I'd add that if any of those generations fails, the next will have to study politics and war again.

Even if it succeeds they have to study it.

There are very few examples of countries that have survived without a military.

Reading between the lines I’m sure he meant that they could study those arts in addition to those fundamental studies listed prior.

A nation devoted to poetry and porcelain isn’t sustainable.

And certainly he must have been aware of how cyclical history is versus a linear march towards artistic pursuits. The US since it’s inception has been involved in a significant war in nearly every decade. Post-Vietnam through the 1st Iraq war was one of the rare periods where a US citizen could have been of military age without a major hot war. Although the Cold War certainly brought it’s own level of fear.

Switzerland has been war free in 171 of the last 176 years. It can be done, just not if you plan on being a major power.

Geography helps too. But they have an army and mandated military service, so regarding the Adam’s quote they still practice those 1st level topics.

Costa Rica is the largest country I know of that has no military.

And friendly neighbors. France, Germany, Italy, and others have been willing to play ball. Geography simply changes the equation; fruit ain't worth the squeeze.

This is a fascinating quote in part because you can see John Adams's thought process in the bits that are scratched out. He starts by saying that he needs to study politics and war so that his sons can study "painting and poetry", but then he scratches that out and replaces it with "mathematics and philosophy". The next sentence suggests that he realized while writing that it would take more than one generation to get to the leisure state he desires—that once his generation has won the war, his children will need to establish the nation, and only then will his grandchildren have enough leisure time to study the humanities.

And it seems he changed "My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give theirs a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine." to "in order to give their Children a right" to include women in that third generation.

Ah! I was wondering what that change signified. I assumed it was just a corrected mistake, but you're right, it changes the gender of the third generation. Very interesting.

I think I can picture him, writing "...give their sons a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary,... hmm, Tapestry... and Porcelaine? Let's make it 'children'!" ツ

Must be ol' Abby's influence.

I live in Ukraine and I don't agree with this at all. The arts are very much alive during war. The opera houses and theatres are full, songs and art are flourishing, and if anything, the artistic instinct has only been further inspired. "painting, poetry, and music" have gone nowhere even as we fight for our basic survival.

That's wonderful, and I'm glad to hear it!

I wouldn't interpret Adams as saying that the humanities have no value until after the war is over and the nation established—I think he's saying that he doesn't have as much time to focus on them as he would like to have, and he hopes that future generations will have that time.

At the beginning of the letter he says this:

> Since my Arrival this time I have driven about Paris, more than I did before. The rural Scenes around this Town are charming. The public Walks, Gardens, &c. are extreamly beautifull. The Gardens of the Palais Royal, the Gardens of the Tuilleries, are very fine. The Place de Louis 15, the Place Vendome or Place de Louis 14, the Place victoire, the Place royal, are fine Squares, ornamented with very magnificent statues. I wish I had time to describe these objects to you in a manner, that I should have done, 25 Years ago, but my Head is too full of Schemes and my Heart of Anxiety to use Expressions borrowed from you know whom.

Note that he does say he took time to view and appreciate the things he found in Paris—what he laments is that he does not have the mental focus to study and describe them in detail to his wife.

There’s also a historical irony in that within a decade, that beautiful, cultured France tore itself apart in a bloody revolution and ultimately engaged in an ambitious war to conquer all of Europe. Even some people there were studying war, it turns out, and they were the ones who ended up running things.

You both seem to agree that art & culture is of enormous value. And I hope like Adams we agree that it would be ideal if we could leave war & defense much behind us, wish that it was not necessary. You seem well aligned with Adams to me.

I do think there's an interesting level, where when it's suddenly difficult to have art & culture, we value it higher, it's need is more apparent.

I do worry that the path of alienation & isolation capitalism has walked the world down has distanced us from meaning in such a way that art & culture no longer have the capacity to stand as (especially valued/positive) signifiers as much, that art & culture is both under supply side risk from a more brutal & unrelenting mechanization that makes art less accessible to make (few can afford the luxury of being an artist/cultural producer), while also slamming many arts (especially non bougouise) from the demand side - both for the same economic there-is-no-surplus-for-labor/no one-can-afford art problem, but also in the sense that we're so alienated, that we dont resonate positively or cherish art- we dislike so much of the state-of-ourselves, are so roundly enmiserated by the mainstream we are suffused in, that art/culture dont have the essential power it ought have.

We (everyone other tham Ukraine presently) forget what culture we had. Squid Games anti-culture is what we're left with.

> The opera houses and theatres are full

That is amazing.

Nothing like a reality to destroy popular quote.

I don't think the radically different contexts of a burgeoning nation in the 18th century and a highly developed nation in the 21st "destroys" this quote.

The experience of "actually in times of war people need and use art" does it.

Quote was made by diplomat and revolutionary. It expresses his personal values and needs rather then universal needs in bad times.

Well, he said it was appropriate to study only politics and war "in a young Country, as yet simple and not far advanced in Luxury", which hardly describes Ukraine!

Ukraine became independent in 1991 and has a per capita GDP PPP of less than $15,000 as of 2021 compared to over $57,000 in Germany and over $69,000 in USA, so it is a young country with seemingly little ability to afford material luxury.

In my opinion, some of the most meaningful art has war as the subject.

Sounds like a world where slaves and immigrants do all the hard work, while the wealthy aspire to more and more abstract levels of uselessness.

"I must study politics and war" - 1st generation: Kill, conquer and tame.

"My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture" - 2nd generation: Professional and managerial.

"study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." - 3rd generation: Entertainer for wealthy people, lives on their inheritance.

Your comment is a good illustration of why people are abandoning the humanities. Universities have become utterly politicized. If I enrol in English Lit, that's what I want to learn about - not gender theory, or the class struggle.

