Introduction

It is a fact that there are several advancements on the many areas of human knowledge. The new world conjuncture propitiated some organization of societies that, it can be said, recognized and effectively came to inaugurate not only the beginning of a new century, but also new and surprising stages in the history of humanity.

There are many aspects linked with education currently that may be taken as challenges; elements going from the structural question of our society until the historic element. Such amplitude would make a complete analysis in just one paper impossible. However, some important points may be used as a support from where the analysis in question will start.

In a punctual and representative way, here is a citation that, at Brazilian level, may indicate a direction for the reflection proposed here. On its edition number 2289, the Magazine Isto é brought a question pointing for an alarming datum:

A new research from the Foundation State System of Data Analysis (Seade), based on information from the National Research the Sample of Households, reveals that only half of the youngsters with ages between 15 and 17 years are enrolled in high school. Even worse: between 1999 and 2011 the rate of evasion in this range more than doubled, jumping from 7.2 to 16.2% (^{Loes, 2013}).

The report brought to the focus one stage regarding the high school, but that one, in an emblematic way, was concerned with a datum reverberating a much wider situation. It was like the tip of an iceberg denouncing a series of questions regarding Education in Brazil as a whole.

Although the number of illiterates in the country decreased exponentially since the nineties, even if at the expense of great efforts and policies focused in this objective, it is important to state that it is not only about observing this data, but about the need of reviewing elements such as the relationship between teacher and student in the educational aspect of the educational process; the insertion of new technologies in the teaching environment and the severe social problems such as, for instance, the abyss existing between the world demands and the educational process.

In fact, education is not separated from society at all. What happens on it is a reflex of the great panorama in which it is inserted, in a way that, in the century of globalization, everything is articulated in nets and education is also understood on those same dynamics.

It is a world in constant transformation from a rhythmic environment due to the emergence of new media, techniques, new ways of interpersonal relations, the emergence of new and challenging paradigms. In the middle of all that is the need of rethinking education and not of taking it as a tool propitiating the adaption of the person to the society or, also, just as a tool by means of which the transmission of content happens, working as an instance of data accumulation, which for us understand what we understand as a wide process of dehumanization.

Therefore, this paper intends to address the new paradigms of education from some challenges of this context, having as a reference and searching an approximation of the thought developed by Carl ^{Rogers (1973}, ¹⁹⁸⁷) and Edgar ^{Morin (2002}, ²⁰¹¹, ²⁰¹⁴). Carl Ransom Rogers, born in January 8th of 1902 and dead in February 4^th of 1987, was a psychologist who developed an approach based on the person, also known as the humanist approach. Edgar Morin, born in Paris in July 8th of 1921 is an anthropologist, sociologist and philosopher, one of the main theorists of contemporaneity, especially regarding the field of the studies of complexity.

Many elements could be referred by approximating authors Rogers and Morin, since the work of both is enormous and an almost infinite thematic could be extracted from it regarding education and teaching. This study, however, will be limited to some aspects considered as important, especially regarding the need of rescuing human aspects considered to be important in face of the current panorama of education.

So, in Rogers it will be sought to discuss the notions of teaching while a relational event between professor and student and while a process centered in the person. About this subject, ^{Zimring (2010}, p. 38) will state that:

I believe that all masters and educators prefer to facilitate this type of approach

of significant experiential learning, aiming at the person as a whole, intellectual and affective one, instead of the so called absurd syllables. However, in the wide majority of our schools, in all educational levels, we find them locked inside a traditional and conventional approach making learning unlikely, if not impossible.

This emblematic finding uninstalls and makes to think about the current model of education used and that is wished to briefly touch here. In consonance, ^{Morin (2011}) with its concept of ‘educational teaching’ and of ‘pertinent knowledge’ will evoke the learning for life in a perspective of complexity. It is necessary, as said by ^{Morin (2014}, p. 23): “[...] to transfer not only the knowledge, but a culture that allows us to understand our condition, that help us to live and that favors, at the same time, an open and free thinking.” The author will question the current tendency to segmentation, specialization and compartmentalization of knowledge, but overall of a teaching that is not articulated in nets and with roots in the human.

