Where did the Muses go? Have they abandoned us? Are they not even necessary anymore? It is hard to tell when we do not even have the facts to prove their existence. If there is something we cannot measure, we should not be trying to research on it, we should not be trying to waste our time while imagine things that, by fact, are not there. Or should I say “by lack of fact”?

Nowadays we, humans, tend to believe that if something is not mathematically correct, it is not even worthy to put our brains to work on it. We tend to concentrate all our mental energy in practical, straightforward things. Something as abstract and unprovable as the Muses seems illogic –and for some people even senseless. Our society has been built to seek for the logical things, and children are raised pursuing to study in “productive” areas, like math, engineering, biology, and laws, within some others.

In many countries, like in Chile and the US, this attitude “pro progress” has been expressing in the type of education developed in schools, from elementary to undergraduate studies. The Governments believe, in these two countries, that it is better to cut educational budgets on culture and arts (and even in physical education). They think that it is much better to concentrate the studies on math and sciences, so they can become good engineers, economists, doctors, and scientists. Historically, they have also tried to make students study their language in writing and reading, so they can become good lawyers or journalists, but this has also been changing in the later years, and this discussion has become a huge deal in Chile –and as I have been seeing, in the US as well. Humanities are being forgotten.

In Chile, some so called “experts” by the press, say that having so many subjects make students get into high levels of stress, and that finally this tension makes them prone to not learn all what they should or forget it, because they start to use their brains in too many things at the same time. They believe that our brains work like computers, and that as many “programs” or tasks we are using our mental energy for, the worse performance we would have. But actually there are many studies that prove that when we keep our brains occupied, we create more neurological connections and, therefore, we become more intelligent.

Is it, then, better for education to concentrate budgets in the “hard subjects” –say math, sciences, and related-? Perhaps it could be better. Let’s forget for a moment of the arts. If more students were studying micro biology and its implications on cancer research, perhaps we would have a better chance of finding a cure. If we reduce required hours of physical education and sports, the students will have more time to do homework and keep their minds focused on their studies, instead wasting energy in competitions that would not actually make a difference in our world; what are too scores more or three scores less? Is there a difference? And what if instead of spending three hours a day rehearsing for a cello concert, a low-budget musical, or a guitar solo for the battle of the bands we make them study for that chemistry test on Monday? Or even better, what if we take their sketchbooks and start to regulate –and sanction- every intent of drawing on their notebooks? That would be great, right? Because they would have to concentrate on the subjects that really matter, and will actually help them develop useful skills, not those dispensable artsy and sporty subjects.

But what would happen in cases of “not so productive” subjects, like history for example? For sure we can still learn things from there, no? At least it teaches us how we have become developed. It shows the progress of technology and science: all the medical advances, huge constructions like skyscrapers, bridges, and cities, the airplanes, the nuclear bomb (threw from those airplanes), guns (“to keep people safe”, say Texans), and I could continue much longer. History, in this terms, would still be useful.

That would be also the case of language, because every country needs language to communicate. The problem is which language? Do we want to let students waste their time and energies trying to learn Swedish if they are not from Sweden? Who else speaks that? Do we want them to learn Latin? That language is already dead, isn’t it? Better let them learn just their own national language, because they will not  need another when their country becomes highly develop –and it will get to that point, of course, if the students just focus on the studies that matter. And do we really need them to develop highly skilled writing? Wouldn’t it be better to just let them write as easy and simple as possible? Finally, easy writing is easy reading, right?

Now that we have imagine this perfectly developed society based on the abolition of the arts –and sports too-, isn’t it better? Isn’t it beautiful the progress reached? Is there anything missing? Yes. There is a reason humans are different from other animals. We have the ability to create complex conceptual and metacognitive systems to leave on societies. We have the ability to create knowledge, destruct it, recreate it, and rethink it again. We are dual beings. We are logic and expressive, rational and irrational, order and chaos. This duality is what in the end makes the difference between the human (just an animal) and a person.

For sure we could learn to apply all those “hard subject” without the “soft” ones, but would we really be doing a good job if we cannot empathize with the humans we are working for? All those productions, developments, and signs of progress are finally done because we, people, are working for people and their needs. We need those “soft subjects” to actually make the “hard” ones powerful and meaningful. Without the intellectual development of the arts –visual arts, performing arts, writing, etc. – we cannot develop the emotional part of our duality and, thus, we cannot generate strong interpersonal connections, critical thinking, and the greatest ability of human beings: leisure.

Without leisure we would be lost. We need some times for rest. Overloading us with work just make our lives not worthy. If all what we do is work and work and work, then what are we working for? Without time to enjoy the results of our work, what is the point of working?

In the end, to cut the budgets for art and culture programs and classes would just make students develop their “hard” side, without the “soft” one. Do we really want to live in a place where there is no art? Do we want to become so “hard-sided” that we would lose our emotional side and, finally, become just as numbers, all lined up as a mechanism waiting to work and never stop? Do we want to put all the emphasis in the hard areas and forget about what gives them the strength?

If we could ask any of the geniuses of history, like Leonardo, Michelangelo, Aristotle, Socrates, Descartes, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Euripides, Plato, Marx, Friedman, Rousseau, Confucius, or any other, they would tell us –in retrospective- how important the arts were for them to develop their critical thinking.

Or could you tell me, is it possible to build a house from the roof and without the strong foundations? This will go as homework for the reader.