On Intuition, feelings and emotions - Part 2

It may be hard to understand, but sentiments and emotions are actually a part of the intuitive experience. In other words, sentiments emotions and experience are all actually one 'concept'. The 'experience' coined in metaphysics is not an ‘experience’ the human mind remembers after an activity is accomplished, but rather it is actually the state of being, or the emotions we feel at that point of time when we be.

______________

I am certain that all of us are aware of the different categories of books available in the libraries around us today. Indeed, some libraries may have more books than others, yet the basic categories of books are usually still in place nevertheless. We usually got to see familiar categories such as the Children’s Fiction, Children’s non-fiction, Fiction, Newspaper and Magazine, Audio and Videotapes, as well as the General Collection.

Of course we may collectively group them together into three broader subjects- Children’s Fiction and Fiction may be lumped together under the subject of Literary Fiction. The arrangement of topics for Children’s non-fiction resembles closely to that of the General Collection. Audio and Videotapes are usually adapted from books from the former two subjects. Finally Newspapers and Magazines make up the third subject of modern-day information.

Now if we were to take a closer look at the 2nd subject of General Collection, we find out that it is categorized via the Dewey decimal classification into ten main classes. Further sub-divisions may refine the books into a hundred divisions, and to a thousand sections. This form of classification is aimed to organize all knowledge comprehensively. There is a common misconception that the DDC only classifies non-fiction (or 2nd subject) books only; in actual fact, all books from the subject of Fiction (1st subject) are classified under cat 800+ of the DDC on the topic of Literature. The 3rd Subject too lies under cat 000+ on the topic of Information and General works.

In other words, there is actually in essence no distinction between any of the subjects. Putting in an empirical sense- as all books convey knowledge in some sort or other, henceforth they are actually the same in essence.

The classes of books are arranged in this format:
·000 – Computer science, information, and general works
·100 – Philosophy and psychology
·200 – Religion
·300 – Social sciences
·400 – Languages
·500 – Science and Mathematics
·600 – Technology and applied science
·700 – Arts and recreation
·800 – Literature
·900 – History and geography and biography
Now it is very important to note that the integration of the above ten classes of books actually forms up the complete knowledge of our lives.

Indeed, there may be infinite books that may be published in the times to come. There may be infinite topics that may be discussed in the future, with each topic a sub-division or a blend of the above ten classes. The DDC has already taken into account this possibility with its ability to divide and permutate itself into an infinite amount of decimals. But do note that all books, including that of metaphysics (cat 110) present knowledge in a logical and analytical manner. This is because knowledge requires concepts to propagate, and words are in essence a form of conceptual representation.

But in essence (note that I keep re-iterating essence), there is only one life. This life is intuitive.

Now, what does this lead to? From here I would like to direct your attention onto the concepts of Multiplicity, Pragmatism and Empiricism. These three concepts are philosophical in nature, and they officially touch on the contrasts between logical thought and intuitive experiences to finding the truth of our lives.

The concept of Multiplicity is distinguished into two different methods- Namely Continuous Multiplicities and Discrete Multiplicities. Discrete Multiplicities tend to focus more on the quantitative properties of truth while Continuous multiplicities apply towards the qualitative principles of our lives. As according to Bergson, the doctrine of logical analysis and concepts attempt to explain truths discretely via the study of logical cause and effect (pragmatism, determinism) as well as experiential evidence (formal empiricism). On the other hand, Continuous Multiplicities and ‘true’ empiricism tend to come together to form another doctrine of intuitive experiences, intellectual sympathy and intuitive feelings. The study of these two doctrines forms the basis of nearly everything that we know of.

Now, putting back into today’s context of intuition and feelings (which are actually one in essence) as well as the earlier mention of the library and knowledge; we got to see a sort of similarity between the three. Note that Bergson had stated that The Concept can only symbolize a particular property (of an intuition) by making it common to an infinity of things…. And have the inconvenience of dividing the concrete unity of the object into so many symbolical expressions… and that Metaphysics must transcend concepts in order to reach intuition.

