"Perhaps there is a kind of beauty in this perpetual struggle, a beauty that lies in the very impossibility of resolution. For it is in this tension, this dialectic between the objective and the subjective, that we find the essence of human existence—a search for truth that is both eternal and elusive."
This part in particular really resonates with me. I remind myself that most people do not have the time, opportunity or inclination to ponder these questions deeply, because they're busy with the tasks of daily survival - whether that's base material survival, or the struggle through some adverse event. Hardship has a way of adding clarity, not to what is objectively true, but to what is important to you as an individual; what you're most driven to achieve and/or conserve.
In that sense, I think it's important not to get too lost in trying to chase these "eternal and elusive" questions. As you put it, you need the "intellectual and moral courage" to follow your inclinations, wherever they may lead, understanding that you and the people around you may not always be thrilled with the destination.
As a layperson, it seems to me that normal people in the western world still have an enlightenment way of thinking. From the carpenter's apprentice, trying to figure out the best way to hit a nail, to the scientist figuring out how to make a Covid vaccine.
Academics in the humanities might think that Kant, Derrida etc. made good points, but grunts like me haven't read them, because the enlightenment ideas are so obviously true
Academics seem to be the only ones detached from reality. And also traditionally religious and superstitious people all over the world who haven't yet made it to the enlightenment.
The world today is so enjoyable thanks to people who have discovered increasingly more details about reality.
To us, the ancient proponents of objective reality being discovered by reason don't seem "quaint", but rather "prophetic".
You are, in a way, describing a fundamental truth: that the values of the Enlightenment—reason, empirical inquiry, the belief in objective truth—remain central to how much of the Western world processes. From the carpenter’s apprentice to the scientist, tenaciously developing cures, these are not merely technical accomplishments. They are expressions of a deeper belief that the world is, in some sense, knowable, that through reason and observation, we can uncover the rules that rule it.
This is, of course, the core of Enlightenment thought: that reason and science are the best means we have to understand the world and improve our lives. It’s a mindset that has served humanity well in countless ways, forcing advances that have brought us out of the darkness of ignorance. Indeed, the enjoyment of life today—our comfort, our convenience, our safety—owes itself to those who took this belief seriously. Those who, in the past, dared to think that the universe could be understood through reason and not solely through superstition, religion, or tradition. Their faith in reason, their commitment to uncovering reality, is the very foundation upon which the "modern" world is built.
Yet, when it comes to the humanities and the so-called “detachment” of academics, I must diverge from this view. The criticism of intellectuals in the humanities, as somehow detached from reality, seems unfair. It’s not that their work isn’t relevant; rather, their role in society is to challenge the very assumptions that underpin our understanding of the world. The task of philosophy is not to deliver spartan, immediate solutions, but to provoke thought, question enduring ideologies, and uncover the complexities beneath what we often take for granted. In this sense, the humanities contribute just as much to our understanding of the world as the sciences do—by questioning how we know what we know, and why we believe what we believe.
Rather than being out of touch with reality, humanities scholars engage with the deeper, more conceptual layers of human experience. Theirs is an inquiry not just of facts, but of meaning, morality, culture, and consciousness—things that are no less real for being harder to quantify. Without such inquiry, we risk losing sight of the more extensive questions: What is the nature of truth? What does it mean to lead a good life? How do we navigate the complexities of human existence in a world that, despite all its technological advances, remains full of ambiguity?
Thus, the actual value of the humanities lies not in delivering definitive answers, but in acquiring the intellectual tools necessary to navigate a world that is as much shaped by our perceptions and values as by empirical facts. The humanities offer a critical lens through which we can evaluate the very assumptions that fuel both science and society—and in doing so, they remain fundamentally connected to the realities of our shared existence.
Thank you for taking up the defense of the Humanities, Dilay, I am interested in this subject as I think it's critical not only for the understanding, but of the very existence, of culture and society.
For the modern westerner, it is impossible to understand, or evaluate such a cultural or economic institution as "The Humanities," outside of the context in which we live in the West. To be an academic here, is first and foremost an economic position - an occupation.
You are an artist, social writer, communicator, and an academic. This is a combination you simply never find here. As the economy determines political and culture identities, the Humanities in the West is populated by the equivalent of the priest and sheperd class.
Western Academics are not artists, creators or thinkers. I'm self-taught (I stopped participating in school when I was 12 and dropped out when I was 16). I started my own homeschooling program, I've taught in private schools, I can build a house from the ground-up, I've made my own electric guitar and amplifier. I worked at a Wall St. Bank as a market data analyst for their foreign exchange department. I was giving lectures on globalization to international audiences when I was in my early 20's and I've made a living doing all kinds off odd things in between. Besides you, I've never met an academic who could hold an interesting conversation in their area of study, let alone listen to one, without getting the same glazed look they tend to induce in their students. Academics are professionals and only consider their studies and teaching duties 'a job.' When the bell rings, they 'teach' when they're off the clock, they like to 'hang out like everyone else.'
