Why did parents stop teaching their children languages and humanities?
It seems like kids don't know a thing about history until grade school. And, since everyone goes to public school, Bible stories aren't taught and Greek mythology isn't touched on until high school?
What happened to the sophistication of Western society?
there was a push for STEM fields because its what we needed for much of US history and it "made money"
because most parents are filthy dumb mouth-breathing morons
Because we now have a vocational view of education. You see this, at least in the US, when the topic of high school education reform comes up. One of the most common complaints is that much of the classes a student spends their time in have nothing to do with their future job. Whether or not this is correct, it shows a value-shift towards practical and lucrative skills rather than any higher minded learning.
The reason this attitude is so prominent is probably worthy of a PHD dissertation. I mean it arguably stems back to the industrial revolution. Not to mention some of the post world war mentality.
>it shows a value-shift towards practical and lucrative skills rather than any higher minded learning.
As far as I can tell the emphasis still rests heavily on "go to university and you'll get a job kiddo ;^)" instead of "how about you learn a fucking trade we could do with plumbers not more women's studies majors."
There's some of that but even with parents who urge their kids to go to university there's a heavy emphasis on more lucrative degrees like STEM or finance or medicine or whatever. Humanities and art majors are the butt of many jokes.
Because studying languages can take you only so far.
And no one is interested in History, so that it can repeat itself and benefit only those that do.
Because science and economy are magnitudes more important and thought inducing than humanities
People want their children to be doctors and lawyers not pseudo intellectuals
because you'll end up paying thousands of dollars for shit you coulda just found out by going to a decent library.
In the US no one cares to teach their children other languages because it would be worthless. Everyone in the US speaks English and abroad many countries have accommodations for English speaking tourists, as well as locals that probably learned the language to some level in school. The only people that I know that speak other languages either have Spanish parents, or went to college to learn whatever language for a future career.
Soon user, when we reach post-scarcity.
Or weebs
t. weeb
STEMlard automatons
desu lad you're probably thinking of the upper class upbringing. They could teach kids these things because they had the money to hire tutors. Also many times it wasn't terribly important that the aristocracy actually knew how to do anything since they inherited their wealth but they needed to appear cultured for social occasions
Idk I could be talking out of my ass here but I feel like thats it. I don't think the average person of the past knew jack shit more than they do today
Correct, in the past it wasn't normal to stay in school past grade 8 unless your folks were well to do and could afford to support your academic endeavors. Otherwise you just started working at the family business or factory or whatever else.
Classical studies, Philosophy, In-depth history, Science and Math beyond rudimentary shit. All of this was reserved for the upper and burgeoning middle classes until about the 20th century. And even then you'd still have teenagers in Oklahoma dropping out at 12 to help farm beets or whatever.
Bait
reality isn't bait.
circlejerking about kierkegaard or marx isn't going to make you money.
Well you can if you're good at it.
But if all you care about is money then you should probably stop wasting valuable working hours arguing with us humanities shitters and take up an extra shift.
truly buttblasted.
I'm a commercial art scum anyways, not a stemlord, so I'm barely better than you.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is worked up and getting spittle on the keyboard.
You obviously know however that there are other concerns than money when choosing a path of study or life goal, otherwise you would have gone into engineering or finance or became a plumber.
>All of this was reserved for the upper and burgeoning middle classes until about the 20th century.
What about oral histories, stuff passed on through song and tales? Kids these days don't even get that, they get nigger music about fucking hot chicks and driving fancy cars, while their tales are about a happy little unicorn that prances about in meadows or some other gay shit.
>assuming I'm communist
By your logic you can apparently go to a library to learn just about anything. They have engineering text books. For God's sake, why the hell do we spend money on schools when we could just go to the library on our own time and read the books?
I'm not bashing stem, I'm just wondering when it became the norm to only have one interest. You can't be creative and artistic if you're an engineer and you can't offer any productive value if you're a writer. I'm actually blaming the humanities for this as it went from philosophy and mutually benefiting with the rise of technology, to bashing society and becoming fully communist.
Yeah the art of oral storytelling has been completely lost. I was reading an article that was about Dostoevsky's characters and their apparent long-windedness. In particular there's a couple situations in The Brothers Karamazov where a modern reader might find it almost absurd that a dinner party would sit and listen to someone relay a parable that extended for pages and pages.
When really people in that era, before television and radios and god fucking damn the internet. Before all that, people would sit and be enraptured by stories just told by one man. These would go on for 30 minutes up to hours at times. The level to which our conversations have sunk, that we don't have these storytellers anymore, it's worth grieving.
>I'm actually blaming the humanities for this as it went from philosophy and mutually benefiting with the rise of technology, to bashing society and becoming fully communist.
Could you elaborate more on this because it's really vague.
Humanities used to coexist in western society with the sciences. I'm fact, it was the driving force. Art and philosophy lead to a deeper understanding and respect for scientific knowledge. Many artists incorporated mathematical occurrences and sequences into their art because it made the art more in depth and natural. After the collapse of Rome, we saw a void of culture and art in Western Europe. Alchemy and other physical sciences began to reign supreme without any artistic guidance during the dark ages. The Renaissance brought art back and science and humanities began to coexist once again. I would say that they existed together well, but maybe in a darker, grittier way, during the industrial revolutions of Western nations. The cleanliness of art and math began to fade and steel and sickle started to reign. It really just became quite depressing. Industry, and uncultured scientific advancement led into another age of darkness. BUT, instead of art coming around to take advantage of that situation, it really has just become worthless. Every "great" work today is just a criticism of modern society. The closest thing to art working with science today is programming and web design.
>I'm actually blaming the humanities for this as it went from philosophy and mutually benefiting with the rise of technology, to bashing society and becoming fully communist.
>Could you elaborate more on this because it's really vague.
Art seems to think that the grit of industrialism stems from capitalism and free enterprise. They think that a socialist environment will lead to the romanticism that used to dominate. Instead of the humanities evolving with the modern times, they're actually really just trying to hold us back.
I think it's really painting with broad strokes to posit that all or most of academics involved in the humanities are hardcore marxists. Maybe people in social science departments lean on marxist theory a lot but that's about all I could think of.
This specific phenomenon:
>They think that a socialist environment will lead to the romanticism that used to dominate
I personally haven't seen. If anything Marxism is very solidly materialist and the romantic era judged as wholly bourgeois.
Most I'm academia are completely influenced by Marxism. You can't deny that.
Humanities and Science became enemies around the time of the Red Scare and I can't find another thing to blame it on other than Marxism.
> teach your child history of the humanity
> he is flipping hamburgers 16 hours a day
Humanities are good hobby, but a shit degree.
Right. That would also create more competition and, in turn, better schooling.
STEMlord here, my dad always pushed me to learn about the natural world (e.g. how the world functions in a practical manner), history, languages, politics, philosophy...
But I am a STEMfag like him, why? Because of the ability to impact the world that comes from practical knowledge.
As an addendum,
I'm not saying the humanities are useless, here is a better explanation:
Practical fields -> action, impact upon the world, changes what you can perceive
Abstract fields -> reflection, impact upon views, changes how you perceive
Both could walk hand in hand but certain views like completely destructive antimaterialist views or completely destructive ultramaterialist views can hinder that.
my argument in this thread has been that tech and humanities have deviated from each other in modern western society. People don't see how they mutually benefit from each other anymore.