I did. It comes across to me as nothing but praise for the study of liberal arts. Am I misreading it?
I know plenty a scientists who'd love to create the next game-changing thing. But philosophy, governance, debate, argument, and understanding are not aspects taught in any good regard in STEM. Or should that thing even be created?
For the record, the first part is sarcastic. Marx warned that one thing the capitalists would cut is the very tools to analyze capitalism. The justification would be that it doesn't make money. Which, is true.
Current "liberal arts", aka feminism, SJW studies, and "who wronged me today" - those are absolutist political positions that frankly belong in a trash heap. These newer classes in specific schools only teach discord and strife. It is not the language of understanding the truth, but of victimization. They do not seek equality; instead they seek their pound of flesh.
Ive seen these arguments, especially about feminism on HN come around every 2-3 weeks, and it is the same tiring talking points. There is no meeting of the minds. There is dialectic -it just one screaming over another (with -1 mods to boot). I've avoided them as per recent because there is no resolution, and nobody seems to want any sort of meaningful change.
What I am talking of liberal arts, is that of classical liberal arts of the West and the East. It is the tools of philosophy and logic, argument and debate. It is how parties may argue and debate reasonably and uncover the truth of the matter. It is how to understand how a new invention changes society; it also shows the inventor's place in that structure.