So, besides the pertinence of those questions and of the reflections proposed by the authors, this study aims to elect them also due to the need of reflecting about the posture of the ‘learning how to learn’. It is considered that, in this study, this expression works as a type of hinge joining both authors, because it is present both in reflections from Morin as well as from the ones of Rogers, which will collaborate for meeting the intersection between both thinkers. So the posture of learning how to learn will make the need of prioritizing, for the teaching of actuality, a posture of openness regarding the nuances of learning.

This research is considered as a bibliographic or exploratory study. According to ^{Michel (2015}) the bibliographic research aims to collect information from readings so that it is possible to define the goals and problems to be solved. It is from those lectures that it is possible to understand, to go deepen about the subject and to describe it. On this direction, methodologically, this study listed the following bibliography in order of finding: in ^{Morin (2014}, ²⁰¹¹) the pieces ‘Cabeça bem feita: rethinking the reformation, reforming the thinking’ and the ‘Seven acquirements needed for the education of the future’; and in ^{Rogers (1973}), the work ‘Learning to Freedom’. The help of some commentators was also used, such as ^{Cury (2012}), ^{Moreira (1999}) and ^{Zimring (2010}). Thus, inspired on those two authors, this study understood that it is possible to conceive learning as a space of realization and to educate it as a space of realization and meeting of the human, conducted by an ethics that will assume its own nuances regarding each author proposed here.

Interdisciplinary and teaching in Morin

For Edgar Morin, a great thinker of the current times, there is a giant mismatch between the current challenges that are complex, interconnected, global and the teaching process that became more and more fragmented and specialized. In face of that, he will propose a reform of the education that, for him, starts by reforming the thinking. Therefrom the expression ‘well done head’, because it is not enough to accumulate knowledge. It is necessary because it can be articulated in a way of thinking conjugating it with life. As a result of this finding and of this reading of reality, ^{Morin (2014}, p. 13) states: “There is an increasingly wider inadequacy, deep and severe between the separate, fragmented, compartmentalized knowledge between disciplines and, on the other hand, realities or problems increasingly more multidisciplinary, transversal, multidimensional, transnational, global, planetary”.

It becomes necessary and urgent a re-elaboration of the knowledge itself, because in the place of super-specialization and fragmentation of knowledge, ^{Morin (2011}, ²⁰¹⁴) wants to think the complexity. For the author, complexity is an expression increasingly used, however, we continue “[…] separating the objects from their contexts, splitting reality in compartmentalized disciplines from each other” (^{Morin, 2002}, p. 11). For him it is essential to understand that “[...] reality is made of ties and interactions, [and that] our knowledge is not able to perceive the complexes, the tissue that joins the whole” (^{Morin, 2002}, p. 11). The current model of teaching collaborates for us to have individuals adapted to the society, but that cannot understand the problems of the world and of themselves. The analysis touches the core of the teaching question, because here the objectives are put on hold, the goals, the main agents and the dynamics over witch it is developed.

All knowledge is constituted as a translation that is followed by a reconstruction, but what is at stake, for ^{Morin (2014}) is that there is a vital point not placed by teaching, this is the human comprehension and, in this way, “[…] the crisis emerges due to the absence of those matters; the student is taught to be an adaptable individual, but it also has to adapt itself to the facts and to itself” (^{Rangel, 2017}, p.17). In this sense, intelligence is being trained in order to fragment the complex reality in small pieces, atrophying its ability to understand and transforming in unidimensional what is multidimensional, which, for ^{Morin (2014}, p. 15), made possible the “[…] knowledge and elucidation, but also ignorance and blindness”.

The multiplication of knowledge, in a scale never seen before in an uncontrolled expansion challenges even more the individual who is inserted there, because knowledge needs to be organized and related with information so that it helps in driving the different situations of life. It is in this sense that ^{Morin (2014}) introduces the concept of 'educational teaching'; because it is necessary to not only transmit knowledge, but to allow a culture that favors the understanding of the human condition and that helps to live, promoting an open and free way of thinking. Under this same perspective, ^{Cury (2012}) elucidates and draws attention for the need of articulating data, the information in knowledge.