Out of curiosity, what do you think people who write in the English language write about? Even if you plan on specializing in children's literature, you'll have a survey of all broad trends somewhere in your college courses.

This is a good example of why we must not abandon the humanities.

It is, in fact, an illustration of Adams' point: that in times of great conflict and injustice, the finer things in life must be put aside to help fight to ensure liberty and justice for all.

As long as people are oppressed because of their social class, gender expression, or any other innate aspect of their identity, it is our duty to, at the very least, try to understand that oppression, and stand up against it where we have the opportunity to do so.

Those who turn a blind eye to it because it's oppression of people they don't think deserve consideration are complicit in that oppression.

I’m sorry. Are you under the impression that literature has been apolitical until fairly recently?

Charles Dickens, a foundational pillar of of English Literature, was writing ceaselessly about class struggle a well over century ago.

Hamlet deals with class struggle.

Jack and the fucking Beanstalk is, along with the vast majority of fables derived from oral history, about class struggle as are vast swaths of the Bible.

The round table of King Arthur's court? Literally all of Robin Hood?

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? To Kill a Mockingbird?

Someone is politicizing English literature and it ain't university professors.

I don't think you are properly understanding the critique here.

From personal experience I can tell you that English Lit in universities is mostly "deconstructing X" or "Marxist criticism of Y". It's all interpretation in light of contemporary political norms - and of a very narrow range of contemporary political thought at that.

The idea of letting the stories reflect the realities of their times, or speak into our own, is just anathema. Heck, most of those authors have been "canceled" for wrong-think of some form or another (or just for being dead white men).

>It's all interpretation in light of contemporary political norms - and of a very narrow range of contemporary political thought at that.

Unless you are in possession of a time machine, that is the only practical form of interpretation for an undergraduate English literature student.

I did not fear the satanic panic of the 80s, I do not fear the marxist panic of today. I note that the panics seem to emanate from the same kind of person, separated by time.

Also, neither feminists nor transgender folk scare me so discussing them in an academic setting is not likely to warp my delicate little brain.

> Unless you are in possession of a time machine, that is the only practical form of interpretation for an undergraduate English literature student.

That's bullshit. We are influenced by our present politics, but it is perfectly possible to learn to see the world from the perspective of others, including our ancestors.

> I did not fear the satanic panic of the 80s, I do not fear the marxist panic of today. I note that the panics seem to emanate from the same kind of person, separated by time.

Mostly I found the Marxist stuff boring as hell, not to mention riddled with contradictions and intentionally obscure prose.

> Also, neither feminists nor transgender folk scare me so discussing them in an academic setting is not likely to warp my delicate little brain.

What a non-sequitor. You can have discussion about such people without declaring the greats of English literature to be persona non grata.

I'm also not sure why you talk about how "not afraid" you are. It's as if you are implying I somehow am, which would be a gross misreading of the situation.

I have no problem with learning to analyse from that perspective, but if it's the only lens being taught then that's an issue.

Why not learn how CS Lewis would have discussed his favourite works? Why avoid talking about Randian ideas except to criticise them? At this point, it's not education, it's indoctrination.

>Why avoid talking about Randian ideas except to criticise them?

Oh. You're a cultist. Nevermind. Rand is as relevant as Time Cube.

Rand (along with Rose Lane Wilder, and others) was a seminal figure in the development of contemporary libertarian thought.

She's no more of a cult figure than Marx, and yet he is taught uncritically. The contradiction is not lost on the rest of us.

EDIT: also, no one who speaks positively of Rand and Lewis in the same sentence is a Randian cultist, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

"Libertarian thought" is an oxymoron. Please go hawk your NFTs somewhere else.

Timecube makes more literal and actual sense with a firmer foundation of truth beneath it than every libertarian philosopher combined.

Find a new hobby, I beg of you: https://timecube.2enp.com

> "Libertarian thought" is an oxymoron

What a juvenile response. Are we in middle-school now?

> Please go hawk your NFTs somewhere else.

It's clear from comments like this that you aren't actually arguing with me, but with some caricature you have in your mind. When you are ready to actually talk with a real human being that disagrees with you, let me know.

> Also, neither feminists nor transgender folk scare me so discussing them in an academic setting

They scare me in a professional setting.

Many an unsuspecting individual was brought down by mere accusations of misbehavior towards those groups, context and evidence be damned.

It appears that you've taken an ideological stance, and interpreted all of human activity through the lens of your ideology. Hamlet et al are about a lot of things, but most of all, they're about the vast richness of human experience, how to read it, how to respond to it, how to navigate it.

To say that these things are about class struggle is to apply an impoverished, univariate analysis to a complex system; that approach is bound to end in error. And, having read broadly the literature in this field (primary and secondary), I can tell you that the errors are legion.

Don't try the "everything is read through an ideological lens" move, either. That's part of your ideological lens, it's not intrinsic to the system.

When the parent complains of politicization, they might mean that interpreting every stimulus through the lens of some perceived grievance (Marxism, Feminism, etc.) is very much a recent phenomenon, unproductive, divisive, extremely selective about facts, counter to the public good, immature and generally unwelcome.

You're welcome to complain, in private, but if you've read the texts that you complain about you should understand that society moves forward when people set aside their preciousness, show up and do the hard work--the sacrificial work of trying to make things better for anyone, not just their pets--not by tilting at windmills.

Be better.

How do you define "uselessness?"

What's the purpose of life if not striving for joy? When the dust of war has cleared and the labor of humans has been made obsolete, shouldn't we be free to do the things that we enjoy?

I always interpreted it as needing to become richer in following generations until reaching a generation composed of the idle rich able to live comfortably on their inheritance and thus able to study those things unlikely to be remunerative.