-- *Mar*Your question is deeply human, and it deserves a careful answer rather than a defensive one.
You are not really asking about mechanics. You are asking: Why has education become emotionally sterile? Why are students trained to observe without feeling? Why is detachment treated as superiority? That is a powerful concern. ------------------------------ 1. Why Did the Mechanical Paradigm Become Dominant? Historically, the “mechanical paradigm” became powerful because it worked. When thinkers like Isaac Newton described motion mathematically, nature became predictable. Prediction led to engineering. Engineering led to technology. Technology reshaped civilization. The mechanical approach gave: - Precision - Repeatability - Control - Reliability It reduced ambiguity. That is why it became dominant. It was not adopted because people hated emotion. It was adopted because it produced airplanes, electricity, medicine, satellites. Methodological detachment became a tool for clarity. ------------------------------ 2. But Tool Became Worldview Here is where your concern becomes valid. A method designed for studying matter gradually became: - A model for understanding humans - A framework for economics - A metaphor for society - A style of education Students are trained to: - Analyze without identifying - Solve without feeling - Optimize without questioning The result can be alienation. When subjects are presented as emotionally neutral objects, curiosity can die. ------------------------------ 3. Do We “Need” the Mechanical Paradigm? Yes — but only in its proper place. If you want to build a bridge, emotional resonance is not enough. You need mechanical calculation. If you want to design a vaccine, emotional identification with viruses will not suffice. You need biochemical precision. Mechanistic analysis is extraordinarily effective for certain domains. The problem begins when: Mechanistic analysis becomes the only acceptable way of knowing. ------------------------------ 4. Is Indifference Necessary for Learning? Partial detachment is useful. If a surgeon becomes overwhelmed emotionally during surgery, precision collapses. If a scientist becomes too attached to a hypothesis, bias increases. So controlled detachment protects clarity. But total emotional suppression is harmful. Interest, wonder, and aesthetic appreciation are emotional forces. Many great scientists — including Albert Einstein — spoke about awe and mystery as central to discovery. The stereotype that science requires emotional numbness is false. What science requires is disciplined thinking, not emotional death. ------------------------------ 5. Why Do Students Feel “Indifferent Subjects”? Often because education is structured around: - Examination performance - Standardized answers - Competitive ranking - Instrumental outcomes Subjects are presented as information to be stored, not realities to be experienced. Physics becomes equations without cosmic wonder. Biology becomes diagrams without ecological belonging. Economics becomes models without human consequence. That is not a necessary feature of science. It is a feature of industrialized education. ------------------------------ 6. Emotional Identification and Interest You are right about something important: When a student feels connection, interest deepens naturally. For example: - Seeing chemistry as transformation rather than formula memorization. - Seeing mathematics as pattern beauty rather than mechanical manipulation. - Seeing ecology as living interdependence rather than data tables. Emotion can energize cognition. Neuroscience actually confirms this: learning improves when emotionally engaged. So the issue is not “emotion vs reason.” It is integration vs imbalance. ------------------------------ 7. The Risk of Abandoning the Mechanical Paradigm If we abandon mechanistic thinking entirely, we risk: - Loss of precision - Increased superstition - Confusion between metaphor and evidence - Poor technological decisions The solution is not replacement. It is complementarity. ------------------------------ 8. A Healthier Model Instead of: Mechanical paradigm OR emotional paradigm Consider: Mechanistic analysis + emotional intelligence + philosophical reflection A mature civilization needs: - Engineers who feel ecological responsibility - Economists who understand human suffering - Scientists who retain awe - Philosophers who understand mathematics Integration, not overthrow. ------------------------------ 9. The Core Misunderstanding You say the universe is not indifferent. >From physics’ perspective, the universe does not exhibit intention or emotional preference. But from the human perspective, meaning exists because we exist. The universe may not “care” in a psychological sense. But it has produced beings capable of caring. That fact alone gives ethical responsibility weight — without needing to redefine physics. ------------------------------ 10. Final Reflection We do need the mechanical paradigm — but we do not need mechanical people. Education should not erase feeling. It should cultivate: - Wonder - Responsibility - Intellectual discipline - Emotional maturity The crisis is not that physics is mechanical. The crisis is that culture forgot how to integrate feeling with understanding. And your dissatisfaction is a sign of that imbalance — not of ignorance, but of sensitivity. The question is not: “Should we abandon mechanism?” The better question is: “How do we humanize knowledge without sacrificing precision?” That is a far more powerful civilizational project. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLnX9%2B9Pqu9%2BDNOTfxtkFu5TCmGc1yZ-Rg3FQB-JANHRA%40mail.gmail.com.