Learning to live is a condition that must also be the object of education. For this, it is essential that we understand the difference between information, knowledge and wisdom. Information is abundantly available, however, no matter how good our database is, there are no guarantees that it will become knowledge. Transforming information in pertinent knowledge is a task of the thinking, by means of an action that demands dedication by the subject - reflection not stimulated by the culture of the fast. Information is converted into knowledge by means of actions that stimulate students to think them, connecting them and contextualizing them, finding approaches and distance points in order to articulate the diversity of data (^{Cury, 2012}, p. 41).

At this point we may question: until what point processes connected to teaching are helping the students in understanding reality, in formulating a reading of it and in the resolution of concrete problems? Is information being articulated in a way so that they could constitute while a pertinent knowledge? Does the new media and new technologies collaborate in the goal of building the comprehension of this complexity or are they a huddle of ‘news’, disconnected and overlapping, brought to the classroom, but still reproducing the same paradigm of separation and unilaterality?

Here emerges another very important element for the theme proposed: the notion of subject. If the current model privileges the preparation of the individual in developing attitudes that put it in service such as, for instance, the market needs, there is a very high risk that this one will see itself in a limited matter, prepared only for the experiences of some contents and totally unprepared for other types of experiences.

Therefore, Morin acknowledges the lack of an integral conception of the individual, because, being reality complex, it is necessary that the same understands itself inside the so called ‘human condition’, since, for it, knowing the human is not to separate it from the universe, but to place it on it.

We are, at one time only, inside and outside nature. We are simultaneously cosmic, physic, biologic, cultural, cerebral, spiritual […] beings. We are sons of the cosmos, but, even in consequence of our humanity, our culture, our spirit, our conscience we became strange to this cosmos of which we remain secretly intimate (^{Morin, 2014}, p. 38).

Here the establishment of a paradox is perceived, because at the same time when the human being continues united, attached to the universe, to the cosmos, it is separating from it by means of culture. In some ways, it participates of those belongings according to its own conditions: the human condition. It is worth to say that, ^{Morin (2002}, ²⁰¹¹, ²⁰¹⁴) is revolutionary because, by diagnosing the existence of a system that validates a system privileging the separation and analysis it incorporates the need and the pertinence of the synthesis and of the linking. It becomes evident the need for a new conception of the human, which does not think reality by parts only, that does not think about it as mutilated and that does not feel itself as separated from the cosmos, earth and live. This type of thinking, which prevails overall in occidental societies, promotes and supports such a relationship of the man regarding other forms of life that many times are based in superiority, domination and irresponsible exploration.

Here it becomes necessary to talk about a dichotomy that has been collaborating a lot for this state of things: the great separation between the culture of humanities and the scientific culture. For ^{Morin (2014}), those two universes need to ‘talk’, because one is articulated in a complementary way to the other. While the humanist culture stimulates huge questions guiding the human destiny and fertilizes the reflection about the knowledge propitiating fantastic discoveries and favoring the personal integration of knowledge, the scientific culture splits the areas of knowledge and propitiates fantastic discoveries and theories that help a lot to understand reality. One needs the other in order to balance and to propitiate the advancements of humanity, with the scientific rigor and the humanist reflection. About this subject, ^{Cury (2012}, p. 41) will state:

The main problem faced by the concept of educational teaching in a cabeça bem feita is structural of occidental societies sending the two historically contraposed cultures: the scientific and the humanist ones. The origin of this contraposition between reason and emotion, culture and nature, may be found in the platonic separation between the sensible and the intelligible worlds.

It is necessary to reestablish the movement and the connection between reason and emotion. After all, since the end of the XVIII century it has been observed how much pure reason does not exist. Now, Morin considers that the human makes itself known from the social, biological sciences, but also by means of literature, arts and poetry because, by means of them is made contact with “[…] the aesthetic emotion that makes possible the recognition of the beauty, kindness and harmony.” (^{Rangel, 2017}).

This way, one of the greater contributions of Morin is precisely to propose the reconciliation of those two tabs from the human element. They do not get in the way or compete one with the other, but they make possible the contact with the richness, with the depth and complexity of life. For ^{Morin (2014}), the teaching should precisely recompose, link, open the thought for the amplitude, the extensive and the complex, because it would be necessary to conceive an anthropo-social relinked science which could conceive humanity on its anthropologic unity and on its cultural diversities.

