Aspergers and the Humanities

Post Reply New Topic

I respectively disagree. The thought processes that underline both science and art are quite complimentary. But, then again, I've always had the ability the "see" connections that most people are oblivious too.

Gothic cathedrals are excellent examples of a "science/art" marriage.



For most of human experience, there is no "one way to the truth." Science describes the physical world; it doesn't tell us how to interpret it in relation to our everyday lives.

And, from a viewpoint of pure survival, we don't really need "science" either.

---- again sorry if I offend and it's a rant-like, I didn't mind my wording much ----

But of course. However statistically that's the impression I get.

Yes art can provide with objective knowledge and that which does that is the most valuable. However that does not move art up in that hierarchy, but that's why art is included at all.

Subjective experiences are classified which provides means for obtaining certain general observations which are crucial to our understanding of ourselves.

I very much agree about this "better" thing, however, if we measure "betterness" by a criteria of objectivity science comes on top. That's about it. There is no subjective reasoning here. Grapes are superior to oranges regarding amount of resveratrol they contain. And thus based on this they would probably be higher on the "foods for longevity" scale.


Yes but there are deep cultural reasons for that, I think. In my experience art always comes on top in the eyes of people nor do people appreciate science. Very often they don't even know what science really is. While everyone these days is an artist.

------------------------------------------

I don't see value of art that much compared to science. Art is subjective and random. As far as I am concerned I could survive without any art at all with other people like me. I believe in science and there is nothing more beautiful than nature itself.

I often get the feeling that the meaning of art is bloated out of proportion. (again, sorry if I offend anyone)
To me mathematics is the most amazing art of all.


I don't understand what is there to interpret.


Yes for that we might need art or something like that perhaps. But to evolve we cannot do that without science.

Science is what gives us the ultimate truth. It encompasses art as well, I bet it can be entangled and there are already formulas for art. Subjective experience is just merely a subset of a more general theory. And art is in a way a good source for data of the social experiment.

To each his own. I'm just saying there is some fundamental differences between hard art and hard science in theory, and this may be why I don't like stuff the blend art and science in theory like the humanities; I'm all for incorporating science into art, but less so for incorporating art into science, if that makes sense.

It's mixed for me.
I love and excel in all of the hard sciences.
Physics is my favorite. Biology, no so much.

But the humanities, I'm mostly not so good at.
I like art, I consider myself an artist. I'm not even sure it should be grouped in with the humanities.
I'm more of a graphic artist than a fine artist. I can't draw a person to save my life, but I can design a top notch web site, or design an incredible building. I don't "sketch", I'm a "hard line" artist, I use rulers & computers for my art. My color perception is excellent, and I understand how colors go together.

But social science, literature, etc. mostly yuk!
But I do have an appreciation for history. I'm curious about those things that they don't teach in school, and why they are not taught. It reveals a lot about society.

But Shakespeare.... UGH!! ! horrible, incomprehensible nonsense to me. It was absolute torture to have to read that garbage in high school.

I follow history and art better. I can follow scientific concepts pretty well if its presented in a pop science way but I'm terrible at math.

I think it is the subjectivity of the humanities versus the objectivity of the sciences that causes many people to feel this way. However, it is that very subjectivity that makes them so fascinating for some. Yes, the lack of objectivity does allow some BS artists to thrive in that sort of academic environment. But do not make the mistake of assuming that because one cannot rely solely on logic and reason, that these subjects are of less value.

I like humanities better, and, actually, I have a degree at that. There is logic here, and it requires analytical insight. It is not as much measurable as hard science, but there are still rules that govern relations, concepts and motivations (for example).
When I was younger, I was certain that I would study biology or chemistry. However, professors later on were very, very bad, dull and slowly destroyed my interest. And in the same time, I wanted to understand social world around me because I thought understanding of it would help me function better. Well, anyway, it helped me understand it better but I am still functioning more or less the same.

i like the humanities and social sciences and faculty of arts(not art) courses better than other subjects. built enviro, engineering, chemical sciences all bore me. i'm not sure what medicine is like so i cant speak for them. law faculty is alright- or the 2 subjects i have done from that faculty were ok and they were pretty similar to arts courses. subjects from the faculty of arts are far better but are viewed as inferior. when courses at a uni are cut they are the first to go and if you are not in the faculty of arts then you get made fun of constantly for being in an arts degree. its a shame because the subjects from that faculty are the most scintillating and really help you understand the world around you and encourage you to think. all the other faculties are like brain death.

Why not? For some reason I think my aspie brain wants to do just that..

Is economics a "humanity"? I love economics.

Watch that scene in The Princess Bride with the cup of poison. Logic and Reason can't always be relied on with tangible concepts. Blind luck and chance are real, yet logic and reason can't predict them.

As for me, I only have an interest in mechanical objects. They're easy to understand.

An intelligent man wouldn't gamble his life. Therefor it can be reasoned that the game is rigged somehow.

I like humanities more than "hard sciences", but I can appreciate both.

I don't think you can compare emotion-oriented subjects with logic-oriented subjects. It's like asking "is a train faster or is jam sweeter?" (I probably didn't translate this proverrb well enough from my native language, but I hope it's understandable).

I love humanities. I love literature. I love poetry. AND, I'm currently writing a book I've been working on since 2005.

Why not? Logic can encompass everything. It might be faulty and fallacious but it's all there is.