So, dear empiricists, hold back your class consciousness. 😊]

In one of my classes with engineering and management students, we discussed how humans are increasingly becoming operators of machines and technologies. I asked them a simple question during the conversation: "What are the basics?" Specifically, I wanted to know their understanding of mathematics. Initially, there was complete silence. Eventually, a few students mentioned basic arithmetic operations like addition, subtraction, and division. I pointed out that these were merely operations and didn’t fully answer my question. On the board were calculus formulas from the previous class, so I asked, “What is calculus?” Their response was “differentiation and integration.” Again, I explained that these were methods of operation, not the essence of calculus itself. The room went silent, and confusion spread. These were students who had excelled in mathematics and science to secure admission into engineering programs.

The problem doesn't lie with the students. It stems from an education system that often prioritises teaching methods and operations over the fundamental understanding of a subject. This creates a generation of students skilled in applying formulas and techniques but usually need more profound insight. This issue is not limited to technical fields; it also exists in art and design education. High-scoring students frequently mistake tools, techniques, and applications for the subject itself. Additionally, there is a hierarchy of disciplines in Indian universities, with mathematics and science considered the pinnacle, followed by management and commerce, humanities and design, and finally, art at the bottom.

Whenever I teach at non-art and design colleges, I frequently hear faculty from other disciplines referring to art and design students as “lesser” or dismissing their courses as hobbies. They overlook that, in the end, all subjects—whether science, math, or art—seek to explore form with historical and theoretical foundations, critical analysis, patterns, symmetry, prototypes and models. These are all part of what we call the study of aesthetics. Unlike the rigid empirical approach of science and math, art and the humanities also engage with culture, which is essential to human society as a living tradition.

Art, design, math, science, and the humanities are not so different after all. None should be placed on a higher pedestal than the others. They all examine the aesthetics of form.

As our discussion continued, I asked the students why they add, what they add, why they subtract, and what they subtract. Their immediate response was that they add or subtract numbers, and they do it to calculate the total sum.

To push their thinking further, I jokingly asked, “What if I remove the equal sign (‘=’) from the addition (+), subtraction (-), multiplication (x), and division (/) symbols? What would happen to your calculation?” As expected, they were left in silence.

A mathematical equation reflects the belief that every action (cause) results in a proportional outcome (consequence) or that for every consequence, there is an equivalent cause. Essentially, a mathematical equation is our faith in the old-school religious concept of causality.

Mathematics operates on the assumption that the universe is static and that truth is represented by the result on the right side of the equation. Whatever happens on the left side must balance with the truth on the right. In this way, mathematics suggests an unbreakable balance between cause and effect. Moreover, mathematics only allows for increase (addition, multiplication) or decrease (subtraction, division) as possible actions in maintaining this balance. This is reminiscent of the religious concept of a static, unchanging "God" as the ultimate truth. Similarly, the law of conservation of energy in science draws on a comparable idea of unchanging, absolute truth.

In other words, despite its empirical facade, mathematics and science present a deterministic worldview where cause equals consequence, much like religious doctrines.

It may sound surprising, but the reality is that art—often dismissed by empiricists due to class consciousness—is the only human activity that challenges this deterministic worldview. In their exploration and experimentation, artists are not morally or ethically bound by the results. Art is the only domain of human life that does not engage in balancing cause and consequence. As such, art represents the liberty of the human mind—our free will.

So, dear empiricists, hold back your class consciousness.

(continued)