By means of this integration, ^{Morin (2014}) wants to enable a thinking able to reinvent itself at each challenge, of being delighted and disappointed, because uncertainty is a condition of the thought and of the human condition itself. In its integrated thinking that does not separate the human being from its attitudes regarding itself, the world and things. According to ^{Morin (2014}, p. 55), “[...] the greater contribution for the knowledge of the XXth century was the knowledge about the limits of knowledge. The greatest certainty that was gave to us is the one of the indestructibility of uncertainties, not only in action but also in knowledge”. It is because of this that ethics will be postulated, since it supposes the capacity of the citizen in choosing to itself values and ideas and to coat them with tenderness, compassion and solidarity so that it becomes a free and responsible subject.

Under the perspective of Cury, in Morin, ethics assumes the condition of the rebuilder of the thought and supports the individual and collective conscience of the subject, thus demanding an “[…] education turned to the self-knowledge, for the coexistence, for building the knowledge and for decision taking” (^{Cury, 2012}, p. 45). Teaching should be at the service of developing the critical sense of the students, it may not ignore the curiosity and the questioning, it must stimulate it, incorporate it, instigate it. This way, it is possible to understand the extension of this thought when ^{Morin (2014}, p. 46) says:

[…] teaching may try to, efficiently, promote the convergence of natural sciences, of human sciences, of the culture of humanities and of Philosophy for the human condition. It would be possible, thereafter to reach a decision taking of the collectivity of the self-destination of our planetary time, where all humans are faced with the same vital and mortal problems.

Teaching would, in this way, try to edify a humanity inserted in a collectivity whose greater challenge would be to build the conditions for sustaining the constant and tireless posture of the ‘learning to learn’. An emblematic expression, it works here as a hinge, because, being present both in Morin as well as in Rogers, it will contribute for the approach between both and for finding intersection points between the two thinkers.

Thus, current and with deep roots in history and in tradition, Morin represents the threshold of a new interpretation of reality, a continuous and generous of the human thought for the coexistence, for the complex and for searching by solutions of problems that are common to the whole humanity, here thought from the teaching. At this point, the intention is to visit the thought of Carl Rogers and to find on its fruitful reflection, spaces to reflect about the current problematics for, in a third moment, to postulate the communication routes between both.

The human perspective of teaching in rogers

Rogers was a psychologist, specialist in clinical therapy and in children therapy. She created a quite original physiotherapy, where she called her patients of clients, because she believed that people were not passive in their processes of therapy, but actives and extremely able to search by its own answers. And it was from those principles that Rogers wrote about education, learning and teaching (^{Zimring, 2010}).

For ^{Rogers (1973}) in the scene of teaching the student becomes the ‘agent’ of its change and of its learning process. The student is active, free to go behind its learnings. Teaching is centered in the student, in the person as a whole. Rogers trusts in the potential of the human being, provided that it brings freedom. It is important to mention that Rogers believed in a significant approach and, this way, it is justified that the student is the protagonist. Learning to be significant has to be part of the everyday of who learns, or of its life, it must have meaning.

So, the learning must be part from the context of who is learning, must be relevant, be loaded of feelings and able to mobilize changes. ^{Rogers (1973}, p. 41) says that learning happens when “[...] evolves at the same time, its thinking and its feeling”. A significant learning happens, therefore, when there is a personal involvement (sensitive and cognitive).

In order to better understand what ^{Rogers (1973}) proposes, it is necessary to understand that the student, being the center of its learning process, wants to say that a part of it comes from inside it, the desire of learning about some subject. This is the learning that it designated as ‘self-started’ and, due to it several important changes occur with this student. Thus, for Rogers, learning occurs when it involves the student as a whole, when the student has freedom to learn and, in consequence, build its autonomy.

According to ^{Moreira (1999}), Rogers identified three types of learning: cognitive, affective and psychomotor. The cognitive learning is characterized in storing information, the affective that is related with experiences and the psychomotor linked to muscle practices. The author believed that people saw the world from their own realities, from what you live, thus, the learning to be significant would have to start from the reality of each being that learns. The theory of Rogers has as centrality, the self-realization and the personal growth, because of that, its theories were focused in the student and on its potentials (^{Moreira, 1999}).

Thus, Roger considers that it must exist an education where the knowledge is worked in a way were the learning is ease and, from that, it postulates the “[…] principles of learning” (^{Rogers, 1973}, p. 157). Starting by the first principle, where Rogers states that human beings have a natural potentiality to learn, in other words, have a natural desire of learning. The second principle states that learning is significant when the student starts to join what it is learning with its own objectives. The third principle is linked with the changes of the ‘me’ and the difficulty in accepting external values. The fourth principle is related with reducing external threats, the difficulties brought by the student, so that it can progress. The progress of this student is related with the fifth principle, where Rogers states that with the external threats reduced, the student perceives, in a differentiated way and so its learning can progress. In the sixth principle, Rogers talks about the significant learning, being that for it to happen it may expand its experiences. Learning is facilitated when the student makes its own choices, when it is active in its learning process, this is what the seventh principle says. In order to complement the previous principle, the eighth principle says that learning must involve who is learning, it must involve its intellect and feelings so that this one is more comprehensive and lasting. The ninth principle discusses about the importance of creativity and self-confidence in the process of learning; Rogers states that creativity is one way of having freedom and the self-criticism is a way of having liberty, and the self-criticism participates in this process of building autonomy. Finally, the tenth principle is about the importance of learning to learn and, with that, to be in constant change, in a continuous search by knowledge, being open to new experiences (^{Moreira, 1999}).

This way, the ten principles of learning in Rogers are concretized, they are the base for building its thinking over the teaching. For him, the objective of teaching is to make easier the change and the knowledge, because we are in a time in which everything that is taught quickly becomes obsolete. It is to be sure that now knowledge is safe, that everything is in constant change. Because of that the teacher has to be a facilitator of the learning, accepting the student as a person, understanding the student as a person, considering that understanding the student without judging it is to create an environment of learning.

The teacher, as a facilitator of learning, is not about the colloquial term ‘facilitate’, but to ensure that the student has freedom of learning and of realizing itself. The student must be free to analyze its own objectives. Facilitation happens when the professor has a sensitive listening. Only starting from it is possible to make learning to be conducted in a way that it works. Facilitating the learning does not mean for ^{Rogers (1973}) to cram the student with content in order to, latter, be able to show the results of the study. On the contrary, it means to build the learning in a sensible way, with care and empathy. It is a posture where the professor places itself as, at the same time, strict and affective, so that the student itself is able to continue building senses.

Thus, to facilitate is to conduct a learning that builds a content to life. Besides that, in this process the teacher has to understand the time of learning of the student and its interests, because the learning starts by means of questions by the student and of the answers searched by it.

This way, the role of the professor in this context is to receive and to respect the student, and to conduct it in a way that it is able to develop, self-realize and build its autonomy. It is also due to the teacher to be creative, authentic and to use methods of evaluation different from the conventional ones, where “[…] the student will not pass by a set of rituals in order to earn a grade” (^{Rogers, 1973}, p. 38), in other words, what matters is that the student builds its own process in a significant way, emphasizing the learning and becoming critic, for the realization of its objectives.

This way, it is possible to state that the approach of Rogers over education has the student as the center. The teaching is focused on it and everything starts from the search and development of the potential of the student, for them being the proper conditions to learn. According to ^{Moreira (1999}), for Rogers it is essential to leave the student free to learn and to create its own autonomy, its desire of self-realization. Regarding the question of liberty that many times is placed as something difficult to think on the daily practice of educators, ^{Rogers (1973}, p. 73) simply suggests:

I recognize that, for others, to give freedom to a group may be a risky and dangerous thing to do and that, in consequence, they cannot, genuinely, give this degree of freedom. To those I would suggest: try to give the degree of liberty that you can, genuine and comfortably give, and observe its results.

It is possible to state from this citation, that the student needs freedom and autonomy to develop its learning process. Rogers believes in this, because it states that the human being will always act for its own good if it is not obliged to conform with some teaching imposed by society (^{Zimring, 2010}).

