 |
 |
At 04:31 PM 5/19/2010, Murray Eisenberg wrote: >I don't understand the argument with respect to literature: >Don't we study literature because it's interesting, fun, >enlightening about the human condition, ... . You don't seem to have much contact with people who are assigned to teach literature as a required course. What you say is true to you and to me, and true to those students who find literature interesting, fun, and enlightening. </tautology> The issue arises when a lit course is a requirement, and, for example, a mathematics student is required to read Paradise Lost, who finds it dull, tedious, and boring. One is then in the position of attempting to convince the student that the course is not a waste of time -- very like attempting to convince some lit majors that trigonometry is interesting, fun, and enlightening. Or am I again guilty of argument by analogy? Nolo contendere. Martin C. Tangora University of Illinois at Chicago [log in to unmask]