Currently, I am a Junior in a liberal arts college on the Hudson River majoring in literature. However, I have a very unique approach to the liberal arts, because during my sophomore year I had to choose between literature and physics as my major. I love introducing myself this way, as everyone always has the same reaction: "Wow, what a weird combination." And truly it is. Literature and physics are about as opposite as two studies can possibly be. Even as far as the sciences go, physics is the most steeped in mathematics. I would argue that math itself is closer to literature due to its abstract nature. Literature is the most subjective study there is, debatably. Even philosophy constantly bases itself in logic.
So how did I make the switch? I followed the all-too-common Millennial trend of not knowing what I wanted to do with my life upon entering college. I intended to be a physics major, but found myself drawn to writing workshops. This is where my interest in literature developed, as I found a much greater understanding for literature after attempting to make some myself. Originally I planned on double majoring, but my work ethic quickly showed that this would be impossible for me.
Halfway through sophomore year, I needed to make a decision. Would I become a physics major, or a literature major? This is probably the closest I've come to an existential crisis so far. I imagine it's very similar to a mid-life crisis; I didn't know who I was or what impact I would have on this world, and more importantly I knew I would regret either decision somewhat.
Ultimately, as I spoiled in the first sentence, I chose literature. I knew I loved physics, as I still do to this day, but part of the reason I pursued it was societal pressure. There's an increasing pressure in America on young men and women to pursue something "logical." If you have talent for math or science, you're highly encouraged to follow that path. I was met with a lot of resistance from my parents when deciding to switch. After all, physics is the pursuit that has brought us to the moon. Where has literature brought us?
Here is where I defend literature, and by extension the act of not being a scientist. It is centered around the simple question of "why should we all be scientists?" Sure, if the majority of citizens chose to pursue the sciences, we could achieve great feats. However, there is something integral that is lost when pursuing solely the sciences. Many science enthusiasts, particularly younger ones, follow a belief that science is the way into the future. And of course, this is mostly true. However, the arts keep us grounded. The arts make us human, and this is a phrase I hate deeply. It's something you could read on the back of a postcard from someone who visited Paris once. However, it is still true.
The arts make us human because they are a reflection of humanity. History can only record humanity so well, and science not at all. Advances in neurobiology have helped us understand humans better, but still not what it is to be human. The arts preserve humanity, teach humanity, and develop humanity. We need the arts, like a fine teacher, to guide us as we progress. This is the true outline for the future, and science fills in the empty spaces left by it. Truly, they are equal parts. But that is just my point: they are equal. We cannot survive without one anymore than we could without the other.
