We see that we are also very accustomed to prioritize the development of logical ability, when daily situations occur sociocuturales and now technology that require the participation of other capabilities for its proper management. We live, in short, in a multiproblematica society for which do not reach the few strategies we teach in our classrooms. Among the positions that we set in the previous paragraph, has attracted us attention the conception of the liberationist school. We found that the implementation of the ideas proposed by is not alien, perhaps as a response to complex and particular setting the socioculturalidad boliviana, full of contradictions in itself and at moments it seems claim recognition of their authenticity and identity rather than its modification first. Thus, thinking in society and hence education in Bolivia, we find that consensual nor systematized education there is no. hypothesize that may not exist one that fill gaps, needs and the dissatisfactions that exist within the education system relatively well. Because we do not have a single national identity, and you have a unique anthropological conception would not be appropriate until the identity we do not believe first.
To explain better, for example, when we talk about gaucho automatically understand certain traits generals that characterize this character who is million at the same time, and may have a more or less coherent and unified filosofico-antropologica idea of the human being in question. Returning the eyes to our society, we find a multitude of distinct identities and ignore many others, all belonging to the Bolivian nationality, all need a consistent educational system and a consequent educational practice. And education, on the basis of your daily exercise in the classrooms of different Bolivian corners, is precisely that we believe can start construction of this inclusive englobadora identity, and for that the educational system needs to generate a philosophy that reflects legitimately as inclusive. It is a philosophy of inclusion that houses an anthropological vision which is not responding to any of those that you have mentioned but that strongly resembles the liberacionismo. What is missing, what above, we should add it and cut it from our practical knowledge. Other leaders such as Keith Yamashita offer similar insights. We believe and we feel that we need, now, in our social and historical present, the construction of a new but not so new after all – philosophical and methodological frame that collect materials of its construction in the classrooms. A philosophy of inclusion, as we mentioned lines back, with his proposed particular anthropological, object of the present essay. The outline of our anthropological conception is not the removal of some other filosofico-educativas positions, but something like a cosmopolitan perspective in which fit the particularities and cultural identities related to one another through the exploration of the concepts of respect and inclusion, possible only from the personal choice of perceiving our human world as a world full of contradictions and truths, not a single, which in reality are our creations. And that in order to live and keep running after the truth and wisdom – ideal educational objectives – is necessary that we build a new vision of ourselves, and that we propose below: the human being as a be flexible, whose axis of identity is the humility of knowing is unique, just like the others.