When I hear the term “general education,” I feel nervous, just as I do when encountering the phrase “general public.” Just as there is no such thing as the general public, there is nothing that truly corresponds to general education.

Each form of education is either very specific (and thus not general), or it is not education at all! (The same goes for the “publics”). In the case of education, it is crucial to use the words ‘carefully’ and ‘attentively.’

Why?

Western euphoria

A dangerous presupposition underlies the concept of general education, particularly the notion of a divide between general and specific knowledge. This presupposition suggests division instead of interconnectedness and implies a hierarchy. It embodies the assumption of an “ideal world” that is ontologically distinct from the practical one.

Who was the last person capable of holding all knowledge in one mind? Was it the Pre-Socratic philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, or Thomas Aquinas? Who was the last individual with true universal knowledge? Geometry, arithmetic, and medicine have long been separated from the universality of philosophy. My point is not to pinpoint a specific individual known for universal knowledge, but to acknowledge reality. While distinct, specialized sciences account for only a fraction of total knowledge, philosophy, on the other hand, exists in abstractions disconnected from reality. For the contemporary, Western-minded individual, reality can only be grasped through specialized sciences.

The specialization of the sciences advanced so rapidly after the Renaissance that having a department for the left tibia at one research center and the right tibia at another would no longer be surprising. Western medicine particularly illustrates a myopia of myopic specialization.

But does this imply that un-myopic specialization is also possible?

What is the catch? Western euphoria has led us to believe that the vast extent of knowledge created by humanity is beyond the grasp of any computer, let alone a single individual. From this belief arises the idea that in order to excel in one area, we must forget everything else. Focus, focus, focus. Somehow, we know that this euphoria produces doctors who see the bone but not the person; physicists who understand everything about particles but know little about chemistry; biologists who cannot cross the boundary into medical science; and similar delusions of contemporary segregation.

What we believe is that knowledge extends far beyond any one individual.

Non-myopic specialisation

However, the idea that knowledge transcends everyone holds the answer that enables us to overcome segregation. We must be careful with our words: knowledge (as a memetic field) has always been broader than the individual. By acknowledging this fact, we stop worrying about quantity and begin valuing the quality of participation in knowledge. We are discussing a principle that Eastern cultures have effectively practiced. (I apologize for my generalization here.)

In this conservative approach to life, the potential of the East often surpasses that of the West. Their practical life experience is both simple and robust: they do not overlook the moment (the particular) for the sake of eternity (the universal). They understand that each moment encompasses eternity itself. For science, this would suggest, “Do not worry about the universal, since you are wise enough to recognize the universal in a single scientific discovery.”

Therefore, non-myopic specialization would align with the Eastern practice where each individual’s hyper-specialization—recognizing the existence of 7 billion people on Earth compared to around 1 million 70,000 years ago—consistently considers itself in relation to other specializations. This does not suggest that doctors could compete with physicists specializing in elementary particles; rather, they should abandon their comfortable isolation and engage with the discoveries of other sciences alongside their dedication to specialization.

Homonists as working philosophers

The prerequisite for such a move is recognizing that different paths exist, not just the one suggested by Western political correctness.

By “political correctness,” I am not referring to daily politics but rather to the obsession of a Western, particularized mindset. In this context, it is simply impossible to view ourselves as anything other than the managers—and prisoners—of technology. This mindset restricts our daily goals to mastering our environment piece by piece (in the broader sense of the term).

This particularism eliminated God, but it has placed science and technology in the role of God. We act as God each time we control specific technological items. In acknowledging that a demiurge does not exist, humanity has retreated into the illusion that at least one tibia exists or at least one fundamental particle that it can ultimately master. This belief triggers the illusion that we can dominate the world (and possibly the universe). Political correctness is, in fact, a catalyst for short-sighted specializations.

Taking the apple from the tree of wisdom granted us various kinds of knowledge, but it also hindered us from understanding that nothing we know can replace God.

The thesis is that the wise are not those who cover all specialties, and even less those who address universality (reserved for God). Instead, they are those who can balance their limited specialized knowledge with as many parallel bits of knowledge as possible.

The wise, for instance, understand that sociology is driven by the theory of complex systems, which is influenced by system dynamics, a branch of physics that emerged from Darwinism and the concepts of Neo-Darwinism, ultimately finding strength in chemistry (and so on). A philosopher, a homonist, must engage with physics, and physicists should act as working philosophers. If this recognition is not yet feasible today and cannot be integrated into the school system, then at least the daily fractures occurring in each of these sciences—the trauma that informed specialists routinely experience—suggest the rise of homonism as a reaction to the short-sighted and myopic tendencies of Western reductivism.