You describe and embody the archetype so well. I believe it when you say it. It is the truth. But reality here is different.
The whole of our thoughts, beliefs, ideas and suppositions laid out in this post. A bit like a help yourself table. What did the article do for me? What did I gain from it? Did it give me any insights that perhaps firmed my tentative, half formed insight into the nature of reality?
It’s such a huge amount of knowings, wantings, believings and fundamental ignorance. All I know is that I don’t know enough.
I led a debate at school, well I led two debates, one on Foxhunting, I was pro and I won that one but the second was the premise ‘ That what we see, hear and believe is not static. If the perception of a certain accepted reality changes is it that our perception becomes the reality that has changed”.
So, I said “ In our society, slavery is evil and anyone who has, or buys another human being and forcibly keeps them in servitude and has the right of life and death over them is a monstrous human being”. All the audience agreed with that. Then I said. “What if you think that the humans that you have enslaved are not really human and that they are better off with permanent food and shelter in exchange for their labour. Surely if they are sick or injured it’s good that there is a doctor to see them”. ( I don’t remember my exact words but these are close enough)
Now we had a slight change although many speakers from the floor were still vehemently against slavery. After they had said their piece I said “ Do you think it’s wrong to ride horses. Do you think that it is cruel? If you believed that your enslaved humans were about on the level of horses, what then.”
The we got into social attitudes and beliefs and some people said that if that was their sincere belief then slavery would be fine especially if they lived somewhere where almost everyone had slaves. So, their opinions had changed not just their ideas but their agreement with something that they had thought of as an evil abomination. Their viewpoint of a certain situation had changed because it had been presented to them differently. The situation had not changed but because their opinion had been altered they were seeing a different reality, one where slavery was almost benign. So, that is one idea on reality being subjective.
What I'd ask, though, is whether any person's "opinion" on whether anything is good or bad is what determines what is ACTUALLY good or bad. I may think something is good, and simply be wrong. That's a very brief version of the objectivity argument, but you get the point. What do you think of this?
"Perhaps there is a kind of beauty in this perpetual struggle, a beauty that lies in the very impossibility of resolution. For it is in this tension, this dialectic between the objective and the subjective, that we find the essence of human existence—a search for truth that is both eternal and elusive."
This part in particular really resonates with me. I remind myself that most people do not have the time, opportunity or inclination to ponder these questions deeply, because they're busy with the tasks of daily survival - whether that's base material survival, or the struggle through some adverse event. Hardship has a way of adding clarity, not to what is objectively true, but to what is important to you as an individual; what you're most driven to achieve and/or conserve.
In that sense, I think it's important not to get too lost in trying to chase these "eternal and elusive" questions. As you put it, you need the "intellectual and moral courage" to follow your inclinations, wherever they may lead, understanding that you and the people around you may not always be thrilled with the destination.
Thanks for the great read.
Wonderfully said. The absence of intrinsic meaning challenges us to create and interpret as best as we can and constantly at that.
As a layperson, it seems to me that normal people in the western world still have an enlightenment way of thinking. From the carpenter's apprentice, trying to figure out the best way to hit a nail, to the scientist figuring out how to make a Covid vaccine.
Academics in the humanities might think that Kant, Derrida etc. made good points, but grunts like me haven't read them, because the enlightenment ideas are so obviously true
Academics seem to be the only ones detached from reality. And also traditionally religious and superstitious people all over the world who haven't yet made it to the enlightenment.
The world today is so enjoyable thanks to people who have discovered increasingly more details about reality.
To us, the ancient proponents of objective reality being discovered by reason don't seem "quaint", but rather "prophetic".
You are, in a way, describing a fundamental truth: that the values of the Enlightenment—reason, empirical inquiry, the belief in objective truth—remain central to how much of the Western world processes. From the carpenter’s apprentice to the scientist, tenaciously developing cures, these are not merely technical accomplishments. They are expressions of a deeper belief that the world is, in some sense, knowable, that through reason and observation, we can uncover the rules that rule it.
This is, of course, the core of Enlightenment thought: that reason and science are the best means we have to understand the world and improve our lives. It’s a mindset that has served humanity well in countless ways, forcing advances that have brought us out of the darkness of ignorance. Indeed, the enjoyment of life today—our comfort, our convenience, our safety—owes itself to those who took this belief seriously. Those who, in the past, dared to think that the universe could be understood through reason and not solely through superstition, religion, or tradition. Their faith in reason, their commitment to uncovering reality, is the very foundation upon which the "modern" world is built.
Yet, when it comes to the humanities and the so-called “detachment” of academics, I must diverge from this view. The criticism of intellectuals in the humanities, as somehow detached from reality, seems unfair. It’s not that their work isn’t relevant; rather, their role in society is to challenge the very assumptions that underpin our understanding of the world. The task of philosophy is not to deliver spartan, immediate solutions, but to provoke thought, question enduring ideologies, and uncover the complexities beneath what we often take for granted. In this sense, the humanities contribute just as much to our understanding of the world as the sciences do—by questioning how we know what we know, and why we believe what we believe.