These words are evident every time we go to the library. The General Collection may have an infinity of books, and from the books may come an infinity of concepts that come hand-in-hand to map out our entire knowledge of our lives and the world around us. But these concepts, infinite they may seem, or no matter how accurate in explaining our lives, remain no more as conceptual words upon paper, and may never truly be representative of life and reality (in a very literal sense of book vs. human).

This has been the ultimate truth of intuition. Not that it help explains the truth of our lives that logic and education seeks to help us understand us and the world. But rather it is the experience, that intuition, of feeling, and being, that had made us understand Truth without having to know it in the first place.

Indeed, that has been the major argument for feelings and sentiments, as expressed through various philosophical movies like Equilibrium and the Matrix. That it gives the people the sense of life and being, as well as the purpose of carrying on in the artificially created societies based upon the scientific method. In both movies, the scientific (logical) communities are always portrayed as cold, unfeeling, life-less characters while the more sentimental beings are portrayed as more humane and experiential characters.

This be the reason why so- that the 2nd doctrine of intuition provides the basis of life and meaning. This be the reason too to why most religions (apart that of the philosophy of Buddhism) always tend to promote an experiential faith of appreciating life and doing Good, rather than concentrating on the technicalities of the world’s construction and the science of God. For feeling is the best human response to the true concept of intuitive being, and being requires no concepts to understand the truth of life itself.

This be the reason why most religions oppose the over emphasis of the logical technicalities of our everyday life- not that it is bad or it will kill us (as they say); but rather because no matter how much we may try to reconstruct life in terms of concepts and technicalities of our jobs and knowledge, we may never, and unwittingly sacrifice our lives in turn, to experience life- the sentiments of life, and the intuitive state of being as it truly is.

Life, that one very intuition that speaks a library of words- I am indeed not mad to say it is so.

Of course there are the technicalities of feelings, onto the different state of mind and emotions; those I believe will be dwelled in the branch of psychology and regret not having enough resources on my part to give a satisfactory account for. I approach this topic of feelings from a more philosophical and Metaphysical point of view today, and in the next post shall discuss on the limitations of Intuition and feelings. Hopefully by the time we hit on the topic of identity, I may integrate common feelings (those we know of) in greater detail into the ‘concept’ of intuitive being. Meanwhile, as I have re-iterated earlier, any form of comment, criticism and expounding upon this topic is welcomed anytime.

On Intuition, feelings and emotions

Please do refer to ‘On Education, logic and Our Lives - Part 3 for an introduction of Metaphysical Intuition and Feelings.

Indeed, we have covered quite a lot on the topic of logic and education over the past few excerpts. We ended our last discussion on the limitations of logic and an introduction of a new ‘concept’ otherwise known as intuition and feelings. Yes, this topic I am about to address in the following few posts is very hard to explain, owing to the fundamental fact that this topic in essence is supposedly independent of any concept, analysis and definition. Today, after seven days of mulling around attempting to come up with a satisfactory address to the topic, I have decided that well-done or not, the Project still has to go on.

The ‘concepts’ of intuition, feelings and emotions that we are addressing here may be slightly different in terms of definition than the layman’s definition of these words. I presume that the pure essence of the subject I am addressing lies somewhere between these three words. And in the following posts I’ll attempt to explain how such an abstract concept is supposedly to come hand-in-hand with logical analysis (as seen through the eyes of education) to bring meaning and understanding to our world and our lives.

True Intuition is the power or faculty of knowing things without conscious reasoning or empirical knowledge. Pure intuition is the act by which the mind perceives the agreement or disagreement of two ideas. When using only intuition, the truth of the proposition is immediately known right then, the moment it is presented. This is without the intervention of other ideas or deductive reasoning. In common usage, intuitions lead us to believe things without being able to articulate evidence or reasons for those beliefs. Today, we can say that true intuition, as opposed to a logic-based-robotic mind, is only a hypothetical state of mind for us humans. Humans are rational creatures, and rationality requires both logic and intuitive experiences to exist simultaneously.

The human’s best attempt to ‘re-conceptualize’ true intuition lies in feelings. As I have stated before, the pure essence of Intuition, if loosely said, and integrated with little amounts of logic, becomes a more familiar concept of ‘feelings’. Even so, there is still a spectrum of feelings within this faculty of ‘feeling’; those that tend more to true intuition can be classified as what we called ‘gut feelings’, whereas other feelings such as ‘desires’ have slightly more logic to it. In definition, feelings can be defined as sensations, emotions, impressions, desires and intuitions.

An emotion is a term for a mental and physiological state associated with a wide variety of feelings, thoughts, and behavior. Emotions are subjective experiences, or experienced from an individual point of view. Just as how I have utilized education as a ‘means’ of applying the concept of ‘logic is important’ to our lives, I will attempt to use ‘emotions’ to bring forth the importance of Intuition and Feelings into our lives today.

Now that we have made an attempt to define and ‘conceptualize’ the above, we shall start now on the general introduction of the importance and hindrances of sentiments (a word I have coined to describe feelings, emotions, and in varying degrees, intuition) to our lives as to understanding ourselves and the world.

One of the most controversial aspects of sentiments is the fact that sentiments bring about as much destruction and hindrance to our quest of perfecting knowledge as much as it allows us to understand the world.

So, how do intuition, feelings and emotions come to play on the Moderation Doctrine in allowing us to finding the full truth in our lives?

We require sentiments in nearly every aspect of our lives- whether we are making a choice or decision, whether we like or dislike something or someone, when we desire something, when we socialize (realistically), acquaint, or are in a relationship with other people; sentiments are also present when we are alone, falling into the subcategory of ‘mood’. Even at the most neutral state of mind ‘sentiments’ are present: the very essence of metaphysical intuition (of being); and as according to such doctrines feelings, emotions, sentiments and intuition are all one.

On the previous post, I have given an analogy of Literature and Metaphysical Intuitive Being. I had compared Intuition as being that character himself and logical analysis as all the traits the author had written about the character. The conclusion that we had arrived was the fact that no matter how much the author may wish to expound on the characterization of his character, all of that can never be equivalent to the simple and indivisible feeling we can experience should we be the character himself for an instant.

That is where Sentiments play as an important role to our lives. Logic and analysis may be able to describe the truth, knowledge and structure of our lives, but sentiments is required nevertheless to flesh out by feeling, and being, of our lives and the world around us.

As Arnold Benett has succinctly put it: There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul.

Yet and again, Sentiments have always been seen as a ‘stumbling block’ on our quest for knowledge in Technical Education and Philosophy. Philosophy has often been described as first and foremost a discipline of reason, and technical education (as I have iterated over the previous posts) has aimed to make us understand the world via logical knowledge. Hence, emotions have often been neglected or attacked as primitive, dangerous and fundamentally irrational.

After-all, it is predominantly emotions that had led much of the world to war and unrest- that led rise to fanaticism, religious conflicts, and the creation of ‘lunatics’. Fanaticism to what we term as Jihadism in the Muslim world today, Conflicts as to the historical Crusade wars, the major schisms within the church during the 1500-1900s (Catholics and Protestants), and ‘lunatics’ as to people we deem to be irrational or ‘over-religious’.

Addressed in Huxley’s Brave New World, Bertrand Russell’s The Scientific Outlook and the movie Equilibrium, sentiments (and the training of sentiments) are the root cause of human ‘complexes’ in the world. ‘Complexes’ are the fundamental reason why utopia can never be achieved in a certain community, or why there can never be total order in a society.

And henceforth the dream of many philosophers to abolish religion, and henceforth Hitler’s Holocaust, Eugenics and Ten Reich Campaign (unsuccessful, but it aimed to a certain utopia for his community), henceforth the advocating of a life of reason and apathy.

