interdiscipline arrogance

[jukeboxhound_backup]

I fear that my Anthropology of Religion class is rather more infuriating than educational.  Even given the bias of my having been (officially) in a single discipline for four years, these class discussions are wishy-washy nonsense with apparently little to do with logic or analysis and rife with the kinds of assumptions for which any half-decent philosophy professor would fail a student.  Granted, anthropology is a subject that by definition is more concerned with cultural evidence, not potentially biased judgment, but...seriously, logic shouldn't be anathema.  *violent twitch*

Comments

[artimusdin.livejournal.com]

*is amused at your rage*

[jukeboxhound.livejournal.com]

DON'T YOU PATRONIZE ME, YOU - YOU AQUARIUS.

[artimusdin.livejournal.com]

... that sounds downright kinky. <3

[jukeboxhound.livejournal.com]

...Did I miss something? o.O

[artimusdin.livejournal.com]

Why yes, apparently you did. <3 See the third definition of patronize. I'm sure you can infer my meaning from there. *leers*

[jukeboxhound.livejournal.com]

*facepalms* I'm an idiot for not catching that.

...Shh, don't agree with me.

[artimusdin.livejournal.com]

*chortles* *loves on you*

[jukeboxhound.livejournal.com]

<3

[pyrotechnik.livejournal.com]

So wait, because I am an anthropologist and I took a class just like this one. I just want to understand something. Is there any discussion about different religions, the pantheons, and common themes? Because basically, this class should look at various religions and their similarities, differences, and impacts on those who follow them. For example, we discussed how religions had to be practical. If the religion kills off all its followers, it isn't going to last very long. Things like that. You don't do this in your class?

[jukeboxhound.livejournal.com]

Haven't so far, though to be fair, the quarter just started. We spent nearly two hours talking about science and religion - during which I had to point out that everyone was basing their arguments on other assumptions about the nature of the two - and then the difference between religion and spirituality. And...that's it. Unless you count numerous personal anecdotes that really weren't very interesting at all or particularly relevant. I don't remember what the first couple classes were about except that the subjects were too vague to really mean anything. It's like OOOH SPIRITUALITY YAY 8D.

I took some folklore classes in Ireland that focused on general themes and then used specific examples to demonstrate their practical use in daily life. It was wonderful. This isn't. >:(

(Though I didn't intend to diss your whole discipline, just this course. Sorry. ^^;)

[pyrotechnik.livejournal.com]

I detected no dissing. ^^ i think if something makes no sense and there is no supportive evidence, it MUST be questioned (this is why I failed the God portion of my philosophy course, God cannot, apparently, be quantified). I'll accept the idea, provided you can give me cold, hard facts to back it up. Anthropology may be a soft science, but it is still a SCIENCE. This means "I think" and "I feel" and "I believe" don't matter unless you can back it up. And the Bible doesn't count, because in this case, it is simply a historical reference. So is the Koran, and the Torah, and any other spiritual book, text,or reference. The hard core religious folks have trouble with that one. ^^
*gets off soapbox*

[jukeboxhound.livejournal.com]

...*loves on you*

Ahaha, and the arguments around God were among the most interesting to me. I love differences like this. 8D

[cloudstrifejen.livejournal.com]

Quite amusing with the discussions and arguments with religion and science and what not! I feel your rage, girl...... So tiring.

[jukeboxhound.livejournal.com]

The raaaaage-- *channels 28 Days Later*

Also: icon love. XD