I want to take this opportunity to address one of the most important criticisms leveled at the humanities today. I am not referring to the criticisms of more recent times, which reproach the humanities for an alleged excess of political correctness; we can set this complaint aside as the ideologically motivated complaint that it certainly is. I am referring rather to the oldest criticism that reproaches the humanistic disciplines for their inconsequence, their uselessness. The assumption underlying this criticism is simple: its claim is that we learn nothing by dealing with the objects of humanistic research. These objects – a poem, a film or play, a piece of music or something else – do not provide our mind with information that we can use. No special knowledge is required to enjoy these objects, and no usable knowledge is provided through their study. For the canonical version of this criticism we must go back to the ancient Greeks. In one of Plato's great dialogues, the philosopher Socrates enters into discussion with Ion, a rhapsode or reciter of poetry, and a great admirer of Homer in particular. What is at stake in the debate between these two is what the poet (and by extension the rhapsode) knows, what knowledge he draws on for his art. As Socrates forces Ion to acknowledge, the poet does not know much about anything: soon, he tells Ion, "not from art and knowledge comes your ability to speak of Homer" (532c). If Ion's rhapsodization were an art, Socrates reasons, Ion would be able to speak as passionately and eloquently as all the poets. But Ion can speak authoritatively only about Homer. ("Art" could be understood here as synonymous with "craft", or a practice with a clearly established set of rules... middle of paper... right. Art asks us to create a home in ideas or experiences for which there can be no easy explanations I want to suggest that the very ground on which Plato and many others have since dismissed the humanities is, in another view, the basis of the enduring and vital importance of the humanities today. It is worth mentioning that problem solving is the most valued activity at an institution like MIT – it is only made possible through the preliminary activity of problem creation. Problem creation begins with the recognition that there are questions that must yet to be posed, latent possibilities that remain unexplored What may seem like a simple multiplication of “uncertainties” and “doubts” could equally serve as a conduit to new thoughts, new insights and creative solutions..