those habits as bad which relate only to our
convenience or our enjoyment. They are often not blamable in themselves,
but there lies in them a hidden danger that they may allure us into
luxury or effeminacy. But it is a false and mechanical way of looking at
the affair if we suppose that a habit which has been formed by a certain
number of repetitions can be broken by an equal number of denials. We
can never renounce a habit utterly except through a clearness of
judgment which decides it to be undesirable, and through firmness of
will.--

Sec. 34. Education comprehends also the reciprocal action of the
opposites, authority and obedience, rationality and individuality, work
and play, habit and spontaneity. If we imagine that these can be
reconciled by rules, it will be in vain that we try to restrain the
youth in these relations. But a failure in education in this particular
is very possible through the freedom of the pupil, through special
circumstances, or through the errors of the educator himself. And for
this very reason any theory of Education must take into account in the
beginning this negative possibility. It must consider beforehand the
dangers which threaten the pupil in all possible ways even before they
surround him, and fortify him against them. Intentionally to expose him
to temptation in order to prove his strength, is devilish; and, on the
other hand, to guard him against the chance of dangerous temptation, to
wrap him in cotton (as the proverb says), is womanish, ridiculous,
fruitless, and much more dangerous; for temptation comes not alone from
without, but quite as often from within, and secret inclination seeks
and creates for itself the opportunity for its gratification, often
perhaps an unnatural one. The truly preventive activity consists not in
an abstract seclusion from the world, all of whose elements are innate
in each individual, but in the activity of knowledge and discipline,
modified according to age and culture.

[Sidenote: _Protection against Temptation._]

--If one endeavors to deprive the youth of all free and individual
intercourse with the world, one only falls into a continual watching of
him, and the consciousness that he is watched destroys in him all
elasticity of spirit, all confidence, all originality. The police shadow
of control obscures all independence and systematically accustoms him to
dependence. As the tragi-comic story of Peter Schlemihl shows, one
cannot lose his o