Modern society seems to be keen to talk about "masters". The era when there is no "master" is more keen to talk about "masters". This is also in line with the market principle of scarcity. But "masters", especially humanities "masters," It must be people, not just "experts". However, the artificial division of disciplines cannot produce "masters" at all, but only "experts" in various subjects. The true comprehensive inheritance and development of academic culture depend on "masters" ", Not" experts. "Experts "are only those who have the expertise, and" masters "are the ones who have continued in the past. The lack of" masters "is a basic sign of an academic crisis. What is the point supported by this passage? ['Without "Master", society cannot progress.', 'Social concerns are misplaced and there is no such thing as a "master".', 'The artificial division of disciplines leads to a lack of "experts" and "masters" in society.', '"Expert" is not necessarily "Master", and "Master" must be an "Expert".']