Is Literary Science a real science?

>>8455728

No, most of its expositors aren't even very good writers. Go to jstor, type in a book you like, and read any of the criticism, and tell me that that is a worthwhile pursuit.

This is why you need a state church, as a form of welfare for middle-class intellectual types.

Professional academia in the humanities is mostly a sick joke, besides the tiny portion of it that is actually useful (dictionaries, papyrology, real textual criticism)

>>8455728
>This is why you need a state church
Is this common in your country?

>>8455728
No!

>>8455740
Fuck off.

>>8455728
It's not a real science because it doesn't follow the scientific method nor pretends to.

Literary analysis is very useful. You can learn a lot of a text through it, and it will help you see from another perspective.

Yes, science just means it uses the scientific method.

>>8455728
He might just have a small hand.

>>8455728
it's science (wissenschaft) in the traditional sense is on systematic knowledge, it's not science in the modern sense of empirical knowledge modeled according to the example of physics

>>8456332
the scientific method is an ideal, not something even empirical scientists use in a day to day basis

>>8456846
or maybe his dogs name is "big mouth"

>>8456846
for u

>>8455728
Literally science.

>>8457274
Literally signs

>>8455740
never speak again

putting "science" after a term doesn't make it a science. for example, creation science.

I'm Canadian. We never use that term, because it's absurd, eh?