Education for the Art of Living
G REEK," boasts Stephen Leacock's professor, " has made me what I am today." "This, i f true," mutters the professor of economics, "is a very serious charge." I agree. A great English classicist has put it that " those who most appreciate the true value of Hellenism will never claim for it that, by itself, it can suffice for the needs of modern humanity." The case that I would put is for the humanities in general: language, philosophy, history, art, music, without any intent to make invidious distinctions at the expense of the social or natural sciences, which nowadays are quite capable of taking care of themselves. To begin with, to speak of the art of living is to make an Aristotelean distinction between living and living well, not materialistically, of course. A humanist is not wealthy, but he has certain blessings to count. One reservation: Aristotle's distinction implies a theory of the leisure class, and with this I most emphatically do not agree. To live, according to him, is to earn your bread in the sweat of your brow. To live well is to have leisure for uninterrupted intellectual activity. Now I would make a distinction between a job and a profession. To lhave a job is to exchange labor for money. To have a profession is to be paid, as a rather surprising and pleasant bonus, for doing that which you would rather do than anything else in the world, and which you would gladly pay for the privilege of doing-if you could afford it. Professional humanists, deep in teaching, research, and committees, indignantly deny membership in a leisure class. They resent Veblen's saying that knowing an ancient language is conspicuous consumption and conspicuous waste, like growing your fingernails long and painting them, or keeping a Pekingese. And others who are not professionals, but pursue the humanities as a part of the art of living, are not mere dilettantes either. The time they devote to their avocation is hardbought, but it is not grudged. The point I would make here in passing is that we must be careful not to let the distinction between living and living well become a distinction between vocational and liberal education. This last is a pernicious distinction, because it is snobbish, and there is no room for snobbery in a genuinely democratic society. Purely vocational education is an insult to the best in man. It degrades him to the level of the machine he serves. Purely liberal education, in the bad sense of leisure-class dabbling in subjects which to be admissible have to be proved impractical, is something