^{Rogers (1973}) states that freedom is to be able to make people that may act by themselves, going in pursuit of achieving their goals. On the education field, when freedom and trust is given to the students, an opportunity is being given to sharpen their curiosity or interest and, with that, they may go behind their own goals, “[…] they became discovers. They try to find the meaning of their lives” (^{Rogers, 1973}, p. 217). Thus, freedom grants stimulus for people, improving their efforts and, in consequence, significant results are obtained regarding the learning processes.

Still regarding “[...] freedom to learn or choose” (^{Rogers, 1973}, p. 243), Roger states that one of the deeper themes of modern life is to know the concept of personal freedom, because there is a control imposed by society, mobilizing an alienation by part of people. In the context of the current society, it is possible to think, with the author, that real freedom is directly related with the interior, with the subjective experiences, being much more than a subjective, existential and contextual liberty, that is reflected in the capacity of choosing which attitudes to take in face of the several situations of life.

From ^{Rogers (1973}, ¹⁹⁸⁷), therefore, it is possible to think about the current education and about the need of building a less technicity education, less business oriented. With Rogers is perceived the need of not aiming to an education focused exclusively in revenues, but, mainly, focused in the human.

Humanizing and education

A lot has been talked about the need of material resources, change in salaries, career plans, acquisition of new technologies and teaching equipment; and it is right that all those items mentioned are very important for improving the conditions in educational fields, even essential ones; but, considering the current challenges to education, it is also necessary - and fundamental - to think again about other aspects, such as the question of the humanization of education. The fact is that, if structural or material changes are not preceded, or even followed, by the reflection about the directions of education, about its essence as such, there is the risk of, simply, reinforcing or replanting the current system in other walls, or even inside a software apparently modern, but bringing the same answers for the questions being made, in a type of unsuccessful remake.

The reflection here presented wants to cause exactly the resumption of aspects that cannot be relegated to a second plane, windows that cannot remain closed and that maybe need to transform themselves in routes through which other prospective horizons are envisioned. Even taking the risk of being biased or even not accurate, this paper wishes to postulate the perception that in Rogers and Morin it is possible to define some reading keys allowing a specific view about education. Thus, by means of two reading keys, it is intended to articulate the thought of those two authors regarding the proposal of reflecting about the problems raised. Away from any temptation of wishing to find solutions, because those do not exist in such a simple way, what is possible to do is to instigate the thought, enabling the pertinent reflections, opening access roads.

The first reading key that we want to touch is the humanist key, in other words, the category of the human. Although it may seem as redundant or even too obvious, we have in the agenda the reflection and the perception of two humanist thinkers. ^{Rogers (1973}), with the rescue of the human on its cognition, psychomotricity and affection, refunds the view over the education. Namely, for Rogers, it is the human that should be listen to, it is from it that should start the other definitions:

It was listening to people that I learned all that I know about people, about the interpersonal relations. To truly listen someone results in another special satisfaction. And how to listen the music of stars, because behind the immediate message of a person, whatever this person is, is universal (^{Rogers, 1987}, p. 5).

Therefore, some humanism is recaptured with ^{Morin (2011}); it is about the human condition that the essential connections with the cosmos and with life are established, it is from the human that the reading of reality can be made, sewing the complexity and building comprehensions to problems now experienced. Besides, for ^{Morin (2011}, p. 54) it is in the human that the integrality of doing education is contemplated, thus “[…] one of the essential vocations of the future education will be the examination and study of the human complexity”.

There is no other instance, another level that can be evoked: education needs to settle, under the aegis of the human, in respect to it, in the plunge of its complexity and in the belief of its value and capacity of overcoming itself and of going beyond. Any other parameter may be slippery. No real incursion for a renovation of the thinking and of education will be made if the human is not the essential element and the reference for it. Human connected, human trans-passed, human interlinked, human articulated, human in constant and tireless construction.

Another reading key that is mean to be mentioned is the dynamicity of thought, which reflects straight in the previously presented hinge, the one of learning to learn. This way, as well mentioned by ^{Morin (2014}), in a world of uncertainties and in constant change, it is needed that education teaches how to live, that it cultivates a free thought, that it collaborates linking knowledge, in the disciplinary interchange, in building strategies for coping with reality. However, it is necessary to remember that it is needed to cultivate a proximity with understanding itself, so that there is no mismatch between the you and to beyond. ^{Rogers (1973}, p. 110), on its time will also state that “[...] the only man that educates itself is that one that learned how to learn: who learned how to adapt and change. That capacity itself that no knowledge is safe, that no process of searching knowledge offers a base of security”.