Putting this issue on a much more congenial context, sentiments are pre-requisite for us to socialize, be ‘better’ people through ethics and morals, and ultimately be ourselves throughout. But indulging on sentiments is also the cause of academic failure, being in a neurosis, and being impractical or illogical.

Indeed as an introductory conclusion, we get to define Sentiments, as well as get a glimpse of the strengths and hindrances that Sentiments play in our lives. In the following post I’ll discuss in greater detail the role of Sentiments and Intuition to the lives of our young people today, the dangers of misuse of sentiments when we apply it too practically (or impulsively), as well as its dependence for logic too to complete our realization of our world.

On education, logic and our lives - Part 3

We know that our mainstream education teaches us the logic of life. At first thought, logic seems to be the most important life skill that is imparted from generation to generation. Logical thought allows us to think efficiently, solve complex problems analytically, and understand ourselves & the world around us better. Indeed, most education institutions come handy with a textbook, filled with facts, formulae, and thought processes- each of them an essential tool for our future jobs and lives. Critical thinking is promoted, as it allows the individual to approach problems (including that of life) from an unbiased, logical point of view. This in turn allows the individual to make a higher probability of correct choices made in life in future. In short, logic (a.k.a. the Scientific Method) breaks down complexity, thus allowing us to live our 'complex' lives with relative ease.This is succinctly summarized in the following three points:

1) Be able to think, reason and deal confidently with the future, have courage and conviction in facing adversity

2) Be able to seek, process and apply knowledge

3) Be innovative - have a spirit of continual improvement, a lifelong habit of learning and an enterprising spirit in undertakings

(The Outcomes of Education, Ministry of Education, Singapore)

But are logic and its analysis the only thing we have to learn in life? Indeed not. On deeper thought, we can evidently point out various aspects of life that cannot be fully reasoned out- morality, ethics, values, passion, romance, faith, trust, etc.

It must be made known at this point of time that all of the above-mentioned points have something in common- on face level, the one essence that is evident within all of the examples is the fact that they are all ‘feeling’ based. Some of them may sound more logical i.e. romance, ethics. Yet, others may be totally illogical itself, especially seen within the concepts of values, faith and trust. Indeed, faith has allowed fanatics a ‘reason’ greater than the logic of survival to sacrifice themselves for the ‘most righteous cause’, which at closer analysis, has no logic to it too.

But haven’t we said that logic can explain our lives? Why cannot we logically explain these then? Then and again, do we even have an explanation for the above?Indeed, strictly speaking, we may attempt to break down these topics down using the scientific method to three fundamental subjects of physics chemistry and psychology. Physics would probably attempt to explain how our brains are made ‘alive’ by electron and atomic movement. Chemistry would then pick up from there, and distinct how chemicals react and trigger which receptors within the brain to produce emotions, feelings, memories and tendencies; this in turn would then be analyzed explained logically from psychology and neuroscience. But even so, is this logical explanation itself complete?

I don’t want weasel my way around here, and I definitely do not wish to even try to prove the above three scientific disciplines wrong. But it is at these times I have to make known that the answer is both yes and no at the same time.

Yes, it is completely accurate that the explanation itself, as far as it is concerned, is true.
No, in its strictest definition, elements of the brain are not parts of the mind. This reasoning is Metaphysical.

Metaphysics can be called the fundamental reason why logic can explain the world, but cannot Truly represent it. The fundamental concepts of Metaphysics are actually very simple: it states that the Truth (note that the first letter is capitalized) is actually not fully complete (in the strictest sense of the definition of completeness) by any amount of analysis and logic. Instead, it too requires another element- otherwise known as intuition, to complete the full understanding of the issue.