Rather than being out of touch with reality, humanities scholars engage with the deeper, more conceptual layers of human experience. Theirs is an inquiry not just of facts, but of meaning, morality, culture, and consciousness—things that are no less real for being harder to quantify. Without such inquiry, we risk losing sight of the more extensive questions: What is the nature of truth? What does it mean to lead a good life? How do we navigate the complexities of human existence in a world that, despite all its technological advances, remains full of ambiguity?
Thus, the actual value of the humanities lies not in delivering definitive answers, but in acquiring the intellectual tools necessary to navigate a world that is as much shaped by our perceptions and values as by empirical facts. The humanities offer a critical lens through which we can evaluate the very assumptions that fuel both science and society—and in doing so, they remain fundamentally connected to the realities of our shared existence.
Thank you for taking up the defense of the Humanities, Dilay, I am interested in this subject as I think it's critical not only for the understanding, but of the very existence, of culture and society.
For the modern westerner, it is impossible to understand, or evaluate such a cultural or economic institution as "The Humanities," outside of the context in which we live in the West. To be an academic here, is first and foremost an economic position - an occupation.
You are an artist, social writer, communicator, and an academic. This is a combination you simply never find here. As the economy determines political and culture identities, the Humanities in the West is populated by the equivalent of the priest and sheperd class.
Western Academics are not artists, creators or thinkers. I'm self-taught (I stopped participating in school when I was 12 and dropped out when I was 16). I started my own homeschooling program, I've taught in private schools, I can build a house from the ground-up, I've made my own electric guitar and amplifier. I worked at a Wall St. Bank as a market data analyst for their foreign exchange department. I was giving lectures on globalization to international audiences when I was in my early 20's and I've made a living doing all kinds off odd things in between. Besides you, I've never met an academic who could hold an interesting conversation in their area of study, let alone listen to one, without getting the same glazed look they tend to induce in their students. Academics are professionals and only consider their studies and teaching duties 'a job.' When the bell rings, they 'teach' when they're off the clock, they like to 'hang out like everyone else.'
You describe and embody the archetype so well. I believe it when you say it. It is the truth. But reality here is different.
I loved the article, it was certainly thought provoking and led me into the backwaters if my young teenage years. Thank you for sharing.xx
The whole of our thoughts, beliefs, ideas and suppositions laid out in this post. A bit like a help yourself table. What did the article do for me? What did I gain from it? Did it give me any insights that perhaps firmed my tentative, half formed insight into the nature of reality?
It’s such a huge amount of knowings, wantings, believings and fundamental ignorance. All I know is that I don’t know enough.
I led a debate at school, well I led two debates, one on Foxhunting, I was pro and I won that one but the second was the premise ‘ That what we see, hear and believe is not static. If the perception of a certain accepted reality changes is it that our perception becomes the reality that has changed”.
So, I said “ In our society, slavery is evil and anyone who has, or buys another human being and forcibly keeps them in servitude and has the right of life and death over them is a monstrous human being”. All the audience agreed with that. Then I said. “What if you think that the humans that you have enslaved are not really human and that they are better off with permanent food and shelter in exchange for their labour. Surely if they are sick or injured it’s good that there is a doctor to see them”. ( I don’t remember my exact words but these are close enough)
Now we had a slight change although many speakers from the floor were still vehemently against slavery. After they had said their piece I said “ Do you think it’s wrong to ride horses. Do you think that it is cruel? If you believed that your enslaved humans were about on the level of horses, what then.”
The we got into social attitudes and beliefs and some people said that if that was their sincere belief then slavery would be fine especially if they lived somewhere where almost everyone had slaves. So, their opinions had changed not just their ideas but their agreement with something that they had thought of as an evil abomination. Their viewpoint of a certain situation had changed because it had been presented to them differently. The situation had not changed but because their opinion had been altered they were seeing a different reality, one where slavery was almost benign. So, that is one idea on reality being subjective.
What I'd ask, though, is whether any person's "opinion" on whether anything is good or bad is what determines what is ACTUALLY good or bad. I may think something is good, and simply be wrong. That's a very brief version of the objectivity argument, but you get the point. What do you think of this?
I feel like I just drank from a fire hydrant - but in the best way. So much to sit with and consider here.
Well I hope it made you question at the very least. Thank you so much.
Oh, for sure! I'm going to be wrestling with the questions for a while. . .
Thanks for taking the time to pull this together - it was an excellent read.
I'm honoured! It was a pleasure.
You girls sing from my same fucking songs 🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷🩷
YAYYY! 💗🫂🎀🧚🏻♀️🥳
omg 2 of my fav people?! i need to read this at least twice 😭
That's the best thing I've ever heard in a while. 😭 Much love! 💗
YOU'RE THE SWEETEST :)