The Burden of the Humanities, Wilfred M. McClay, 2008

If in modern America, people are doing “nice” things and labeling them as humanitarian efforts, I don’t think it calls for any sort of swift kick to anywhere. Obviously the wisdom gained from studying humanities has led these people to act upon their values to create animal shelters and tree-planting projects. Wilfred M. McClay discredits these accomplishments in his opening which in turn discredits the remainder of his text. Later McClay attacks the “airy-fairy” interpretation of humanities, and he regains some of my trust. There’s a distinct difference between the two sets of victimized humanitarians: one offers a product, the other doesn’t. With a tangible product comes a greater sense of purpose; so the “nice” people have found this as their expression of the humanities. However Don Randel’s definition lacks a product – other than optometrist bills from reading by candlelight – which makes his interpretation of the humanities harder to adopt, it lacks an answer to the question, “What is the purpose?” Also, this question applied to life is existential, probably universal and then the answers of course are contingent. Although he doesn’t state explicitly that the definition of humanities is contingent, he describes the humanities as being distinctive, “the world as we find it”, “as it appears to us”, our picture of reality” (37).

Therefore, I do not agree that the humanities are solely a corrective mechanism. Instead, it is a highly ambiguous area (as proven by the constant attempts to define it) which is full of questions. For example, “What does it mean to be human?” The answer is contingent, and in comparing different answers a person can solidify their beliefs. “An unexamined life is not worth living,” is an applicable quote from Socrates. The humanities provide different lenses through which people can examine their lives.