Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the philosophical and methodological views of N.I. Kareev (1850–1931) whose name was usually associated with World History studies. Based on the materials of the partially published work "General Methodology of Humanities", the authors put the question of the relevance of Kareev's theoreti­cal and methodological research at the time of paper's writing. The authors note that Kareev interpreted the concept of "humanities" as broadly as possible. This concept includes the Social Studies, which he opposed to the Natural sciences and set them apart from the "cultural". It can be considered that Kareev's enthu­siasm for the philosophical theories was caused by his personal interest and the necessity of historiography to justify its scientific and cognitive status. The article is accompanied by the extract of the sixth chapter "Theoretical Hu­manities" of the work "General Methodology of Humanities" dedicated to the theoretical problems of studying the phenomena that represent the subjects of the humanities. In the published fragments Kareev tried to trace how these two di­rections were formed in the humanities: the theoretical (deductive method) and the historical (inductive method). He interpreted the development of science as a transition from metaphysics to empirical knowledge based on facts. The au­thors conclude that by the time the text was prepared (early 1920s), Kareev's ap­proach was perceived as outdated.

International audience ; We must keep in mind some numerical data when we evoke the transition from the paper to the digital age. In particular, the following contrast speaksfor itself:1. All the books ever written represent 50 billion bytes.2. The information produced in 2006 represents 150 quintillion (150 x 1018) bytes. That is to say, during 2006 alone, the world produced three milliontimes the informational content of all the books ever written.3. Things continue in this way at high speed: the only internet track of May 2009 has generated 500 billion bytes.Thus, our paper-based heritage is already a tiny fraction of what the human race has produced and this fraction decreases, relatively, every day. Viewingthese data, the conception of a digitization enterprise should be thought of and considered by humanists as enlarged. The narrow acceptance of theproject – the view that it is merely a technical process of converting our paper-borne heritage into electronic form – is dramatically insufficient. Toparaphrase Clemenceau's famous words about war and militaries, digitization may be too serious a thing to be left to the digitizers alone. Scholarsmust face the issue and understand it as one of the most important problems they have to deal with and, as I will argue, as a real opportunity to renewtheir practices and disciplines.

International audience ; We must keep in mind some numerical data when we evoke the transition from the paper to the digital age. In particular, the following contrast speaksfor itself:1. All the books ever written represent 50 billion bytes.2. The information produced in 2006 represents 150 quintillion (150 x 1018) bytes. That is to say, during 2006 alone, the world produced three milliontimes the informational content of all the books ever written.3. Things continue in this way at high speed: the only internet track of May 2009 has generated 500 billion bytes.Thus, our paper-based heritage is already a tiny fraction of what the human race has produced and this fraction decreases, relatively, every day. Viewingthese data, the conception of a digitization enterprise should be thought of and considered by humanists as enlarged. The narrow acceptance of theproject – the view that it is merely a technical process of converting our paper-borne heritage into electronic form – is dramatically insufficient. Toparaphrase Clemenceau's famous words about war and militaries, digitization may be too serious a thing to be left to the digitizers alone. Scholarsmust face the issue and understand it as one of the most important problems they have to deal with and, as I will argue, as a real opportunity to renewtheir practices and disciplines.

AbstractHumanities education and research have been a critical foundation of societies for centuries. However, societal change and the broadening of tertiary education over time have negatively affected the position and perception of the humanities, at least in relative terms. This article aims to redress this slide, informing discussion by bringing together new and existing evidence. We find that businesses, governments and societies in general benefit from humanities‐educated individuals. We also find the humanities can improve students' job and earning prospects and equip them with a range of technical and transferrable skills.

Founded in 1919, UCLA is nearing its first centenary, but the university builds on humanistic and liberal arts traditions that are many centuries long and globally diffused. The core disciplines that we recognize today as comprising the Humanities have deep roots in these institutional, cultural, and technological histories. But yet, for all its grand ambitions for reckoning with the world, the university has remained by and large an isolated institution, walled in and often walled off from its surrounding community, accessible to a chosen few, stratified by economic, social, and racial differences, and perhaps too invested in the security of its storied past. The Urban Humanities initiative is an attempt both to apply conventional tools in unconventional ways and to invent new tools by respecting the fundamental virtue of bricks, namely their porous nature. Is it possible to decolonize knowledge? If so, the studio courses it develops will have profound implications for the role of the classroom, syllabus, and for rethinking and developing new knowledge and practices.