Does just academic brilliance mean anything?

What made the English different from many others was that their mental brilliance was not an entity in itself, but was part of a group of many other capacities. For example, one may think of many persons who discovered many scientific realities, and invented many novel machines, and gadgets.

Were these persons just a group of persons who were good in their schools, and colleges? Weren’t there a lot of other qualities these persons had?

For example, one may see that the English brought in very good systems of jurisprudence to the colonies, wrote rule and laws, and set up enduring systems. All pointing to academic brilliance. But, weren’t they also the persons who liked to go sailing in the seas, go trekking on to the mountain slopes, go dancing, had the spirit to maintain the game of cricket at the level of sublime sportsmanship, and also had the communication systems that allowed dignified and courteous interaction at least among themselves.

Now, do the non-English have mental brilliance? To be frank, very much. But, the difference is that in many cases, it socially exists in isolation to many other positive attributes. And those who do go in for non-academic themes generally lose track of the scholastic sides.

Why have I brought in this theme here? Just to put in words a feeling that came to my mind. That in many non-English nations, the children are goaded to achieve academic distinction to the exclusion of all other attributes that I have mentioned above. I have not seen anything socially healthy in this mad race. And I do really hope that this affliction doesn’t come catching over there. If there does seem to be such an inclination, then it can be a sign of deep social disease.

And to be forced to compete with those who identify with the anomalous concepts of education can itself be demeaning. And can lead to the death of a vibrant society.

But then, the theme I dealt out here really has a more finer side to it that needs more space to debate.