So, this might be a little rant-y and incoherent, but I'm genuinely curious to know other people's opinions on this.
Recently, I've had to think about the "Classics" more than usual because I'm taking a course through the Classics department at my university, and I really have a hard time seeing the point of the field. For those who might not know, Classics is basically the study of ancient Greek and Roman cultures, usually through language, literature, philosophy, and sometimes archaeology (although classical archaeology is a little different, and I'll get to that later). My problem with it comes from the arbitrarily narrow focus of study. Pretty much all of that stuff fits under other fields of study, and I don't see the point of separating the Greek and Roman stuff just because it's Greek and Roman. It also seems like it could be harmful to the overall study of those fields; for example, the class I'm taking is comparative mythology, and the instructor obviously doesn't know much outside of Greek and Roman mythology. If you're going to be a person who studies a field, be it philosophy, folklore, or whatever, narrowing your focus that much limits your ability to be able to really study the subject, because you're limiting your scope to two cultures (or three, if you count Egypt).
Classical archaeology gets to specific complaints from me because I'm currently studying to be an archaeologist. The narrow focus is more of a complaint for me here, because I think other cultures are worthy of study, too. Sure, Greek and Roman sites have some really impressive stuff, but there should be more to archaeology than that. It's also a kind of archaeology that has had a ton of research already contributed to it, so the chance to do something actually new is diminished. Not that that complaint can't apply to the more literary classics, too, since it's focused on the study of things that have already been studied for thousands of years. I guess I have a hard time seeing much value in a field based on regurgitating stuff other people have already done.
Overall, it just seems like a very archaic field to me. I get that people in the 19th century really cared about the Greeks and Romans, but what's the point of such a narrow focus now? Other people have done important things worth talking about, too.
Recently, I've had to think about the "Classics" more than usual because I'm taking a course through the Classics department at my university, and I really have a hard time seeing the point of the field. For those who might not know, Classics is basically the study of ancient Greek and Roman cultures, usually through language, literature, philosophy, and sometimes archaeology (although classical archaeology is a little different, and I'll get to that later). My problem with it comes from the arbitrarily narrow focus of study. Pretty much all of that stuff fits under other fields of study, and I don't see the point of separating the Greek and Roman stuff just because it's Greek and Roman. It also seems like it could be harmful to the overall study of those fields; for example, the class I'm taking is comparative mythology, and the instructor obviously doesn't know much outside of Greek and Roman mythology. If you're going to be a person who studies a field, be it philosophy, folklore, or whatever, narrowing your focus that much limits your ability to be able to really study the subject, because you're limiting your scope to two cultures (or three, if you count Egypt).
Classical archaeology gets to specific complaints from me because I'm currently studying to be an archaeologist. The narrow focus is more of a complaint for me here, because I think other cultures are worthy of study, too. Sure, Greek and Roman sites have some really impressive stuff, but there should be more to archaeology than that. It's also a kind of archaeology that has had a ton of research already contributed to it, so the chance to do something actually new is diminished. Not that that complaint can't apply to the more literary classics, too, since it's focused on the study of things that have already been studied for thousands of years. I guess I have a hard time seeing much value in a field based on regurgitating stuff other people have already done.
Overall, it just seems like a very archaic field to me. I get that people in the 19th century really cared about the Greeks and Romans, but what's the point of such a narrow focus now? Other people have done important things worth talking about, too.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1lYR47U
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire