Proof of Life
Who remembers High School Geometry? We began by defining both the seemingly obvious and the nonsensical: Circle — A collection of points equidistant from a center point … Point — A position in space without dimension.
To some, it may have seemed a waste of time to “define” something that was already “known” to us or which we might “understand” intuitively. After all, doesn’t EVERYONE know what a circle is before attending High School? Others may have had difficulty in grasping abstract concepts of things, which cannot by definition exist within our singular reality. How can something exist that doesn’t have dimension? If we are leaning about things, which cannot possibly exist, what benefit are those things to us?
However, Geometry was more about the process, as opposed to the specific items of information. It introduced us to “ideals.” It taught us how to think in the abstract. Geometry also builds upon itself. From those basic definitions, we develop an understanding of more complex structures. For example, circles are the related to spheres, cylinders, and cones. We can combine our understandings of forms and angles to determine things like area and volume or to solve for “unknowns” should we have available to us only a limited and incomplete set of information. This was the purpose of analytical “proofs,” which were to many students the bane of their existence.
The same can be said of classical education generally, and also of courses, whose purpose and “use” likely were not understood at the time (or even today): algebra, science, literature, foreign languages, etc. The idea is to provide a base of information and to teach a process whereby existing information can be applied to new circumstances or unique problems.
The study of our own language provides us words and vocabulary, through which we discover nuance and develop better understandings of life and of ourselves. It allows us to communicate effectively with others. We also learn to differentiate things, which superficially may have been mistaken as the same. Foreign languages might provide a better understanding of the source(s) of our own language. They also provide insight into other cultures, and offer a bridge to disparate persons and peoples. Like Geometry, science and mathematics in general are often as much about processes as particular facts or specific information.
Even if we have not encountered a specific issue or set of facts before, we can use institutional knowledge, collective wisdom, and personal experience to make an “educated guess,” as to a particular outcome. Institutional knowledge is a treasure trove, which affords human beings the opportunity to build incrementally from generation to generation. Without that information, every people, each generation, and even individuals would be challenged, tasked, and burdened with repeatedly “reinventing the wheel.”
We could not hope to replicate in a single lifetime or generation the same level of information, or through trial-and-error to achieve the same level of collective wisdom. Instead, we would be cursed to repeat the same mistakes of our ancestors and condemned to relive the same difficult histories of persons and people from prior generations.
Much like computer programing, language can be viewed from the perspective of science and math. Through the formulaic use of language, we can apply information to personal and societal problems. In Law School, students are taught to analyze cases using IRAC: Issue — Rule — Analysis — Conclusion.
The process starts by formulating the initial question or issue: What is the objective? Or, what is hoped to be determined through the exercise or analysis? This is often the most important step. The formation of the question may imply or even necessitate a particular answer, or if overly complex or convoluted, it may make determination of an effective answer entirely impossible.
Rules represent the collection of existing information. Sometimes, a rule may be “on point,” and it speaks directly to the issue involving substantially similar parties under nearly identical facts. Other times, there may be material differences among the parties or with regards to the applicable facts. In those instances, the prior rules must be analogized to the new facts.
This is done through a detailed Analysis whereby distinctions are considered and alternative effects are weighed so as to determine the most productive, advantageous, and equitable outcome (as well as one that has widespread application).
At this point, the Conclusion might seem obvious, and it is oftentimes, merely a restatement of the final determination based upon the Issue, applicable Rules, and detailed Analysis. The carefully considered conclusion may also serve as a new “Rule,” which may be applied in future situations or used to aid in other considerations.
Much of our present discourse turns these things on their heads. “Experts,” talking heads, and persons in positions of authority start with a Conclusion, and that conclusion is presented as a definitive Rule but without detailed analysis or consideration of alternatives. How many times do you know the tenor, tone, and outcome of an article or story simply upon identifying the source or reading the name of the author?
Purveyors of information often begin with a desired outcome or preconceived notion, and they endeavor to back into a purported analysis, which “supports” that desired objective. They adopt a preferred narrative, and thereafter, they cherry-pick facts to bolster that narrative. They formulate the question or issue in such a way that there can only be one “right” answer, and not coincidentally that, which is deemed right(eous), is almost inevitably the answer or outcome, which most benefits them or their favored interests.
This is not representative of an educational process, and it does not result in learning. It is propaganda, and it results in indoctrination. The control of information represents a source of power. It does not make the individual better; it makes him dependent upon the purveyor of information. Instead of empowering individuals to engage in analysis and to apply reason and rationality, it represents a dogma, which cannot be questioned, challenged, or contradicted. Rather than expanding the information base and shoring up the foundations of institutional knowledge, it presents a fragile fictional façade.
The objective of learning is not to regurgitate facts and information. The objective is to allow individuals to build upon existing foundations of information and knowledge. While that requires that we question and analyze the data in order to effect a better and more complete understanding, we should be careful that we are not so arrogant as to believe that existing knowledge, processes, and rules do not apply to us.
Many persons today seemingly believe that they, and they alone, are capable of building Utopia if only they were allowed to destroy all that is and thereafter “build back better.” However, revolution requires building back on the smoldering ashes of the past. Rather than Utopia, it is more likely that the crumbling rubble will serve as an enduring monument to what once was, and the ashes will serve as a lingering testament to all that was lost.
Rather than enjoying the benefit of a “better mousetrap,” we are likely to find ourselves infested with rats. Humility, tolerance, and grace are among life’s most difficult lessons, because learning those things is a lifelong process, which never ends and which can never be truly mastered. We prefer easy answers, but there are few of those in life. Those, who embrace these difficult lessons early, are more likely to enjoy better understanding, lasting contentment, and greater success.
