Humanities:
>"Learning concerned with human culture, especially literature, history, art, music, and philosophy."
Is it in a states interest to preserve their peoples culture?
What's the best way to go about preserving it?
Is a world of vastly different cultures, living in harmony (best case scenario), the best foundation for progress?
Forgive any poor choice of wording.
If it will keep the people submissive to whatever the state wants, then yes
Culture can't be preserved artificially, it must come down to the preference of the people
Most people today are influenced by the prestige and world spanning influence of America for example
Different cultures can coexist provided there's no outright dealbreaker taboos that one or both engage in
For instance, dog eaters would constantly piss off dog lovers
In liberal theory, the state's only purpose is to preserve property, with culture being considered relatively unimportant, if important at all. But I would say culture is extremely precious, and a major concern of the state, yes. In order to be preserved it must be fostered, and elements which seek to hamper it or degrade it must be checked.
>>1170277
Say a Liberal Government wanting to stay in power.
Not out of maliciousness but because it's deemed by the people in power and not to be the best they have.
Would it not be in the states interest to foster a culture that encourages Liberalism?
Be it through school or other state funded programms?
>>1170239
i would put prosperity above all else, if a culture could exist along side innovation that would be fantastic, but its very plain to see that there are some cultures who would resist real progress to make their civilization a better place, examples being, the most obvious, some Islamic countries who completely resist new ideas, Christian majorities who have a "moral obligation" to stand against some forms of advancing (teaching creationism, shooting down cloning and gene manipulation ect). in these cases, i would say that protecting the culture at the cost of advancing isn't worth it, and would go against the interest of the state, unless of course the leaders of the state have the same mindset and aren't willing to budge. ideally, if it was me making the decisions, some things would just have to go, but leaving the harmless aspects behind is just fine.
as you said, the a world with lots of cultures that can get along sounds fantastic, but in order to get there many aspects of many cultures would have to be removed, its a catch 22 i guess.
>>1170239
No, it's not in a state's interest to preserve culture, but it is in a state's interest to make a show of doing so. Ideally, a government wants to try to use propaganda to indicate they are carrying on a legacy of supposed or real historical forebears. This should be done even as they simultaneously betray the ideals of those mythical or real past counterparts.
the reality is that the world is constantly evolving and even interpretations of the past are not stagnant. they are usually subject to subtle biases based on present circumstances.
I don't know if living in harmony is tenable in an inherently and probably perennially unequal world.
>>1170239
Depends on the state and the culture in question.
>>1170350
They do, but it's more of an anti-culture.
>>1170239
Only when it raises the GDP.
I mean, Singapore's done well enough trying to eliminate traces of its former colonial past and quietly ignoring its history until some people made a loud enough ruckus.
>>1170239
Who is that girl?
>>1170812
kys marxist
