I have two takes on this question.

First, this statement could deal with poverty levels. I am a teacher and have attended several seminars on Poverty and learning. A lot of times, people living in poverty spend most of their time learning to live (or survive). People from middle or high class backgrounds live to learn (or seek knowledge).

Another take: Scientific research has proven that the number of students that fail their 3rd grade standardized testing is what building planners base their estimate for the number of beds in newly built prisons on. (Hard to believe, but true) Also, studies have shown that from birth to third grade, students should be learning to read, because fourth grade curriculum is set up for children to “read to learn”. Maybe your theory goes along the same lines as this statement. I teach fourth grade now and have taught third grade. I definitely agree with the reading statement.

I think “learn to live” means learning how to survive with the rest of the world. Learning how to treat others and how to make youself become a succesful person. I guess it’s like knowing the rules of the game. But even knowing the rules isn’t enough; that’s where experience comes in. For example, I’m a soccer player. I was taught the rules and the objective of the game. You can only become a better player with practice and time. “Learning to live” is the effort you put into learning the rules of the game and “live to learn” are those practices you need that teach you how to play a better game (experience). I hope this gives you at least a place to start!

Well, that sounds nice, but doesn’t make sense. If you spend all your time learning, you won’t have any time left to actually use all this knowledge you have aquired. It implies learning just for the sake of it.

In my opinion, it means both knowledge and life are important for a person. If one person lacks one of the two, he or she cannot survive.