>It's widely accepted that the average person will never

Because humanities is a brainlet discipline

There is no rigor in literature--at least, there isn't a rigor like what is present in science, religion, and politics.

I disagree that philosophy falls into your second category. I don't think it is widely accepted that average people can understand philosophy.

All my literature classes as an undergrad were glorified book clubs, and I took advanced literature courses (it was my minor). A game I used to play was to count how many times the professor or my classmates started their sentences with "I think that..." or "I feel..."

>>8913299
I didn't know there was any consensus that the average person can't understand texts about science, religion, politics, or anything really. As far as I'm aware, most people can pick a starting point they understand and work their way up. I'm constantly informed that I overestimate the average person and I'll never understand it. Maybe I do put too much faith in most people's intellectual capacity.

>>8913371
>Maybe I do put too much faith in most people's intellectual capacity.

You do precisely that.

>>8913343
Explain why thinking and feeling are inappropriate.

>>8915070
He's a pseud

>>8915070
also... explain it without thinking or feeling anything. we'll know if u cheated...

>>8913343
>politics
>religion
>rigor

>>8913299
Literature and philosophy are wide, but shallow oceans. Nothing can be wrong, but that also means anything goes.

Science regards precision and definition, interpretations are limited. Thus, science is a tall canal: you can penetrate the surface but you need the basis for the deeper material.

I'm not sure if i'd put politics in the second category, but religion definitely fits in the first.

>>8915229
I think this is a reasonable argument - although I would say that reading philosophy or literature takes practice, and understanding allusions in a work of literature is not unlike understanding the scientific background of a study.