Evolution: the basis of humanities
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 1 I think that the digital part to Digital Humanities is a bit broad and vague. The digital side to humanities is such a large topic that within the digital, you need to be more specific on what you mean by being digital in the Digital Humanities. What I mean by this is that You have an endless amount of sections to a digital platform. There are data bases, online journals, magazines, scholarly work, libraries, research, coding, scholarly platforms. With all of these plus more, you need to be more specific in what you mean by digital. This relates to the reading that we were talking about on Monday when Golumbia tackles the topic of what Digital Humanities is.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 The word digital in the humanities I think is a basis for the humanities and our technological advancements. How we are using it now and what we will be using it for in the future. I don’t think it is inappropriate at all. I think that because we are changing at a rapid speed, we need a title that will transgress into something that can be broad and vague because of how we are evolving educationally and digitally. I think it’s a term that we use that will (if not so already) be fit in time. I don’t quite agree with Golumbia when he tackles this from a linguist perspective, I do believe that the digital humanities is transforming (this might include linguistics, but I believe that we must look at the humanities in a whole in order to understand).
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 I think that it is tough to define the difference between “traditional” and “Digital” humanities in today’s world. Everything is becoming so digital that it is the new traditional sense of everything. I think we need to discuss when we believed “traditional” moved from that to “digital.” By doing so, we would be able to gather more information on why we believed this happened and think of it in a scholarly form and why we decided that we needed to move on from what we did consider traditional. I think that what is traditional for some people isn’t traditional for others, and what is digital to some is not digital to some. We live in a world that is so bent on defining and figuring everything out with specifics that it will create so much complication that it will cause mass destruction and wound a lot of things.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 1 In the end, I think that trying to be as specific as possible will ultimately create more harm than good. We are a forever evolving species and we must change in order to survive. Maybe becoming digital is just that. Maybe being traditional was different a few decades back, but what is traditional now and in the future, will always morph itself into what is traditional. I do agree with Golumbia when he makes a point that this isn’t a death of a discipline but rather the time in which we need to consider the humanities important at this point in time. Maybe the death isn’t a discipline but rather an outlook on our technology is transforming our society in a whole.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at in this paragraph, aside from the very basic claim that there is a lot of multiplicity so far as digital objects and products are concerned. But what does that have to do with our efforts to define “digital”? Can you be more specific in portraying the relationship between that definition and the variability of digital products?