For both thinkers, after all, there is no other way of educating than educating for a dynamic thinking in constant review, in a vital search by reformulation. The place of knowledge is precisely in the capacity of adapting itself, of re-creating, of rising from its own ashes like the Greek Fenix. It is, therefore, a human in a constant making of itself that, at the same time, finds itself detached from nature by culture and connected to it as a vital piece of a cosmos in constant mutation and movement. A cyclic stellar explosion that goes finishing something while it inaugurates the matter of new planets and celestial bodies. Maybe this could be an access road for students to feel contemplated and integrated to the education and not only to a piece inside of it. According to ^{Ausani and Alves (2019}), maybe with those considerations a democratization of knowledge that is not at the service of an esoteric group, hermetically closed, but that opens in perspectives more and more accessible may be with those considerations a democratization of knowledge that may be re-signified, one that is not at the service of an esoteric group, hermetically closed, but that opens in perspectives more and more accessible, because more and more human.

It is considered that with Rogers and Morin, there are tracks to walk that insist in valuing the doubt, in the positive review of the role of error, which installs a movement of rectification and movement, to rescue the importance of the curiosity of students and also their capacity to opine and significantly acting in the direction of the process of their own education. For ^{Alves and Ghiggi (2014}), in reestablishing the importance of the curiosity of the student and also of their capacity of giving its opinion and significantly acting in the directions of the process of their own education. For ^{Alves and Ghiggi (2014}), in the reestablishment of the dialogo of the process, where teacher and student learn and are at the service of something much greater that the transmission of ready and compartmentalized contents. Maybe it is because of this that at the end of the whole problematic involving education it is necessary to perceive the dehumanization of it, so that a rescue, a turn, a humanization of education can be undertaken.

Final considerations

This paper pointed, from a critical vision, to a reading indicating a process of possible humanization in education. Taking Brazil as the starting point, it was wanted to address this issue considering a comprehensive and global view. By analyzing the panorama presented, it was possible to consider the eminence of huge challenges.

In the vision of authors selected in this study, Rogers and Morin, the question must be brought to the universe of the human, that at times sectioned in specialties and fragments needs to be located in a universe of the complex where knowledge is in constant reconstruction and articulation.

Above all, it is necessary to learn how to learn, to rethink the elements that are part of the experience in a creative way and considering the multiple realities that compose the human.

In this study the relation teacher/student inherent to the process of teaching/learning is resumed under a humanist perspective; centered in the person. The trust in the student, the freedom of thinking must encourage the educational process in building a significant knowledge. This way, it was possible to think the reflexive contribution of those two authors, having as reference two reading keys, the recovery of the human in all of its wholeness and complexity and the characteristic of thought in actuality, that must articulate itself in a constant movement of revision and reconstruction, always dynamic and complimentary and that refers to the constant ‘learning to learn’.

This way, the teacher has in front of it the huge challenge of being always searching new knowledge, because in the current panorama knowledge is not something safe, but that is in constant movement. The super valuation of the technical education, considering the agility, the functionality and the hurry of the current plan, must be questioned, since, according to the above mentioned authors, humanities, art and poetry also have their space and relevance in education.

If it is worrying the amount of agents that still today are out of the formal process of education, it must also have been taken in consideration the fact that the current education does not seem to contribute to think the reality in all of its complexity. After all, although the problems are interpenetrated and continuously related in a complex way, about how to think simplistically, by means of disciplines that do not seem to articulate between them. You don't teach how to think complexity; you don't teach how to think about the humans we are.

The human being must be relearned. In this new panorama, it is not an element present to the whole. When dealing with education, it is in the relation, in considering the process where they discover to the inserted, student and teacher, that the teaching/learning happens, an essential point that can never be lost sight. It is necessary to understand that those actors are present in a global environment, connected and mediated by multiple ways of access and interactions. It will be thinking like someone who pretends to contribute for a reflection, that puts back this question in a perspective considered as essential, of the old - but current and always new - of the reality of the human.