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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment