Huxley and Arnold Argument

Huxley and Arnold After reading Thomas Henry Huxley’s lecture “Science and Culture” and Matthew Arnold’s response “Literature and Science”, I thought critically about what the two men have said and the basis of both arguments. Huxley emphasizes on teaching physical science because it is a necessity for human advancement. Matthew Arnold counter argues Huxley’s lecture with a few key points. The important concept Arnold mentions is that literature is not just acquiring an exquisite lexicon, but instead, knowing the lives of the Greek and Roman people who created the antiquity literature. Arnold says we should learn the lives and the ideals of the Greek and Roman antiquity and implement the values in today’s world. Arnold and Huxley may go back and forth, debating whether science or literature is more vital, but they actually help support one another’s argument. Huxley and Arnold simply prove that literature and physical science should both be taught and learned in today’s culture. Huxley believes in physical science and that it should not be undermined by literature. I do not believe science is a bottom feeder in education, but I believe it is not as vital to the common man at first glance. People would naturally want to read and write well rather than learn science. However, man striving to advance ought to learn biology or math while learning advanced literature. Stopping at simple lessons such as arithmetic will not promote growth in society so why stop at basic? While one pursuing being a writer should not have to learn trigonometry or advanced physics, ascertaining algebra and simple biology will simply help by opening one’s mind to a higher learning. Matthew Arnold poses interesting arguments that seem to push literature into a higher class than science. One who studies literature will see the world differently, as opposed to someone who studies science which is a fair statement. Part of Arnold’s argument that stands out the most is that he strongly