There is a new law in education, the bertsolaris championship or the Olympic games are every four years and the modification of the educational law, like holidays on the Christian calendar, is not regular but similar. This law carries a résumé, the Bible that guides the work of professors, who, if it does not go through the communion of oppositions, no one reads our own. In this sense, and once again, the presence of philosophy seems to be inferior to what has been promised, in quantity and quality. I will try to analyze both, the first related to the procedure, the second to the form. This is seen at first glance and requires the help of microscopic reflection.

In terms of quantity, a cooperative curriculum is proposed that, once and for all, takes into account the educational community. It means a significant increase in the competences of the centres and, above all, of the communities. But the intention to adapt to the context seems, in principle, a step forward, but a context. Gari sang that freedom is too dangerous a lover. Although motivation is pedagogical, in many communities the price that can be paid is too high. This is what the government that committed itself to ensuring critical and autonomous thinking is not going to do. What is left of us now is to ask the government to defend the work of the reflection so necessary for the proper functioning of a society by speaking out and unanimously.

According to Hypatia de Alexandria to address quality: “Defend your right to think, thinking wrong is better than not thinking.” What is thinking right or wrong? There are houses of different styles, each one will find yours. But without solid structures, I don't put myself under anybody's roof. The goal of philosophy in education is to gather basic architectural notions so that everyone can build their own house, not prefabricated houses. Back with the Hertzainak group, as the endemic ailment of prefabricated dreams lack of foundation. I am referring, in short, to the dogmas, to the basic ideas on which it is forbidden to question. With a ghost that we should be more afraid of than any ideology, even when we make ourselves believe otherwise, because we have a huge tendency to educate ourselves in them. “Analyzing” has not been “accepted”, “understood” has not been “reflected”… And it is not a grammatical issue. I don't care if the issue is gender, interculturality, identity or the best economic system. A society that does not guarantee dissidence and dialogue has the most serious disease possible: the belief of all reason.

But how far is the question going? Where is the limit of acceptable ideas or actions? Without falling into ambitions, what is thinking right? The key is in an argued dialogue that does not cross the limits of respect, knowing that the limit of respect is a fine thread, but assuming that an exercise of funambulism is necessary. The philosopher Lipman called careful thought: to take into account the impact of what was said on others, but without saying what we think. Values such as reasoning and coherence are also needed, insofar as they ensure mutual understanding and honesty of attitudes. We call instrumental values, which from there and in dialogue with the ideas of others allow us to build our own and common values. It is not so much, but it is not a little, therefore, what we are proposing. Not only do we reclaim philosophy, but ours is a way of understanding philosophy. Read to a good friend: the only fight is the way.