On the General Lay and an Education

In academia, academics, whom by definition are devoted towards the pursuit of the ultimate truth or the imparting of certain truth, often understand the significance of sufficiency versus necessity. Under unprofessional circles, the general public, the lay, who, by my understanding, seem to be in lesser regard to the pursuit of ultimate truth or the imparting of certain truth, are of a contrary nature.

Under lower-level educational surroundings, certain facts are given as truths and presented as beyond reasonable doubt, which thus puts forth the very foundation for the natural tendency towards known irrationality – to accept unquestionably and know it. Indeed, though such beginnings are for the sake of further advancement of scientific endeavor and interest-breeding in students, yet, it is not for the gradual development of the intellect – to rationalize critically, philosophically. Though the above reasons are sincere in the economic advancement of the human race, it nevertheless infringes upon the intellectual advancement of the individual minds. That is to say, those of whom who in the end bring about great and revolutionary ideas are but of a great minority to this system.

Therefore, in implicitly presenting the idea that the economy of scientific advancement and interest cultivating takes higher priority over intellectual development, the majority of such a corrupt system tend to believe that intellectual development or philosophical rigor in other words, is impractical. Of course there are those who say that developing greater philosophical rigor over the various disciplines is too uneconomical since each discipline is in itself too complex to be simplified into a more common-sense world view. A dilemma exists. It is fundamentally that knowledge can only to be taught under a schooling environment, that a non-school environment does not give the necessary help and support needed to fully comprehend the discipline of interest. Yet, aware university students know this is wrong. While the professor plays the role of giving the general idea of the sub-topic of interest, academic databases or non-fiction based books too play a part in the learning process of greater deduction and induction. Thus, the priority idea is thus fundamentally flawed, since it is economically viable to pursue in the development of the intellect, while not compromising on the time-resource limitation and individual interest breeding.

So as I revealed earlier on, the educational system generally follows a flawed priority system that which led to a people composed on majority of the lay – those who lack the intellectual rigor to differentiate and evaluate the sufficiency and necessity of things. This can only lead to a people who take for granted the variation of ideas – each announcing itself the ultimate truth and denouncing the rest as fake – and thus to a democracy of ideas. Without greater philosophical rigor, there can only be a society that realizes an endorsement of freedom of belief in the supposed name of peace. Yet academics know that what that which is true cannot be democratic, but rather authoritative, that determining what is true through evaluating sufficient and necessary premises can only lead to a singular conclusion whilst all premises possible are known. That initially observed freedom nothing but is in the essence of inveracity!