I’ve known about Stanley Fish since my days as an English major undergrad. I liked his wit, provocative intellectual positions, and general insight into literature, writing and criticism. Seemed like a sharp guy.
So I have been intrigued to see him become a columnist for the NYT. I have not taken the time to read many of his columns, but I just read this posting, Will the Humanities Save Us?, and it touched a topic dear to my liberal arts heart. What are the humanities good for, after all? I believed in them, loved them, chose to major in English and became an English teacher so I could pass along my passion to future generations. So the topic sparked a nostalgic moment for me, taking me back to those “halcyon” days(ha, ha, as if they were all just dreamy wonderful, but that’s a discussion for another posting).
I think Fish makes a valid case (not surprisingly, since he is Stanley Fish). I like the way he got me going with the passionate defense of humanities, and then brought me back down to earth, where the humanities are not so heavenly wondrous, but simply are worthy because so many people enjoy and value them. They are valuable because people value them, essentially, and nothing more needs to be said.
It reminds me that less is sometimes more when it comes to an argument.