The pure essence of Intuition, if loosely said, and integrated with little amounts of logic, becomes a more familiar concept of ‘feelings’ that I had attempted to make known. The most intuitive of feelings noted today can be said to be ‘faith’. Henceforth, that is the reason why I had discussed faith, beliefs and religion at quite a decent length in my first part of this project on Truth.

Intuition itself is extremely difficult to learn, for the fundamental reason that it is in essence an essence that cannot be explained by concepts, analogies, facts, or even language. Hence, in a certain way, it has circumvented the logical flow of General Paper, the facts of History and elementary science, and right down to even the representations of the Languages (for even words have associated meanings and thus can be considered too as concepts). Yet intuition is not a ‘concept’ we are too unfamiliar with, our feelings in essence are intuition- our beings are in essence intuition. Minus all the logical analysis, the scientific study, or even the idea of conceptualization itself, life itself is actually one big intuition by itself.

HUH?

I had noted that it is arguable that Literature encompasses elements of feeling and metaphysics. Now, please do consider this:

Consider, again, a character whose adventures are related to me in a novel. The author may multiply the traits of his hero’s character, may make him speak and act as much as he pleases, but all this can never be equivalent to the simple and indivisible feeling which I should experience if I were able, for an instant, to identify myself with the person of the hero himself. (the metaphysical intuition)

Out of that indivisible feeling, as from a spring, all the words, gestures and actions of the man would appear to me to flow naturally. (the intuitive feeling itself)

There would no longer be accidents which, added to the idea I had already formed of the character, continually to enrich that idea, without ever completing it. (which logic attempts to explain)

The character would be given to me all at once, in its entirety; and the thousand incidents which manifest it, instead of adding themselves to the idea and so enriching it, would seem to me on the contrary to detach themselves from it, without however, exhausting it (the idea, or the intuition of me as the character) or impoverishing its essence.

Rephrased from Henri Bergson: An Introduction to Metaphysics.

Literature is an analytical study of the character, and by breaking down the character down to his individual traits, attempt to understand the character himself. However True literary appreciation, as advocated by the subject, is actually a metaphysical event that can never be taught but felt and appreciated.

That is where the logic of mainstream education fails. Not that it fails to explain life fully, but that it cannot present (or in a looser sense represent) life in its entirety that feelings could.

Tying into this point, we now look at other forms of education- What about Art and Music? Sports and Culture? Moral and Religious education? These forms of education are in essence legitimate as far as education is concerned, and upon closer look we find out that they have actually greater elements of intuition, experience, or intellectual sympathy tied into the basic logic of facts and language. To excel in sports requires the sportsman to ‘live’ the sport, and not only to study the techniques of the sport as he might have done in a school. We have to sympathize morality to understand it, and even religion requires an experiential fidiestic belief before God, and his values, may be fully ‘realized’.

That be the fundamental reason why schools are trying to ‘move out of the classroom to the field’ to make students ‘experience’ the knowledge they learn in their textbooks. That be the fundamental reason why a subject of humanities (slightly more intuitive orientated) has to come with science (and vice versa) in the new syllabus of Junior Colleges. (Although the outcome may not be successful at this stage). That be the reason why we ‘feel’ that such education is incomplete and turn pursue other forms of ‘education’, or C.C.A. so as we speak.

In conclusion to this entire topic on Education, Logic and our lives- I have briefly touched on various topics and concepts, which I would state below:

1) The importance of logic to our lives as to understand ourselves and the world.
2) On how mainstream education aims to bring logic and its goodness to our lives (the philosophy of education a.k.a. Logic Eternal)
3) How technicalities (logic now) are important, arise, and yet how it had marred the true philosophy of mainstream education
4) The limits of education bringing only logic to our lives, in light of its aim to make us understand the world.
5) The introduction of Intuition and Feelings (I’ll explain this in the next topic)
6) On how logic and education has to come hand in hand with metaphysical intuition to complete our realization of the world.

The information presented on this topic is incomplete, and I may be unwittingly inaccurate in some of my points. Please do feel free to comment or rectify on this topic without hesitation- and help expound this informal classroom to fully realize the Truth in our lives.

