential to the reasoning that might go into the defense of any sub-field of the humanities. Do you mean to posit an alliance of lit and phil with leftist politics and everything else with rightist politics?

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "1950" comment, is all -- making fun of one camp's deep backlash against post-modernism (among many other things).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com