Culture is sometimes seen as an inessential activity. However it can be showed as a short sighted vision. There is sometimes the vision of artists that are penniless, who are struggling to earn their lives. To the same extend there is a contrast shown of the “successful” scientific world.
This approach may look short sighted. First our world is led by the economy and it has always been the case. For instance China developed its imperial power at the time of Antiquity relying on trade. Rome developed through the economy. And this field is not a “scientific” one, it is not an exact science. It is on the contrary a real vision of human freedom and creativity. To this extend culture can show a real value in itself. The value has for instance been theorized by Kant, who wrote that beauty is linked to an universal appreciation, without concept ; it looks to be, in my opinion, linked to a notion of value. The philosopher Markus Gabriel wanted to demonstrate that art was not really a freedom, but a kind of illusion ; in his opinion philosophy, that is a critical distance towards the real world, is really what can make things advance. It may be possible to answer that both can contribute to such a demeanor, as the illimited imagination allowed by arts can be complementary to the technical tools offered by philosophy. Those approaches can show that, concerning arts as well as philosophy, two fields of “culture”, both can bring something useful and valuable, terms so used in the economy.
Second it is possible to say that culture can participate in useful activities. An example can be seen in innovation. Emmanuel Macron, in its 2030 investment plan, told that human sciences can have more and more value to participate to innovation. In fact we enter in a period where progress will be more and more immaterial (it is in fact, in my opinion, in the continuity of the mobiliary capitalism we observe more and more for centuries) ; and the analytical side of scientific and technologic progress can be enriched by philosophy, arts, literature… Those factors show that radically distinguishing science from culture is simplistic. In many ways those approaches can be linked, can bring to each other. it is necessary to be open minded to this extend and inspire from the demeanor of Descartes, for instance, who combined philosophy and mathematics. He succeeded to build his theories, enriching those approaches each other. Things can be the same if you link science and arts. For instance modern science has been built on the power of observation of phenomena, trying to “see the extraordinary in the ordinary and not looking for the extraordinary” ; to this extend arts show the same approach. For instance contemporary arts is linked to the fact the perception of the artist prevails on reality ; it is a was to show the great number of ways of approaching things ; it is also linked to the development of the theories linked to conscience, like phenomenology.
To this extend saying that culture is “useless” is too often short sighted, simplistic and false. A primary division between culture and science is also a little short. In the current period when technology is progressing faster and faster, as the economy is becoming more and more immaterial, it may be necessary to think culture a different manner. Paradoxically, the way for artists or thinkers to express has maybe never been so rich. New technologies offer today an extraordinary possibility to write or draw and to reach clients or viewers all around the world. The industrial revolution we live in can also allow actors of culture to participate to innovation maybe as never before. Such opportunities have to be taken to contribute to this extremely rapidly changing world.
The observer 