On education, logic and our lives - Part 2

Education does two things: it develops the individual and educates the citizen. (From the Desired Outcomes of Education - Ministry of Education, Singapore)

In the previous post, I have touched on mainstream education, their characteristics, and their aims to inculcate logical thought into our lives. With the analogy of a military school, we are first taught the languages as a medium for logical thought, then filled in with facts and then gradually taught the skills to further deduce other facts, knowledge's and truths. Education ends with specialization- when we now have acquired the fundamental skills and information for general knowledge, finally proceed to apply such skills and knowledge into our specialized fields as evident in the universities and our jobs.

This has been the aim of education society has denoted for us- For us to survive independently, to think for ourselves, and for us to become competent individuals whom would be able join ranks of those in already in research and the workforce to break forth the frontiers of human discovery, knowledge and technology.

Indeed, this aim is not only for ourselves, but also for the community. This is important as we, although unique individuals ourselves, must understand that the community too denotes greatly our sense of identity, which I would discuss further in the later topics of Identity and the Self. But do note that regardless for the individual or the community, the aims of such education was to preserve and augment the student in Knowledge and Truths of the world around him/herself. This is most evident in the introductory page of Science, where Science (Knowledge) is aimed to 'let us know more about the world around us and about ourselves'

Why know so much? Humans generally have given up strength, speed, agility and physical resilience for a stronger and more intelligent brain as they had evolved from primates. In a way we might say that natural evolution has forced us to abandon physical excellence for knowledge, intelligence and logic as a means of survival. Henceforth it is imperative that we have little choice but to follow this general tendency should we wish to exist and excel. Of course you could choose to be a sportsman or a sprinter and excel in life nevertheless, yet we must understand that even these people require years of training for them to achieve such physical standards. For the average us, the casual track-and-field kid in school, or the football player at the street-soccer court after school hours, it is ultimately still our brains we have to develop at the end of the day.

So, at the end of the day, we conclude that education is meant for our personal survival, as a key factor in molding our personal identities, and as a means where we may impart what essential skills we acquire to others for the improvement of the community and other-selves. If we were to equate Truth into this equation, we may very well conclude that education is ultimately part of an attempt into find the Truth of ourselves, and the true meaning of our lives.

Yet, if the true philosophies of education are so noble, why does it not seem anything as I had described in the above paragraphs, today? Today, we hardly get to see education as a means of promoting the individual and the self. Instead, it is more evident that education is reducing the human individual to a 'mindless-slave', where the mundanity of work kills off the creativity it was supposed to impart; where the fear of examinations undermines the underlying essence to achieve knowledge.... In this way, I shall have to blame it on the reason of the overemphasis of 'Technicalities', or what I may categorize as a Logic Now on my four point scale of Moderation.

Like all corporate organizations, it's the development of education that was the key reason for it's destruction. Assuming a hypothetical case of a man named Mr Loh who wanted to start a business selling Mandarin Oranges to natives in Madagascar. His original intentions were good- to allow the natives have the ability to taste the sweet Oranges they would otherwise never be able to find alone. He brings a crate of Oranges of his boat on shore and sells it cheap to the first group of natives he meets. He soon finds out that there are many more natives to help; therefore he got together other associates, with some natives, to go back to china to get more oranges.

As time grew by, he found out that he could not possibly personally ensure that all the natives (now a big number) have the same satisfaction of tasting the oranges, so he comes up with systems and hires quality controllers to ensure that the natives get the best orange. He then assembles other teams of orange givers, and giving them full autonomy over the oranges, sends them to other parts of the island. This situation extrapolates- he soon makes cash, and he soon hires a accountant and a consultant to finance his business. He starts paying his workers money, and his workers plainly dish out oranges to the natives (with a hell lot of quality checks) for the sake of salary. In the end of the day, it can still be loosely said that Mr Loh stills gives oranges to the natives of Madagascar, but is the original essence of goodwill still present today?

