we dun need no educashun
''With that said, we need to keep in mind that "education" in ancient time meant something very different from what we have today. Education meant neither teaching a trade (that's what apprenticeship was for), neither did it mean one ought to accumulate "culture". What it meant to do is create a sort of superior individual. People were educated in rhetoric, reason, mathematics, music (which was considered a "science" originally, I.E., something as serious as mathematics) and so forth. They were also taught theology and philosophy, and in certain religious circles, metaphysics and certain types of spiritual methodologies (to wit: Hesychasm). The aim was to produce an exemplar who would maintain the standards of the culture. There was no question of "usefulness" in a purely economic sense, and people weren't trained to become nameless cogs in some industrial or technological complex.

Now, did this type of "education" work? Having personally subjected myself to it, i would say yes, it does. Do i think everyone would benefit from it? Yes and no. At least if we are talking about a direct benefit. What i mean is that not everybody is suited to read the classics or listen to classical music etc but in a culture in which the type of education i'm talking about was common there was a certain trickle down effect where the cultural superiority of the elite had an influence on the populous as well. One of the reasons popular culture today is so ugly and vulgar is that the culture of the elites is also ugly and vulgar. Even when the elites are trained in the classics, they are not really getting any edifying effect, all they are doing is accumulate "culture" in the sense of acquiring a superficial erudition where the meaning is lost completely.''