Opinions

[Anonymous No.12392999]

Part of a research paper I've submitted, what does /lit/ think? Can post more.

To be clear, there are natural divisions within fields of study, a surgeon need not know how to calculate the length of a spiral based on its angle. However just as Euclidies could not envision a three-dimensional curve in math’s, we too have become blinded on how we cannot deconstruct everything without humans as the core issue to be taken into consideration and the interactions between the deconstructed subjects. This holds especially true for Social Sciences in comparison with Natural Sciences since we deal more with humans who are complex creatures and cannot be examined from a singular point of view. You cannot examine language as a bubble. Language exists in a complex structure of intersections between all the social sciences since it serves as our medium of communication.

To elaborate on my last point, it is a failure on the regard of academics to not see the damage we have caused to our own fields of study by examining it through the lens of any one particular subject. More often than not I will read a study or a research paper examining a piece of literature in order to determine its validity from a Marxist standpoint or from a Feminist lens or from any singular point of examination, whether it be an attempt at quantitative or qualitative analysis, and ignoring the myriad of other attributes associated with the text. By slicing up the text, its examination serves such a myopic vision that anything is assessable in order to prove any point as long as the examination is rigorous enough. Everything written is in support of freedom of speech, everything written is oppression for people who speak, mankind has always oppressed women, men have died in wars and have been rewarded with nothing but platitudes. Anything is provable and everything is up for grabs.

[Anonymous No.12393012]

This is not to say that every piece of text ought to be examined through every single possible perspective but it ought to be examined by the content of its Language. Instead of examining ‘Das Kapital’ from a Feminist perspective, it ought to be analyzed from a Marxist or Capitalist or as a criticism of an economic doctrine. The same goes for novels which have nothing to with the subject at hand, a feminist critique of ‘Lord of the Rings’ would serve no purpose but a critique of it as fantasy would. Beyond that, an examination of the context it was written in would serve a greater purpose than an examination of a piece of literature in today’s context since the author did not write it for today but for yesterday.
Going back to my original point, further examination of the separate fields of linguistics yields a deluge of problematic studies and statements. Each paper attempts to deal with issues related to their field but fails to examine the overall context of any particular situation, i.e. Humans and Reality. World Englishes will often attempt to fight back against establishing a global standard of English based on the standards of English in the West but ignore the context of human association with the language and culture. The human nature of protectiveness over what it perceives as its own and a basic understanding of collective human thought which is related to the field of psychology. Syntax and Semantics try to formulate established methods of the formation of grammar and its relationship with meaning but such an examination is nigh impossible without a deeper understanding of neurology, psychology and a myriad of other components which play a role within humans.