THE PHILOSOPHY OF MANUAL TRAINING. 153 



in the age of Pericles, that flowering time of tlie human spirit, there 

 was but one language held worthy of study — the native tongue? To 

 look too steadily upon the vehicle of thought and erect that into an 

 end is to make no less grave a mistake than was made in the other 

 partial ends that we have examined and rejected. 



But it is un-Froebelian and unphilosophic to dwell too long upon 

 the negative side of things. The materials of life are positive. I 

 have had a purpose, however, in stopping so long among these nega- 

 tions. I have wanted to make it very clear that these ends are partial 

 and fragmentary, and quite unworthy of those who seek the highest 

 good. If one still believes that citizenship, or industrialism, or eco- 

 nomics, or trade, or parenthood, or language, is a defensible end of 

 education, it will be difficult to concentrate the interest upon a 

 worthier image. 



It is not idle to let one's imagination and one's love play about 

 this image of the complete man, to picture him in all his beauty of 

 body, of intellect, and of heart, for it is only by thus entertaining this 

 conception and making it thoroughly our own that we shall ever have 

 it prevail, and ever have the educational process conform to this as its 

 ideal product. 



It is perhaps convenient for purposes of study to consider man 

 in the threefold aspect of body, intellect, and heart. But the divi- 

 sion is not true to Nature, and if it blinds us to the essential unity of 

 man, it is an expensive convenience that we had much better do 

 without. The common conception of his nature is dualistic. He is 

 body and spirit, or he is body and soul. This conception, which from 

 an educational point of view, is certainly unfortunate, is founded upon 

 the current dualistic philosophy, which discerns a universe made of 

 mind and matter. Even more particularly is it founded upon that 

 theological dualism which makes the spirit and the body the most un- 

 happy of partners, forever at warfare, and each defeating the other's 

 best interests. It is a philosophy whose logical extreme is asceticism, 

 and would land us all, like poor Simon Stylites, on top of a pillar of 

 useless renunciation. It would lead us to miserably dwarf our 

 natures instead of gloriously expanding them. This bloodless phi- 

 losophy is deeply instilled into us all, for it has been a part of our 

 creed for many generations back. Even now, I find myself^and 

 probably many of you do the same — when taken unawares, deciding 

 that the disagreeable thing must be the right thing, and simply be- 

 cause it is disagreeable. The Jonathan Edwards in those of us wdio 

 have inherited both the riches and the poverty of the ISTew England 

 blood is very apt to speak out and commit us to many such im- 

 moralities. 



This dualistic philosophy is the very opposite of the philosophy 



