We have all heard something similar to "who you know, determines where you go", or "what you know, determines where you go". I beg to propose a new concept for you. I encourage you to be more purposeful in your relationships you have in life. I propose "who I know, influences what you are". In other words, I don't care how strongly minded or willed you are, those you surround yourself with, influence your thoughts, and have an effect on your emotions and view, whether that be negative or positive. So if who you know influences that, then you in turn influence me.
I have had friends who are great people. They are kind, smart, considerate, goal oriented, dreamers, thinkers, and so on, but each and every one of them that is still a friend has something in common in who they are. Each one of them has something about them that is good. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed this way despite his difficult childhood of his mother dyeing from his birth, his father abandoning him when he was only 10 and many more things. The question I have for you today is, was Jean-Jacques Rousseau spot on when he expressed man being born innately good but that it was society that corrupted man? He argued that man was made unhappy by experiences that he had in society because society was distorted, corrupt, and
false. I stressed education to a tremendous degree. I interperate it that he felt with education, all could be solved. What do you think? Looking at your country, how do you feel about "education" being the fix-it tool to a happy, fulfilled, good person. Mind you, I didn't specify its quality. For you see, if I am an educator, it truly is who I know, that influences what you are, or who your children will become. I personally believe more than credentials should be considered when determining an educator who will influence the lives and practices of millions.
I have had friends who are great people. They are kind, smart, considerate, goal oriented, dreamers, thinkers, and so on, but each and every one of them that is still a friend has something in common in who they are. Each one of them has something about them that is good. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed this way despite his difficult childhood of his mother dyeing from his birth, his father abandoning him when he was only 10 and many more things. The question I have for you today is, was Jean-Jacques Rousseau spot on when he expressed man being born innately good but that it was society that corrupted man? He argued that man was made unhappy by experiences that he had in society because society was distorted, corrupt, and
false. I stressed education to a tremendous degree. I interperate it that he felt with education, all could be solved. What do you think? Looking at your country, how do you feel about "education" being the fix-it tool to a happy, fulfilled, good person. Mind you, I didn't specify its quality. For you see, if I am an educator, it truly is who I know, that influences what you are, or who your children will become. I personally believe more than credentials should be considered when determining an educator who will influence the lives and practices of millions.
1 comment:
Since Jean-Jacques blames society as the cause of suffering and harm, education is the only option because it provides a consistent method for everyone throughout a culture to learn in a similar manner producing very similar results. In secular society, no other institution but the school reaches such a majority of the masses for so long of their developmental time. Education is prescribed as a universal vaccine, against illiteracy, poverty, and crime. If education was not such a powerful tool used to shape the entire system of a culture, the hippies and anarchists would not cry for its change or complete abolishment so adamantly.
Since the choice remains for each person to choose good, over poor or evil decisions, I do not see how education prevents suffering or unhappiness. However, the extent that education prepares a person to engage and function in the world, that person will find more opportunity and understanding then the uneducated hick. Preparation for life and the tasks necessary in its function and upkeep resolve the stress and unhappiness that the ignorant deal with daily. How could you even begin to have a fulfilled life withiout the ability to read or pay for your phone bill. Perhaps, this is too practical view of what education is, but the ability to gather facts, reason, and communicate are the fundamentals of daily life.
In short, I would say teaching a person how to learn is more important than an education. While most people would never learn more than a trade without the government requiring a broader knowledge, anyone only needs to learn how to teach themselves in order to reach their goals and dreams. Everything else is merely hoops to jump through for others to know that you know. I would rather have the inexperienced young doctor who knows how to learn than the experienced older one who only memorized and never figured out how to learn for himself.
This ability to learn is natural, but the forming of the mind and literal structure of the brain is not independent from outside stimulus. The process of formal education may or may not teach how to learn. We are warn by some great thinker that the opposite is actually true. Einstein said, “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.” Education is only helpful when it supports learning.
I would summarize that the best education prepares you to evaluate the facts, make good choices, anticipate mistakes, and resolve your failings, and all the while learning through the whole process.
Post a Comment