The aesthetics as put forth in Schiller s On the Aesthetic Education of Man is at variance with the original Baumgarten s aesthetica in an important sense. In Baumgarten, the word signified a confused mode of perception which is alternative or parallel to the clear and distinct one, but in Schiller the two modes are not so much parallel as consecutive In that the aesthetic refers to the culmination of the analytic, and as such comprises the confused and the analytic in a single whole. In Schiller s terms, the aesthetic is defined as the combination of the sense drive and the form drive , or of feeling and reason, where both are developed to the fullest extent without interfering with each other s domain ; it is feeling and reason at once. The aesthetic in its perfect form refers to the mental state of the Godhead, in which all the potentialities are manifested in a single unity. And in the same way, the beauty, as the objective counterpart of the aesthetic, is nothing else than the semblance or symbol of the Godhead. Anything that awakens in us the aesthetic, the singular union of the possible and necessary, in which the true, the good, the beautiful and the holy are in one and without distinction, is beauty . Without denying that the work of art represents the aesthetic and beauty In a more evident way, it is certain that the beauty is not confined there ; it resides in every human achievement that is worthy of transmission to the next generation. In this sense, the aesthetic education is not an alternative to the intellectual education, but the intellectual education in its complete form. An unmistakable similarity is noted between the Schiller s aesthetic theory of education and the Neo-Confucianist theory of mind and education. For instance, the Neo-Confucianist concept of Middle (chung) is an almost exact parallel to the Schiller s concept of the aesthetic both in its nature and in its implication to human education. It is felt that the two theories will add to a more complete understanding of education.