8.1 Straight to the education.

8.1.1 Education is the generational transmission of the knowledge of scientific and social rank for the development of the personality, and the forms customary established to facilitate the relations of coexistence in the community.

8.1.2 The ethical foundation of the education is in the respect due to the human being, so that the ways of performance in the interpersonal relation do not hurt the sensitivity of the contenders.

8.1.3 The education must constitute the substratum of all social relation because it supposes the first approach to justice.

8.1.4 The next norm of education is intuitive in the man and consists of dealing to the other part with the same particularitity whereupon one same one pleases to be treated.

8.1.5 As in the society cultural habits are created that determine rooted tastes of politeness, these must be taught to the following generations to facilitate the relations. In this education the familiar group implies itself specially.

8.1.6 The knowledge derived from the intellectual penetration in the nature have come to denominate scientists. The generational transmission of such constitutes the social patrimony par excellence and to which all subject person as of the humanity must right to accede. A fundamental part of the education consists of the education systematized of all that knowledge scientist.

8.1.7 In addition to science and its technical applications the education takes care of the development of the artistic creativity of the man by means of the creative models of our predecessors who conform the humanistic patrimony.

8.1.8 The right to participate in the collective knowledge of the humanity generates the right to the education. Since education demands an educative specialization is reason why -in the distribution of the allocation of tasks in the social group- the professor have constituted. It originates the one that the education, in this facet of intellectual knowledge, has been constituted with rank of collective responsibility to take care of this right social.

8.1.9 The difference of capacity and personality of the individuals is what originates the one that in everyone embodies in greater or smaller measurement the educative influence equally trasmitido within a social group. Although in the right of know all the citizen are equaled, in the yield of the acquired knowledge that will facilitate the labor development the application is very different. For that reason the equality of opportunities is preached of justice to learn.

8.1.10 The education constitutes the basic element of development of a community, because being the human creativity the motor of any progress will be in the full dependency of the knowledge acquired like elaborated material content on which to project the creative capacity.

8.1.11 The essential difference of development between  the different towns is based more in its education than in its accessibility to the natural resources. From this perspective, the implication of all the humanity in harnessing the education would have to be constituted like one of the high-priority necessities to tend.

8.1.12  The right in himself to the education is one of the essential contents that must contain education when it approaches the communication of the relations of the individual with the community. This is understood so much for the familiar community, in that duties in the greater ones with respect to the education of prole are created, like in the superior structures to which on the suitable corporation it falls the obligation of the education of the people until his qualification sufficient to act responsibly in the social  framework.

8.1.13  The right to the education, like fundamental right of the person, is of universal scope, reason why it must be exerted in all situation. Of some way also this responsibility from which the education arrives at all the human beings implies all the society, that through the suitable international organisms must cause the one that are a reality anywhere in the world. For it it is precise to second plans of promotion and aid for the less sensitized towns with this social good of first necessity.

8.1.14  This right must specially be taken care of when by circumstances of displacement, migration,  physical handicap, unjust segregation, etc. special difficulties could appear to be taken care. As soon as it supposes a fundamey right for the formation of the personality is of vital importance of taking care of the psychological complicated individualities.

8.2 The freedom in the education.

8.2.1 To educate taking care of the right fundamental of each individual first of all demands to educate in the truth.

8.2.2  As well as the right to the education is universal, also a universal obligation of all the citizens exists for, in its scope of participation in the society, to assume a directed behavior to serve to the others by means of the transmission of the knowledge acquired judged according to the experience like positive or negative. Specially each man is it jeopardize socially to the education of the good.

8.2.3  As the obligation of the education implies to all the social estates, each one of them will exert a more important influence according to its suitable capacity with respect to the contents to communicate in each phase of the education. This way: the family, the school, the university, the sport community, the circle social, the religious community, the communications groups, the international organisms, and any other association of social initiative must guard by the respect to its educative influence by means of the transmission of contents fit to the truth.

8.2.4  Since the consideration of the truth can contain many subjective influences, it is reason why before nothing must notice that all the education is sustained on the forge of an other people's personality, individual and frees, and that therefore all education must focus to inform a rational mind with object to forge a free and independent personality.