Sadly, we can see that the 'essence' of it has been greatly undermined by the technicalities of his orange-giving business. Indeed, this hypothetical scenario may sound amusing to us, but comparing the original intention of orange-giving to the original philosophy of education, and both outcomes at the end of the day (today), it is very evident how the aims of education have been 'mutated' from that of self augmentation to that of self diminishment.

Exams upon exams, syllabus after syllabus- topics after topics, do we ever stop once to consider the true philosophy (or objective outcomes) of the subjects and topics we have mindlessly memorized for our examinations? Are we able to stop, admist the hectic preparations of examination, to see the true reason why such 'quality checks' are in place in the very first place? Are we still be able to see through, at the end of the day, that education is actually meant for our well-being rather than our personal destruction?

Indeed it's really hard to see this, given the warp-ness of society and the competition it entails. But nevertheless it never hurts to understand the true philosophy of education especially when our identities be weary after a hectic day's work.

There is a certain controversy in philosophy, that whether philosophers (who are actually no more than people who think actively) are born or are they made. It turn out that actually everybody are born philosopher when they were children (as evident in their innate curiosity for knowledge), but what determines a respectable philosopher from another 'ordinary' man is the ability of this 'interest in knowledge' to not be killed through the technicalities of formal education and social pressure. Bearing this in mind, perhaps now with the true aims of education made light to our lives, can we appreciate education as it is truly meant to be. And by this, be truly great- to no one, to no society, to no convention, examination or norms- but ultimately ourselves and those we love most.

On education, logic and our lives.

What is Logic?

Thats to cheem, dude- personally, I do not understand how logic works in essence. Moreover, I do not want to address logic (see aims of project RN). Instead I want to focus more about the applications of logic to our lives.

So, okay.... how is logic essential to us?

I can give more reasons for this question- but do I really wish to explain every question I raise? Will it change the convictions of many to just hear reason upon reason? Or would more be convinced via an example (which we are al familiar with) that points out more successfully the essence of the above question? I believe the latter would suffice for now, and I'll reserve my arguments for other more dire topics on another day and time.

Alright then. let us look at our education. So, what are the aims of education?

Before I may address this topic, let us go back down memory lane to see a history of subjects that were made available to us during our course of education:

Pri 1 : English, Mother Tongue, Mathematics
Pri 3 : + Science
Pri 4 : + Social Studies
Sec 1 : + History, + Geography, + Literature, + D&T / Home Econs,
Sec 3 : Science sub-divides to Phy, Chem and Bio. Maths sub-divides into E Maths and A Maths

Available subjects for O level:
The languages- English, Mother Tongue, Higher M.T.
The Mathematics- E maths, A maths (optional)
The Sciences- Physics, Chemistry, Biology, (combined sciences)
The Humanities- Geography, History, Literature, Social Studies
The Arts- Music, Art, etc.

Choice of ITE, Polytechnic or Junior College after Ordinary Levels

ITE : Essential technical skills
Poly : Application and specialization in course of course (focus more on Project Work, practicals, coursework etc)
J.C. : + General Paper, + Econs, general choice between Arts or Science (focus more on core syllabus and raw knowledge)

Subjects tested for Advanced level:
-Mother Tongue (for those whom did not take H.M.T. during O levels)
-General Paper
-Mathematics or Economics
-2 or 3 Subjects on discipline level (either Humanities or Science)

University admission,

From poly : Higher specialization (diploma to degree in course of choice)
From JC : Application of higher knowledge onto relevant course of choice.



The above plan of education does not come about without reason. It is notable that when we were in primary school, the first subjects were not that of Science, Humanities, or Arts. Instead, the three primary subjects were on Language and Mathematics. Science was introduced as a subject only during primary three after two years of foundational grounding of the languages. Social studies, the first humanities subject, was only first introduced in primary four. Literature and other mainstream humanities subjects was only studied in sec 1 and phy, chem and bio only came around during sec 3. General paper only arrived on the scene in J1, 10 years after the initial introduction of education to the individual.

