If I understand the argument advanced by the article correctly (trivial though it may be), it is as follows: things may be worth investing your time into not just because they are useful, but because they are somehow emotionally satisfying.
While I completely agree with this argument (precisely because it is so trivial), I find it essentially pointless. While "usefulness" of an occupation can be somehow quantified and used to convince other people that a particular occupation is worth doing, emotional satisfaction is subjective and not comparable between different individuals. While someone gets a kick out of reading Latin, another may find pleasure in playing sports or gaming. One pastime in no way seems better than the other.
She toys with this question by asking why not study German, Russian, Arabic, or Chinese instead, and I think completely drops the ball with the answer.
The article can convince only those who share the author's aesthetic values.
While I completely agree with this argument (precisely because it is so trivial), I find it essentially pointless. While "usefulness" of an occupation can be somehow quantified and used to convince other people that a particular occupation is worth doing, emotional satisfaction is subjective and not comparable between different individuals. While someone gets a kick out of reading Latin, another may find pleasure in playing sports or gaming. One pastime in no way seems better than the other.
She toys with this question by asking why not study German, Russian, Arabic, or Chinese instead, and I think completely drops the ball with the answer.
The article can convince only those who share the author's aesthetic values.