  Leibniz once said, "Necessary truths, on the other hand, are founded upon the principle of contradiction. " I like Leibniz. At least in his thoughts I find some of my own. The educational tensions we experience may stem more from the contradiction of being human as much as contradictions in pedagogy and urlLink curriculum . It seems reasonable that we should inquire as to what makes learning real to students. Just as it seems reasonable that we try to make ourselves "real" to learners rather than "fake. " Whatever may be the criteria for "realness," we sense that this matter is important. Oddly, as educators we spend an interminable amount of time questing to understand knowledge (a philosophical branch called urlLink epistemology ) but mostly shy away from urlLink metaphysics (the branch of philosophy that grapples with matters of reality).
Yet, the matter of "realness" versus "fakeness" continues to sneak up on us as it has through the ages from pre-Socratic times right up until the Wachowski brothers, who captured our imagination momentarily with the first Matrix installment. Philosophers, artists, and scientists have been toying with "reality" for the better part of the 20th Century and any uncertainty (Heisenberg) suggested by scientists can provoke peers to cry out, "God does not play dice" (Einstein)! It appears that contradictions are inevitable especially whenever a practical application is attempted. Even when we give credence to the existentialist ideal that reality is merely point of view , arguments never cease!
In general, scientists accept truth by consensus (more so than artists and philosophers? ), for as long as skepticism exists and testing persists, there will always remain "checks and balances. " The trouble with philosophy and art, of course, lies in the fact that "proof" is achieved through rational thought (i.e., a priori ). Not easy to argue by logic alone! Why anyone chooses to investigate problems that are insoluble has always puzzled the pragmatist (sometimes referred to as the "practical" thinker). The pragmatist, according to William James, is likely to "turn his back resolutely and once for all upon a lot of inveterate habits dear to professional philosophers away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions from bad a priori reasons. " Should we wonder that American ideology was founded upon Pragmatists, particularly the educational system, since capitalism necessarily requires practical means?
Ah! Ideally, life ought to afford humans time enough for both philosophical musings and practical applications (if one so desires). It takes pragmatism to navigate daily life, to find a companion, to raise children, to labor and to survive. On the other hand, it takes a lifetime of contemplation to fall in love, to create art, to be curious about the world and to venture into the unknown. PS I suspect that we have all practiced the art of being real or faking it , at one time or another...(Nieminen vs Lecavalier anyone?
) 