Why?

If we were to consider the nature of all the subjects as listed above, we would find out soon that all of them beyond science requires logical thinking and reasoning to varying degrees. As the subject gets introduced later, the higher was it's need and relation to logical thinking and analysis. Let us consider a few subjects in turn to see how they are related logic, and ultimately knowledge and truth.


1) Science and all it's relevant subjects: 'Science' would hardly be called science if it were to be studied in absence of logic (see philosophy of science). Science studied during the earlier years (pri 3- sec 2) was a general collection initially, with intention for students to memorize raw scientific facts. However, Science sub-divides into three primary subjects from Sec 3 onwards (namely phy, chem and bio) where we learnt to understand scientific concepts from mathematical calculation or logical deduction. It is notable to take note that while the methods of science may change over time, the philosophy of Science as a subject never changes- and in accordance to the introductory page of Primary Science 3 Second Edition, we get the following:

What is Science about?

In science we learn to look at things, ask questions and try to answer them. We get to know more about the world around us and about ourselves.

2) Social studies/ History: one of the most important concepts of Truth learnt in both subjects is evident when a student attempts a source-based question. Note that when such questions are attempted, various skills were accessed to identify aspects such as credibility, cross-referencing, biasness, agenda and logic flow. Do note that credibility and biasness of a source is closely related to subjectivity of Truth, and the basic skill of cross-referencing actually mirrors the correspondence theory of Truth.

3) Literature: The three basic skills of literature are 1. Reading the lines (reading for platonic content) 2. Reading between the lines (reading for inference) and 3. Reading beyond the lines (reading for meaning). As students attempt to analyse a given text, they are actually sub-consciously trained in applying skills of logical deduction and analysis.

4) General Paper: One of the frontiers of philosophy, where questions raised were actually related to the world in broad topics such as Science, Religion, Morality, Ethics, Nature, Nurture, Crime, War, Sports, Culture, Politics. Note that while certain topics may seem eternal (logic eternal) i.e. Science and Religion, Nature vs. Nurture, Free-will vs Determinism etc. Others remained more focused on the world today and are applicable to youths today (logic now) ie. Culture, Sports, Economy, Education etc.


After careful analysis of the subjects taught, the skills learnt, and the 'coincidental' timings for for the introduction of each subject- it is evident that such education was carefully planned out for. To first be able to assimilate the languages as a medium for thought, then invoke logic- first via facts and 'knowledge'; and then allow the student to slowly logically deduce 'truths' as in Lit, Phy, Chem, Bio and History. Finally, G.P. was imposed to perfect the logical reasoning and apply such logical skills to the real world itself, namely via addressing real world issues and topic currently under debate.

For this you may take education as a form of military school: to start afresh with every new batch of recruits, teach them how to walk (languages), present them their weapons (facts), then teach them how to fire their weapons on mock targets (sec school), bring them for simulation courses (G.P.) and finally from them bring them to the real battlefield when their knowledge is tested real time on the subjects, and jobs they will specialize in their future.

This has been the aim of our education. To prepare us for the war of Knowledge and Truth.

Do note that mainstream education entails logic. Nearly every subject discussed above entails some degree of logic, although it may be argued that Literature encompasses elements of Feeling and Metaphysics (which I will dwell next time). The education can thus be a vantage point where we may easily see how logic is essential to our lives; via education how our fathers try to inculcate logic to us, and by education how it prepares us for the future.

In conclusion, logic is essential in our lives. I have not given an objective answer why it is important, but I believe that would not be necessary. By choosing to touch on the aims of education I have already shown you it's significance more clearly than any amount of reasoning or arguments- on how it makes us more knowledgeable people, how it help us survive in the future (jobs), and ultimately how it help us live on as human beings from generation to generation without death or extinction.