8.2.5  One of the great temptations of the humanity is to form beings in who the own personality projects, they already are of the parents, the tutors, the educators, the politicians, the ministers. That should not prevent him for that everyone assumes the responsibility of really to trasmit all those true contents that a good for educating considers, but always saving the freedom of conscience of the formed personality.

8.2.6  The greater danger to project the own personality is directly proportional to the magnitude of the relation; very specially in the maternity and the paternity is confused the affection that moves to try permanently the best good inculcating the experienced ideas of good behavior with educating to the children according to the tastes and preferences of the own personality. In this dimension one is due to try to aim what the own formation is really a good for the children  improving the own educations if accessible means exist, and always counting on the advising of the experts who can share tasks in the education of the boy, as they are the  professors and tutors.

8.2.7  The obligation to educate that it is incumbent on to the community with respect to his members is exerted of more direct way by the professors on those who the task is incumbent of teaching with respect to the truth that makes possible the freedom of its students. It is this task of special responsibility and extreme gentleness. Here he is possible to make a distinction between the objectives which they identify scientific knowledge, whose objectivity contributes the forcefulness to it of its experimentation, and the humanistic contents, whose subjectivity is influenced much for the thought or ideology that all time, fashion and man has. To educate in the freedom represents therefore to really teach to the contents scientists like scientists, and the matter of opinion  like of opinion, really sustained in all the justifications that can help to educating to form their better criterion. Based on the age he is essential that is educated in the progressive freedom of judgment, that is that the own criteria must vary based on the information which they can contribute to new experiences or studies.

8,3 Identity of the culture.

8.3.1 The culture is formed by the collection of knowledges and ways to interpret the life that the human people have purified in each community; trasmiting that wisdom of generation in generation, and being left certainty of the same one through traditions that articulate the relation forms, which they determine a particular language like communication vehicle, which they are expressed in artistic manifestations, as in use as compiled in the urbanism, museums, libraries, etc. whose influence extends and  altogether determines the historical personality of a colectvidad.

8.3.2  According to the social scope that is limited it can speak from a culture of the humanity to the culture of a certain town. The essential characteristic of the culture is its social reality, that is that corresponds to which that way of knowing on the life it shares in a colectivity and from the same one it spreads like own characterization of the same one, so that somehow it is possible to be said that the culture identifies to the group in its projection sociohistorical.

8.3.3  The culture is made in each community in two slopes:

  1. The one that corresponds to the communitarian global conception of its cultural reality.
  2. The one that each person internalizes like experience of relation with the outer world.  From the collective perspective the culture constitutes like a set of wisdom and sensitivities harmonized from subgroups that can be understood of way diachronic or made in the time, or synchronous according to the different creative facets from the human perception. In the diachronic axis the tendencies are pronounced that at every time social sensitivity has taken like references of its creativity, and serves to study their influence in the vitality of that group at every historical moment and the influence on the later stages and the present time.  The valuation of the cultural heap of a society can be measured so much in the values that project on the present moment, like also in the value that supposed for the relations of the society in every time. First it analyzes sociology in the study of the social behaviors, the second belongs properly to historical science.  The influence of the historical culture remains of more or less explicit way on every moment of the society because it is in the customs and because beyond his study it goes to the conscience of the citizens as exemplary forms that can be pronounced in the individual or collective behaviors of each social group.  The one is east cultural influence diachronic that of a clearer way shows the cultural patrimony of a community and influences determining in its conception of nation.  The conformation of a subgroup division of the culture in the synchronous axis is made from the contemplation of each one of the diverse manifestations in which cultural contents are made such: social language, literature, painting, music, cinema, events, forms of leisure, etc. Although the mutual influence and the common dependency to contemporary forms of thought and operative habits cause that common existencial denominators exist that they constitute the cultural essence of the moment and who they are pronounced like the own cultural values of the time.  The synchrony of the diverse cultural manifestations not prevent so that at every moment the preeminence of aspects on others is transcendental, so that when the diversity is eclipsed towards the monopolismo of few manifestations the universalidad of the creative possibilities suffers and generates spaces and times of cultural blackouts.  To pronounce creative depends much on which the formativo surroundings and the vital surroundings find an animation cultural that it moves to wake up the spirit of the material lethargy. For that reason the diachronic influence of the cultural conscience of a town is a factor entertainer of the culture and also of the personal inner freedom, as soon as that as the creation is a projection of the spiritual intuition on the intellect its possibility of accomplishment will be greater if the person perceives her capacity of transforming influence.  The culture also has a personal slope defined by the affinity with the sensitivity of each person towards the experimentation of the creative contents. In relation to the knowledge the culture is distinguished of the erudition in which this one is characterized by the accumulation of knowledge; and of the wisdom, of which the same one consists of the interpretative capacity of  the contents of the knowledge; whereas the personal culture is perfected in the sensible experience of the contents of the knowledge and the forms of manifestation of the creativity. The culture therefore estimates the knowledge, but it is only defined as so when it enters to integrate itself in the world of the personality.  The culture contains a very important social value well by its content appears like an element of relation between the people. The culture contributes a space important to share experiences, and although he is inferior in the nature essence of the bonds to the one of the family relations or work it promote the same ones by the increase of contents that favor the transmission and interchange to seem.  A intellectual exercise exists combined to compendium cultural that boosts the perception of the own personal accomplishment. The man in his cultural experience knows itself like being spiritual sensible, beyond the mere physical sensitivity, interpreting the meaning of the creativity in which the expression of the received knowledge has been pronounced. The culture is interpreted thus intellectually like a value that allows us to enjoy and to progress in our relation with the nature. It would be possible to be said that the experience of the cultural content is something that differentiates from the other species animals, because the essential contents of our experience move from those of survival to those of intelectiva perfection.  Although to a large extent sensitivity by the culture is in the degree of the propitious disposition of each personality to be interested in that perspective of creativity in its relation with the nature, also it is certain that the inner motivation is increased with the education that allows a greater interaction with the knowledge and for that reason the possible scope of cultural speculation is extended. The motivation acquires the function of a catalyst for the cultural development, that is born from the society to the person and reverts later in a superior stage for the same society.

8.3.4  The projection that has perceived between the culture and the individual freedom is born of which the culture contributes to the human being an important vision on the matter that reduces the dependency sense. Although also it would be necessary to review that the culture involves a certain dose of agreement when inserting to the individual in a space cultural partner who determines his experiences to a great extent. That's why a diversity of contact of cultural sources is considered beneficial for the freedom of the person to favor its free enrichment. From this perspective the societies opened to the cultural interchange with other groups will be those more favor the freedom of their citizens. It would be possible to be gotten to even conclude that the world will be freer as soon as more increases the cultural development of its towns and more favors the interchange between the different cultures.

8,4 Cultural relations.

8.4.1 History demonstrates us that the cultural relations have not always represented a positive frame of coexistence between the different towns because the different interpretation from the intellectual reality has fomented the envy, the hatreds and the resentments trying to impose by the force the criterion of the own group.

8.4.2  The difference between social levels of culture has been also a cause of the stratification of the societies in compatible groups with habitual scorn or marginalization of the inferior groups.

8.4.3  Although in himself the culture would have to involve the intellectual opening to the compression between the people, and therefore from the most favored to the less, the social reality sample that it is not thus; so that he is very habitual that the culture degree supposes an attraction of the relations towards the superior groups and a scorn of the inferior ones, which is an indicator of how much still the culture represents a material value more than intellectual.

8.4.4  The social relations so that they are healthy must involve a respect between the respective cultures and a taking in consideration of the enrichment that contributes the one that in the relation affects diverse cultures.

8.4.5  In himself relations exist that generate conflict by the different approach that occurs in the culture of the parts. Among them they deserve to stand out:

  1. The generational relations.
  2. The relations between stratums.
  3. The conflicts of genus distinction.
  4. The marginalizations.
  5. The conflicts of race or state.  Generational relations:  The different perspective that grant to the interpretation of the life tend to vary the culture of each generation adapting the received one in the education to the new ways to think, almost always in an opened sense more of the freedom, which originates that conflicts between the people arise frequently which they comprise of successive generations, very specially if coexistence in common exists, because usually it essentially considers the new cultural form like rupturista, without taking in consideration that the evolution of the culture is an unquestionable diachronic fact.  The cultural conflict between generations hits between not yet mature yearnings of freedom and a tendency to the conservadurismo that is dissuaded to accept cultural changes. At heart all preservative tendency contains a certain dose of conformismo and a inplicit judgment of which by coming it is worse than the present thing. This situation is psychological consequence of which it is considered that the optimal thing always corresponds to the modified thing in the previous process of generational relief and that it, therefore, must be armored like permanent value.  The generational conflicts mark to the familiar, scholastic relations and a nondespicable part of the relations of the coexistence community. The youthful culture tends to affirm in the change as the standard of the own generational identity. The change is as much more accusing as soon as than the community it has a developed cultural baggage more, which generates a vindication of the freedom in rupture terms or progress.  Although the influence of the generational confrontation is let mark in the culture in the axis of its synchronous dynamics, in the one of the diachronic influence is smaller, because its social importance is diluted, partly, because the influence of the young people is adjusted in the age of the incorporation to the productive life, the one that extends more on the culture. However, a part consolidates in the new forms of thought and is the one that assumes the generational cultural relief.  Relations between estates:  The estamentaria division of the society is a reality with different imposition according to the cultures, but that even though it does not acquire a determining social relevance in the communities for that reason does not let exert its influence on the related parts.  The consistency of the classement culturally societies shows it in the relations social of work, political participation, concerning the marriage, access to goods, inheritance, etc.  The classement division affects the culture of the relations of coexistence of the daily life in so common aspects of expression as they can be: the greeting, the submission, the presence in certain social events, the assumption of fault, the access to the education, etc.  A society established on estates is an inclined society to the distinction of the culture opportunities and education for its citizens, because the favored estates more, than usually do not agree to integration, demand in name of the freedom the opportunity to dedicate the own resources for the formation of his, being left the access diversity institutionalized to equal means of opportunity at the formation of the young people. This aspect originates a confrontation in the social relations between the estates, because most inferior they demand, by virtue of the equal contribution that make to the society with their work, conditions of promotion for its children in order progressively to palliate the differentiation generated between the resources which you have yourself and the promotion that the culture facilitates. As soon as more integrated are the class of a society, greater is the cultural coherence of the society.  The culture of the distinction of people is trasmited in the social scope with such force that hardly is surpassed in the individual scope. Except for a reduced group animated by a  privileged socialc onscience, most of the citizens becomes aware from group and its mental scheme dreams up on the categorizaci√≥n of the people based on its hereditary estate. This conception displays a generalized exception, and is the one to attribute condition of cultural class based on the rent level that is pronounced.  With enough frequency the relation between estates suffers from lack of intermediation means that facilitate the mutual knowledge and the establishment of political resources that favor integration. In the democratic societies this is palliated partly by the popular representation, but the experience comes demonstrating how the projects of integration of many processes by the inconsistency or the irresponsibility of the chosen politicians are weakened.  An aspect where cultural integration continues being very deficient is the one of the relations between the national groups or social stratas that look down for their assimilation to the members of other cultures. The affirmation of the own culture must be so of integration that it becomes attractive favoring the assimilation. Neither the national conscience, nor the religion, nor the conception of the family or the economy must constitute ties closed for integration, on the contrary dependy of its internal coherence those realities will prevail or in opposite case they will be perfected with the outer contributions.  The conflicts of genus distinction:  The relations between people of different genus have in the society a substantial load in which it extends to the reproduction and consolidation of the species. The fertilization of new human beings follows a process ordered from the conjunction of two people of different genus who enter a specific relation that has like main aim the concurrence of the respective personal resources for the correct raising and development of the children.  