Interesting, and an argument worthy of a separate discussion.
However, I think over the last 400 years the "cross-disciplinary" approach to knowledge and advancement has died out. Most people are very channeled in their views and training and cross-disciplines, as you defined them, are rarer and rarer.
The concept has made a mild comeback recently, but I don't think the vast majority of people would agree with your viewpoint (not that it isn't correct). Most people are likely to say that if you want to be a physicist, study physics....and that's pretty much it.
I agree that cross-discipline is important. But I'm not sure the "belonging" aspect is.
BTW, to sort've drive my view home...as my father said "Go to college to get an education, go to grad school to get a job". I agree with that, and it promotes exactly the viewpoint I think you're getting at. However, how many kids go to college to get that Liberal Arts degree anymore? How many go for an MBA?
As for the aspect of belonging, I joined a fraternity, despite my opposition to the fraternity concept. Why? I liked a couple of the guys, the beer was "free" (and there was lots of it), and it was a good time. I'm not sure contribution was really something I was into, though I am sure I did it (we did many charity events). Still, I use that as "justification" for joining, but it isn't the main motive or even the primary memories I have of my time in the fraternity.
I don't think contribution to society is all that important. I think contribution to your own well-being comes first. If it turns out that society benefits (most times it does), then so be it. But I don't find that contribution for the sake of contributing (or to promote self-fulfillment) is the important factor.
Ayn Rand was right when she said the altruistic person is altruistic for selfish reasons. It makes them feel good to be that way. I don't consider myself altruistic. I am charitable, and care about others. But I don't think that I owe society anything. |
