Educational Thought and Practice

Let's say that by "practice" here we mean the application or translation of a certain thought into action. But what is thought? It is said that thought is different from thinking, as the latter denotes a specific activity (e.g., calculating, planning, dreaming, reasoning, philosophizing).
Thoughts, we could say, are tools that we use to think, or they could be products of our thinking. In both senses, thoughts could be ideas, principles, philosophies, doctrines, convictions, etc.

Now, what does it take to say that a certain thought is educational? Is there a thought that is non-educational? If yes, then your answer suggests that you have an idea of educational and non-educational. How you were able to tell that there are things that are educational and non-educational, it appears, may not be difficult to figure. You must have used a certain set of criteria to decide whether a thing in question counts as something educational or otherwise. For instance, you don't probably think that all TV shows are educational. Perhaps, some of the TV shows that you wouldn't consider educational are Eat Bulaga and Wowowee. These examples, of course, may have a certain educational value for some people, but I have no difficulty assigning them to the category of trashy shows, which many TV viewers patronize nonetheless. Why? That's another story.

Anyway, let's return to the question, What does it take to say that a thought in question is educational? Maybe, it won't hurt if we are going to start with a simpler—I hope—concept, the concept of education. What is it? Saying that it's what we do in school is hardly helpful. For we could really be good at what we are doing in school and yet we could also be so dumb when it comes to dealing with matters that are probably more important than mathematics and physics in certain contexts. I mean, while we could be so good, for instance, at Solid State Physics, we could still be so inadequate when it comes to dealing with our own parents, siblings, and other fellow human beings. Perhaps, our present task could be made easier if we're going to focus on real people who may count as non-controversial examples of educated people. Let's suppose that we don't have any serious quarrel that Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Jose Rizal, Martin Luther, and Socrates are examples of educated people. What attributes could be abstracted from these historical figures which we could possibly robustly tie to the idea of education?

EDUCATION

Education is one of the many products of the human being’s interaction with certain elements and forces in his/her environment. This suggests that no human being was born educated. Education includes having knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that are useful in dealing with one’s community, fellow human beings, environment, etc. Being educated, I must add, is also being able to do the following: (1) function effectively in different areas of worthwhile activities, exercise good judgment in addressing evaluative or moral issues; (2) think creatively or imaginatively in analyzing and solving problems; (3) critique one's own reasoning; (4) appreciate critical questions that other people may raise about one's own claims and convictions; (5) treat different views with an open-mind (i.e., able to see things from different vantage points); (6) commit to one’s fundamental beliefs; and (7) do he/she thinks is reasonably right. (You may add some more in the list if you like.) Primarily, the things that a student is expected to learn in educational activities (e.g., classes in Math, Science, Philosophy, Religion, and Values Education) are tools that he/she could use to secure his/her individual happiness without sacrificing the interest and rights of other human beings. It's possible, of course, that in the process of one’s utilizing his/her knowledge or skills, other human beings will benefit from such use. That, I think, is more desirable and honorable. But education for me, first and foremost, should be something that one can use to advance the quality of his/her own life without violating the interests and rights of other people. This definition, of course, just like any other conceptions, is not without a problem as it is too general. Other people may also find it too self-centered. But self-centeredness, if you will study it closely as a concept, does not entail any negative attribute in itself. It’s the human mind that proclaimed that it’s evil, though it’s not necessarily so, again, in itself. Now, it might be helpful to start attempting to clarify some basic terms in the definition, one of which is knowledge.

Knowledge

What is knowledge? Is it really an important component of education or of being educated? If it’s not, then we shall have no problem saying that certain people count as educated or have an education yet they do not know anything whatsoever, i.e., they are completely ignorant. I’d venture to say that that sounds funny if not entirely crazy. (This one sounds crazy and funny: "triangular square.") I simply find it difficult to find an example of a person who may count as educated while knowledge can’t be applied to him/her. 

It appears thus that the concept of education could not be pinned down without reference to the idea of knowledge. We must remind ourselves though that while knowledge appear to be an important element of being educated, it is by no means a sufficient condition of being educated. Now, what sort of knowledge one must have so he/she could start turning him-/herself into an educated person? And what is the purpose of acquiring such knowledge? You know, it can't be purposeless. Perhaps, it’s not a bad idea to start looking for some answers in school. What sort of knowledge have we learned in school? Are they useful? Should they be useful? Let's begin with the first question.

What sort of knowledge do we learn in school? Easy. In Math, mathematical knowledge. In Science, scientific knowledge. In History, historical knowledge. In Religion, religious knowledge. You know my drift. And if you want, in Values Education, moral knowledge. Now, what is knowledge? Suppose we say that it's something that we believe to be true. But how do we know that it's true? Well, in science, there's a saying that to see is to believe. Of course, this is just a quick way of saying that it's hard to believe that a thing in question is real if it could not be found in the realm of the senses. Science, we do know, has a hard and fast rule when it seeks to tell whether a thing in question is a valid object of inquiry. I never heard of a scientist who had aswang or impakto (fictitious monsters) for his/her object of curiosity. Anything that lies outside the realm of senses can't be a part of knowledge from the vantage point of science. And if you will continue with this pattern of thinking, the Holy Spirit will not also make a valid object of scientific investigation. The sacramental bread, on the other hand, if the scientist would like to know if it turns into something more than what it is, a bread, at a certain point during the mass, could be a valid object of scrutiny as it is a material thing. I think I'd already made my point clear about science clear. It has no room for anything like faith (central to religion) and hearsay (important in History). This brings us to another point: While knowledge is not something that science (and math) could arrogate to itself, it's not true that we mean one and the same thing when we use the term in different areas of study. Before I proceed, I want you to think of the following questions. Is there anything wrong with certain forms of knowledge? Are there forms of knowledge that are most reliable?