The big problem that occurs in learning is what is true, and what is not.
An interesting phrase, "The story is told by the winners," said writer George Orwell, in an article published in 1944 in the British magazine Tribune.
So is the story true or a lie? Is the view of the winners the truth and that of the losers the lie?
Some scholars say that neither one nor the other version is a lie, or a truth.
Nietzsche, defines that the truth depends on the point of view.
But Descartes defines certainty as the criterion of truth.
In this case, we have the big problem of the position of truth, between the position of Nietzsche, or Descartes.
In the case of an education on the basis of Nietzsche, there is no real fact, and therefore everything can be true, and nothing can be considered a lie, or everything can be considered a lie.
In that case there will be no education. For how you can teach something that depends on the point of view of each individual.
In Descartes' question, when he quotes the term "certainty", he defines a system of physical proof. So if you throw a body 100 times upwards and 100 times it falls, then the truth is that the stone you throw upwards, it is true that it falls.
At this point, knowledge can be applied in the Descartes system.
But Nietzsche's point is used in modernity, as long as the risk of life does not appear. When the risk of life can appear then Descartes is used.
An example. A construction of a building uses fundamentals of Civil Engineering, so that such a building does not fall and kill people. But an architect defines any artistic positions for the concept from his or someone else's point of view.
So when it comes to the direct function of the risk of life, the point of view system is used.
But is there a difference between one position and the other, merely for the sake of the risk of human life?
Let's imagine the concept of the global footprint. Global footprint is the use of natural resources that human beings make. The ecological system uses very sensitive mechanisms to generate life for all beings on the planet. A human footprint can generate, and demonstrates that it is generating, ecological destruction to the point of harming human life.
In this case, an architect who spends a lot of materials, and generates a lot of waste, is in the end, generating risk to human life. Soon he would be wrong.
One example is the use of plastic bags, or plastic straws. In many countries they are banned, because of the ecological problems generated.
But when it could be used, was the risk to human health less? Or does pollution make human life harmful only when man considers it so?
Let us suppose that man is so destructive that he is extinct from the planet, then does the truth cease to exist?
This is a very interesting position for many thinkers, who define that truth only exists through human ideology.
But if this is true, why do catastrophes, illnesses, physical rules, medical systems and other things occur that are independent of human ideology?
If the truth depends on human ideology, then external factors could not alter human ideology. But many people, for not accepting physical laws, ceased to exist.
And here we come back to the idea of the destroyed planet. The truth is in the physical rules that were denied and so the man was extinguished. Or the man who believed that even if he did not follow physical laws, he would not be extinguished?
In the same way is the truth in a medical study that makes an individual overcome an illness? Or in the ideology of a denialist who ends up generating the death of his own ideas, and of others who follow his idea?
Note that normally the truth constituted in the most organized political systems is that without taking direct risks to health and life, the physical truth can be ignored, and the multiplicity of concepts can be established.
A clear view of these points can clearly show that the truth lies in physical concepts, such as Descartes' view. But when human beings see an opportunity to favor their tastes, even against the truth, they ignore physical concepts.
Usually law is used in organized countries, when the point of view of a human being, generates physical errors that cause or can cause the death of a human being.
Again, we can clearly see that physical laws remain the truth. If it were not, there would be no laws against human positions, because if each ideological position were true, there would be no law in a government.
Normally, the existence of laws is idealized, so that individuals or groups do not end up destroying society and themselves. That would be the ideology of the existence of Laws.
So the foundation of learning is linked to the truth, and the truth is to be found in physical norms.
And so the lie is linked to denying physical laws, to justify social systems, and thus generating consequences in the future, and when these consequences become life-threatening, then the social systems are annulled, and physical norms, previously denied, follow. .
All beings live on the platform of physical laws, not the other way around. Thus true education is directly linked to the platform of physical laws.