The one that the relations of reproduction of the species are in the nature trusted to the sexual distinction of the people does not determine that they are these only or the main ones in the relations between genus, since the affective necessities of the individuals, in a very important determination, are also subject to the diverse form to be of the respective genus.  It seems that between the two more specific causes of the relations between genus, the affectivity and the procreation, a common element exists that it formalizes them that is the sexuality. The sexual distinction and the mutual attraction to the intimate accomplishment have the double aim of the generation of the species and the affective culmination. Therefore, one of the components of the genus relations is made orienting the purpose for which it settles down.  Being the human people free creatures, correspond to them in the genus relations to settle down the priority of their aims, without the acts in pair can acquire irrational tendencies. The intelligence is the one who must as much assume the governing role of the relational acts of genus in its formal agreement as in its accomplishment during the time in the relation lasts. The different culture that each part can have of which involves a genus relation must be put under the mutual consensus, because as any interpersonal relation is based on the mutual agreement, without they are accepted to impose particular cultural values. The culture of the freedom must prevail over any other than in his application it implied a dominion situation.  A characteristic of the genus relations establishes the one that the physical nature and psychological of the people of different sex they have specific peculiarities that cause that in the relation exist predeterminations of peculiar positions of power. The generic relation must assume that the differences of rolls between sexes do not consolidate dominion positions, for that reason must be oriented from a frame that assumes the difference of characters but the equality of right.  Like any human act, the genus relations, from the social perspective that studies the relations in its essence, are subject to the free will of the people that contract them, which does not exclude the ethical responsibilities with respect to the scopes of protection from prole and social integration of the pair.  In search of the common good, the social group, out of danger leaving the freedom of those who personal relations of genus contract,  can regulate the frame of duties and rights that must be protected in the group so that each member is also considered according to the indirect labor cost that the customs impose to him.  The equality of right in the relation must progressively be persecuted within the framework legal of the society although the customs or the cultural surroundings have accepted forms of dominion of members on others. The right to the equality between genus comes from the same nature of person and -no matter how hard at last times it was interpreted according to other values- the projection of the modern legal systems must go to its consolidation.  It is not justifiable the resource to the violence to impose the own criteria of culture in the interpersonal relations. Of very special way it is not it in the relations of genus by the privacy degree in which they are developed, where the same one could degenerate in serious consequences for the freedom and the stability of the familiar group. To this aim, in the same concert of the relation, he is positive to fix behavior guidelines to explain the internal conflicts. To heft the mutual offenses in a frame of stimulus of the coexistence must lead back the aggressive behaviors towards a tolerance that facilitates the coexistence preserving the rights. If the concord of the relation is not possible is due to sink the assumption of the inconsistency of the same one and to formalize the rupture of the bows, without he is acceptable in no case the resource of the violence.  The legal orderings must prevail over the cultural tendencies and serve as models for modification of the customs fitting them the greater fairness of the defense of the freedom. The cultural rooting of these tendencies facilitates the culture of the peaceful coexistence.  The marginalizations:  The cultural forms of each community involve possible layers of marginalization, are at personal level or of group, by the lack of integration of those people in which it is the common culture. They are elements that to cut oneself off because they present psychological characters by which tend to the social isolation, or because their personality or forms of behavior entails a social exclusion, or because of ideological reasons a cultural segregation is followed. In all the cases the marginalization is pronounced in a tangencial life with respect to the cultural scope established by the social group.  It is necessary to differentiate what corresponds to different cultural structures between chaste or estates, and the individuals exist that do not integrate themselves culturally in the own group, being in a marginality situation that determines to a large extent its social relations. The causes can come from the cultural rigidity of the group or the personality of the individual. Also a marginalization cause exists that is born of  physical handicap to share the cultural habits of the community.  The nature of the marginalization usually is followed of an accumulation of circumstances as individuals as much social that they hit with the culture with roots in the society. Normally protocols cultural comdemn the marginalization, because they hit the integrating nature that supposes the culture, but in fact are the conventions of these cultural forms cause to a large extent the marginal fact.  