In this episode, we ask if there is anything new in education and learning over the past 2500 years. Much of today's research is about confirming what philosophers and others have known. What seems to be new is our ability to provide learning to all children and perhaps especially to children with special needs. At the same time, to learn is to control or master something and perhaps this era of mass education is making the human footprint larger and unsustainable. Maybe education itself is not sustainable? Central to our discussion is the possibility of creating an education that is sustainable and what importance spirituality and philosophy have to say for an alternative way of educating for a sustainable future.

In this episode we have a visit from Rebecca Teclemariam. She has worked for more than 30 years in education as an educator, teacher, teacher educator and administrator. We are particularly curious about how she connects mathematics and ethics. She attempts to show how essential values ​​for humans can be shown mathematically. An example is to create a mathematical model that shows the relationship between generosity and friendship. We also discuss whether it is possible to measure all forms of values ​​and knowledge mathematically, maybe even theological values. If it is true that the universe is mathematical, then we can stop doing mathematics based on material prosperity and growth and instead use human resources to measure the values ​​that really have value for us. Can we stop giving value to what we think we can measure and instead measure what actually has value for us? This will have revolutionary impact and perhaps this is what we should do in schools to create a sustainable relationship between humans and the world?

In this episode we start by discussing the development of philosophy. Or rather, our thesis is that there has actually been no particular development of philosophy. Rather, it seems as if there have perhaps been some degenerate thoughts within Western philosophy over the past 2500 years. Furthermore, we examine the idea of ​​which rationality actually motivates action. Why is it that scientific knowledge does not necessarily change human practice, while much indicates that the motive for our practices is philosophy and understanding of life. By implication, philosophy is the most practical rationality we have as humans. In that case, a new problem arises. If philosophy is what motivates humans to act, and this philosophy has not changed in 2500 years, does that mean that we still act the way they did 2500 years ago?