or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › things that are making you happy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

things that are making you happy - Page 2463

post #36931 of 41842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam O View Post

Bought new jeans. Just waxed them. giving them a few days to dry/set and then going to take them out for a spin. way too excited about this.

This would have been the quintessential Liam post if only you mentioned something about some Nordic country. Were they, perhaps, Nudie jeans?
post #36932 of 41842
Cheap Monday he said the other day, so still swedish.
post #36933 of 41842
Seeing Men of the Cloth tonight at IFC.
post #36934 of 41842
IFC = Internets Fight Club?
post #36935 of 41842
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post


This would have been the quintessential Liam post if only you mentioned something about some Nordic country. Were they, perhaps, Nudie jeans?


Haha nudie. No, if I fucked this up I wanted to do it on something cheap. Cheap Monday is about like H&M in terms of quality, a bit lower in price, and slightly more fashionable, but mostly cheep :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

Cheap Monday he said the other day, so still swedish.


Dingdingding. For as much as I bag on Swedish people, they're starting to make up a scarily large proportion of my wardrobe. probably 8 out of the 11-12 shirts I own are H&M, one of my favorite sweaters is Fjallraven, one of my pairs of jeans was custom made by a swedish tailor and two of my non-jeans pants are swedish (Cheap Monday and Dr. Denim). I'd buy something Danish to offset it but all I like is Herning and I don't have money for another one of their sweaters right now :/

post #36936 of 41842
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

Big department, very active/prominent scholars, PhD program. "Discoveries" is an interesting criteria for the humanities. I mean, there are plenty of discoveries--there are still lots and lots of things buried in the archives that await discovery, and these things spring up quite frequently. But a lot of the work we do is lies in argument--thinking in new ways about culture/literature and even about very old, familiar texts. This makes "empirical" less helpful as a criteria, since that's not exactly the kind of research we're doing.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I suppose the next question involves what makes the kind of research we do at all worthwhile (or, more to the point, worth funding). Short answer: I think there's value--however nebulous--in tracing the origins of our sensibilities and our values. Precisely the ones that we casually think need no explanation because they're so familiar or obvious to us. (I have lots more to say about this, of course, but this doesn't seem like the time or place.)

Anyone's free, of course, to disagree and say there's no value in this kind of work. I'd respond by saying that this might be right, but that there's very little (or almost nothing) that's intrinsically valuable; value generally certainly lies in whatever people collectively choose to value--like various forms of throwing and bouncing balls up and down fields and courts. So if our society collectively decides that the kind of work I do is worthless, then I guess it'll eventually be defunded and it'll no long be a viable form of professional work. But I'm aware that the way things get and retain value are pretty complicated, and however beleaguered my own profession might be, I think the discipline has enough tenterhooks in the cultural/economic apparatus that I should be okay for my professional lifetime. And I'm actually a bit more sanguine about the whole enterprise.

Not to be overly cynical but the vast majority of society decided a long time ago this stuff is not really worthwhile. Somehow the left wing was granted the Kingdom of Intelligensia and their elected political and philanthropic allies continue to fund it to basically keep you guys out of their hair and to trot out like pet monkeys at the proper events.

Please do not take my observations to indicate I personally do not find value in said endeavors and am not somewhat jealous my life path (and demographic status (part of the left wing plan!)) was such that it led me away from pursuing such work myself.
post #36937 of 41842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam O View Post


Dingdingding. For as much as I bag on Swedish people, they're starting to make up a scarily large proportion of my wardrobe. probably 8 out of the 11-12 shirts I own are H&M, one of my favorite sweaters is Fjallraven, one of my pairs of jeans was custom made by a swedish tailor and two of my non-jeans pants are swedish (Cheap Monday and Dr. Denim). I'd buy something Danish to offset it but all I like is Herning and I don't have money for another one of their sweaters right now :/

I don't own any SNS, but I live in my Andersen-Andersen sweaters.

If you like those brands check out Svensson and Our Legacy.
post #36938 of 41842
<3 SNS
post #36939 of 41842

Just had pork roll and cream cheese on a bialy. So good.

post #36940 of 41842
HEATHEN!!!
post #36941 of 41842
I hear there's a meningitis outbreak at Princeton, and Conne hasn't poasted since yesterday.

bounce2.gif
post #36942 of 41842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

When did society as a whole decide that it was worthwhile in the first place? I don't think your comparison with sport is quite apt, sport is funded by people directly forking over their hard earned. Ask the majority of rubes out there to chose between funding research into " tracing the origins of our sensibilities and our values" or a tax break, and I'm pretty sure you know how they would answer.

