Education and logic

All this while the world has been telling that education is what is going to save the world from illogical conclusions. Yes, education has been successful on many accounts. It has been instrumental in telling the people about their past follies. It has been instrumental in making the people to read what is being presented to them. Is education the know-how of reading? Is education the imbibing of logical thought? Is education the know-how of writing a language. Is the result of education to read? What is education. In India there are night classes for the under-privileged and the senior people. The stress is on learning the alphabet, framing words and understand the dictionary meaning of the words. So once they can read a newspaper, they are educated. Now, what after the person can read a newspaper? Is education not bothered about how he should interpret it? Or should education not bother about the interpretation. Should the interpretation be forced on to the reader like in some countries? Should the interpretation be allowed to run free in all directions like in some countries. What is really the purpose of education? Is it to create a more radical consumer of goods/services/information?

Majority of our educational tools rely on "laws". We are told that we are not to question them. If this is not accepted by the child then the future of his education is a mess. Because all the future information he will get will be based on these laws. If the basic premise is not accepted then the kid will have a hard time to come to terms with the present world. If he accepts, it is smooth travel. He will come out a brick in the wall. Now, the thing is if given an option of accepting or not accepting, if the child chooses non-acceptance of the present laws of physics, of moral sciences, of mathematics, of logic, he has to make some of his own and he does make them as he progresses over his journey of life. This will be made based on his experiences, his interactions, his feedback, his successes, his failures,....The resultant human might become a brick in the wall, a special brick in the wall, a hammer which breaks and disturbs the wall, a builder who brings more brick into the wall. So the result can be pro-system and anti-system. Now, again, the meaning of system and anti-system might be different for different people based on their education.

So how should the educational system work? Should the system put only the questions and extract answers for all the questions from the student? Where does the student search for the answers? If he searches it within the present system, he will agree or disagree. If he disagrees will the educational system allow it and allow him to continue to the next question or try to play logic with his answers? Once the kid comes out with his answers how will he be able to cross-check his results? How is he going to cross-reference his conclusion. How is he going to validate his conclusion. Normally conclusions related to politics/society happens immediately. Either you like it or dont or you are not concerned/affected by the conclusions. Drawing a conclusion is one thing but pushing it down the throat of others is another. There are plenty of people in the "not concerned" sphere. These people can be very easily converted to the other side with a slight nudge normally through emotion altering strategies. The happiness of making people agree on your ideals is un-parallelled and this is exactly what is happening with f^&*b*&* and other walled social networks. All these networks are feeding on exactly this aspect of human education. Either they re-inforce the previous education or try to negate it emotionally. All this is again happening for identity. So, is the job of education to give identity, The general syllabus for all the students point to the fact that we want all kids to grow up in the same "particular" way, the same identity.

Will education save the world? Will education give the superpower of reading what is offered and analyze it, fact check it, prove it right or wrong. Will education make all people logicians? Will all the people of the world be logicians? Will logic rule the world and beat out all the ready to eat "isms"?Will.....?

All isms trying to chase utopia,

There have been many attempts at defining the utopian societal system. Every model having its own advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are the ones the modellers are concentrating on achieving with the model. They concentrate on this so much that when asked to talk about anything outside this core area, they blabber. They blabber and then come out with a crude mechanism to be inclusive of the new issues which have come up. Now, the thing is whether you are a bourgeoisie or a proletariat, you are still a human being. The societal setup cannot kill a human being. Yes you can show he is wrong in the larger scope of the world. But, he will still be wrong with respect to the societal setup you are trying to achieve. If the bourgeoisie tell a different story and he has a different model then the new model proponents will be seen as the wrong doers. So, this right and wrong is a complicated issue and will be left as is until the words find use again. But, there will not be an answer for what is right or wrong. Even if somebody argues about a situation in the time continuum and talk about right and wrong it is his perspective. Similarly there will be perspectives of all the actors involved in the situation and definitely everybody have their own view of the right and wrong.

All utopian societal systems exist with a sort of control mechanism. Who is going to administer this control mechanism is the point. Whoever takes over this mantle is the ruler in any form of the societal setup. All societal setups require control mechanisms. This is because you have a framework and people have to be ensured to stay in that framework. So, you are telling me there is a societal system which does not require this sort of control and that is anarchy. Well, you still have to maintain anarchy. You have to ensure that anarchy stays and every body adheres to it. What if some group decide in the principle of anarchy to be a democratic setup or a socialist setup or the most controversial and the most misused and the most misunderstood and the most underdeveloped societal system of all times, the communist setup. The communist setup is so bad that every leader has taken the threads of the model which suits the situation and the attitudes of the people and have used it against the people in the guise of using it for the people. This applies to the capitalist's favorite, democracy also.

The perfect utopia is perfect control. Human beings are no more human. They are just biological beings. They dont feel what is right and wrong. They are at peace with the societal setup. They dont question anything in the setup. If ever a single person question the system, then it is not perfect utopia. Utopia can only exist with perfect surrender. It is therefore never possible with human beings. It is in our system to question, to query to ask for better even in the best possible scenario. This expectation of human beings should be alive. This expectation and always on the lookout for better is utopia. Yes, people will try to suppress this trait of humans. But, history is example that human beings normally outgrow the system which is oppressive or free. Even total freedom has to be questioned. Since this gives freedom to kill and to thieve. So the yearn for perfection will be its undoing. It is a continuous loop and should continue so. If this questioning ability stops then a different species other than human beings might think of it is utopian and robotic together.

Mere questioning has never produced results. If results are required then the questioning group should come out with a strategy also which is for the common good. Instead of seeing the profit of a corporation only. They should give out a holistic approach towards the improvement of all the actors involved. In fact they should bargain hard for the people they are fighting for instead of concentrating on whom they are fighting against. The argument should be economically sound first and then enter political and theoretical category. The economical argument can be easily understood by the parties involved and also the third party onlookers whose support is required to win the argument.