>I hope that clears up any misunderstandings. If you're wealthy enough or you already have earning power enough that you can decide to pursue a degree or advanced education in something that will not help you earn a living then more power to you, but I suspect that that is a very minor fraction of the population.
Aristotle said approximately the same thing over two thousand years ago in two different places: (1) that philosophy is possible only once a society has secured subsistence (Metaphysics); (2)virtue can only be pursued as as goal once one is financially secure (Nichomachean Ethics). Is it significant for any idea of progress that such statements are still possible despite occurring in distinct historical contexts, one of which premised itself on slavery? Is this evidence of an antinomy between the claims of democracy (Yes, we live in a constitutional republic, but it is dressed as the guarantee of equal opportunity and this is what public activism premises itself on lest I'm mistaken) and the claims of the market?
Aristotle said approximately the same thing over two thousand years ago in two different places: (1) that philosophy is possible only once a society has secured subsistence (Metaphysics); (2)virtue can only be pursued as as goal once one is financially secure (Nichomachean Ethics). Is it significant for any idea of progress that such statements are still possible despite occurring in distinct historical contexts, one of which premised itself on slavery? Is this evidence of an antinomy between the claims of democracy (Yes, we live in a constitutional republic, but it is dressed as the guarantee of equal opportunity and this is what public activism premises itself on lest I'm mistaken) and the claims of the market?