Couple of quick responses:

The first few might strike you as boring, so I'll spoiler it.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
First, the question of how the university change from a place not for education a small minority for a select view vocations (especially religious) into a site of social and economic mobility for the general populace is probably the most fundamental one for your question, but it's too unwieldy for me to answer. (I only have a few thoughts to offer about the period of English history I'm familiar with, but I won't bore you with those details.) The more local question is when my particular field (English literature) came to be seen as a viable discipline, one that should exist and be funded. That actually happened only relatively recently, between the latter half of the 19th and then the beginning of the 20th. (Before then, vernacular languages were seen more as a hobby, and serious education took place in classical lit.) Lots of things to say about the forces that went into this (and it's the topic of a somewhat well known book by Gerald Graff called Professing History). But I'll just mention two things: first was the late-Victorian belief that literature might substitute for religion--whose viability seemed to be in decline--as a source of moral instruction. This is a very unpopular belief now, although it might've morphed into other claims about the value of studying literature. But in the standard narrative, there was a practical reason for English (and perhaps literature in general) becoming so entrenched in university education. There was an influx of undergraduates after the GI Bill and certain innovations in the teaching/research of literature made the undergraduate teaching of literature really exciting and (at a more practical level) very manageable. So there's a kind of basic economic fact: the humanities provided an attractive and efficient way of offering courses to a lot of new college students.

Your question about the sports comparison is probably the most interesting one. Sports seems to me to be the best example of people collectively turning something that's inherently almost meaningless (hitting a ball with a stick then running around, throwing a ball and catching it, whatever) into a site of meaning and value. And, of course, sports generates a huge market not only for the thing itself but also for discourse and analysis about it. But the real reason I like the analogy is the way that, around sports, we have this popular belief that the question of why it's meaningful hardly needs to be asked at all--in fact, it's easy to imagine that asking the question might provoke outrage, as if the answer should be so patently obvious. But I wonder if your notion of how sports works ("funded by people directly forking over their money") also succumbs in a roundabout way to this sort of belief. That kind of simplified model overlooks the massive amounts of infrastructure and patterns of social behavior that not only reinforce this behavior but also instill it at an early age. And due to this kind of widespread, deeply ingrained popularity, sports actually gets funding from indirect or even partly involuntary sources. Tax money goes into building projects for sports arenas all the time. At a simpler level, even people who don't like sports probably get ESPN bundled with their basic cable packages. Maybe there are ways to opt out of ESPN while getting basic cable, but I bet most consumers don't raise a fuss even if they don't like sports because they just figure that, hey, we're a society that loves sports.

So the point is that the widespread (but, of course, not unanimous) sense that sports is something that we just do and that we pay for leads both to direct payment/participation but also indirect funding. My sense is that university education (and, in particular, the humanities) may have, in limited fashion, enjoyed some degree of this kind of consent (people pay for their kids to go to college to be English majors; even people who pay for their kids to go become engineers are happy to pay tuition even if their children have to take some mandatory humanities courses). Yes, I'm sure this has been challenged and is even eroding, but that just means that the patterns of direct payment/participation, indirect payment, and the infrastructure urging certain behaviors has only become more visible. I stand by my sports analogy--it's just that sports is enjoying widespread ideological supremacy.
post #36943 of 41842
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

HEATHEN!!!

:devil:

 

I have a feeling that only the joos and New Yorkers here even know what a bialy is. 

post #36944 of 41842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas View Post

I hear there's a meningitis outbreak at Princeton, and Conne hasn't poasted since yesterday.

bounce2.gif

I have quarantined myself in the Rare Books Library. Fear not, dear Douglas.
post #36945 of 41842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

but the vast majority of society decided a long time ago this stuff is not really worthwhile.

evidence?

(FWIW: my current place of employment, which certain has humanities requirements for all undergrads, has to turn away about 85% of the people who apply. So maybe I'll be less sanguine when, instead of turning away the vast majority--see what I did there--of people who want what we're offering, we have to go out and lure people into taking our services. Also, I'm sure you think it's perfectly clear what "this stuff" and "really worthwhile" mean. I don't think it's clear; those are questions that I'm particularly interested in; and "this stuff" is pretty malleable and people in my field are actively shaping it so that "this stuff" includes ideas and topics and media that are interesting to a lot of people. Not me though--I stick to my stodgy stuff.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › things that are making you happy