To work to construct from the heart of the culture bridges for integration is obtained by means of the consolidation of the same one in universal principles of social philosophy, that by their same condition can serve as common control to converge the tendencies of the different cultures. To base the the cultural realizations on common principles favors the general interest and the acceptance and integration by the deprived minorities.  The culture has to be an instrument of integration and not of disintegration, reason why it has to favor itself that they can reach his different manifestations from the greater percentage of individuals of the community, this principle demands the imagination of resources to adapt to the language of the children, the diminished ones, the immigrants, the older, etc. A culture socially is excellent when it enjoys implantation in  the society. Valid the exemplary forms are whatever do not determine for themselves but that they dream up with influence spirit.  When the culture establishes confrontation of the parts within a society really must to the deficient foundations on the criteria of the truth. For that reason it is necessary that the social people in charge of the cultural involution are sensible to the critic.  According to the progressive intercultural contact that is generated from the globalizaci√≥n of the social relations, the same culture must evolve from a paper of doctrinal essence towards the relativity of its contents as multipurpose forms able to adapt to the very different considerations from the life. In that  amplitude of the forms the intercultural dialogue is favored; and the one is that dialogue that can deepen towards the common essences that they must inform all cultural fact.  Conflicts of race and state:  To particularize the political life on a ideario of part comfronts the citizens so that sometimes the same idea of democracy or respect to the majority option of freedom is even questioned. This side division of the society supposes a serious risk of unstructuring that denies the same essences of the social concert for the communal property.  Diverse interpretations exist on if a society unstructures by the intolerance of the parts, or if the society is divided in sides by structuring defects. This question, that concerns to the sociological studies, which leaves patent is that a society faced from intransigent positions the dialogue is a fractured society that generates citizens induced to the violence like means of reaffirmation of the own criteria.  Since all person counts on a rational inclination to consider like truth her criterion,  the grouping of people who maintain common criteria reinforces the individual consistency until which ideology or set of criteria has come to denominate themselves that extol by the group must govern the personal performance. The mistake of the ideologies is in that essence badly conceived: since the rational conviction does not generate the truth necessarily and that all human judgment is subject to make a wrong decision. The ideology, therefore, would have to be formulated like tendencies in the interpretation of the social facts, and to assume same the open one to the permeability of the external ideas and to the continuous perfection of the own criterion.  Specially conflicting the ideology is when is inherited sustained in religious, moral or philosophical creeencias personally not rationalized that sectorizan the society in power communities whose confrontation marginalizes necessarily to the sector that at every moment counts on less resources. This stratifing of the social life concerns of special way to the right of access to the culture for the individuals, because the passion is so much that is maintained on the own ideas that from the same familiar group are tried to impose the same ones on descendants, spouses and relatives. From this perspective, each subject is object of a violence to adhere to him to criteria that consider foundation of the same life, without she is each person whom freely its own ideology based on the rationalization of its vital experience constructs.  The State, as form of arrangement of the social life, must favor the freedom of its citizens so that they are by themselves who identify the values on which they want to seat his personality. For favorec this freedom must promote the cultural diffusion that is sustained on the double performance of which all the groups have right to the free expression and communication, and watch over so that under the cultural appearance radical forms of dominion of the consciences are not created. The maximun negation of this doctrine is that it is the own State that, from the social group that structure like administration and government, directs the cultural uniformity of the citizens towards predetermined values.  The supreme value of the social arrangementhe is the fundamental right to the freedom of the human person, and therefore any sphere of communitarian order must guard not to do violence to that right in his more intimate relation; this valid from the family and the her insertion in the clan, the political parties respect to the political order, the religious confessions with respect to the dictation of the moral, to the roll of the nations in the international order. For the promotion of that right against the effective power of chaste, estates and governments, are reason why the legal formulation of the essential rights of the person are contained in the Constitutions of the States and the emergent international institutions while the legal mechanisms for impose them within the framework them of the social relations.  The cultural dowry of the different social groups in the defense from its identity cannot exclude the progress derived from the relation of its members with external groups, which will not only generate an enrichment of the individual personality, but also an extension of the collective cultural horizons. In this spirit of modernity it is obtained a greater integration and cultural respect between the diverse cultural tendencies that power the habits of tolerance between the diverse groups and communitys that enters relation.