It is a notion that I have come up with in an effort to go past established pattens of processes of thought and most people's inability to go beyond those processes.
Or maybe it s a matter of relevance? Let's say with the question, Is there a God? A question that seems very relevant, but actually one where an absolute answer answer cannot be determined and actually ought to be answered as a matter of preference or inner conviction of the hearer than of the conviction and intentions of the speaker. It is a matter that has little to do with society itself but is a choice of personal lifestyle and conscience. It neither adds or subtracts to who or what we are, but how we personally see the world and our approach to life.
The answer to whether there is a God or not is a choice, not an answer. Such an approach to many debated issues would defuse the matter of endless debates which do not attempt to seek an answer, but to determine who is right rather than whether there is a God or not.
Critical thinking should be applied in finding answers not debate. Debate is an obstruction to logic and understanding. When we get children to stop asking why we then fill their minds with all of our won right answers. When we strive to be right we are no longer looking for truth, and become our own source of truth. When this happens part of the mind begins to shut down.
One of the most useless of statements is "I agree". At least when used as a stamp of approval or validation. We should neither agree or disagree in such context. We should look for the understanding of the thought, then either apply a question to further that thought (possibly in another objective direction) or offer a possible progression of that thought.
I think a guide is still a better approach to the aspect of mentor, because one seems to focus on one and the other on the student. Perhaps it is because many do not trust the student to find their own way, they must be shown what is the right path rather than giving them the best information and ability to process the answer for themselves.
If we could just start from a clear slate create all new systems not based on tradition but create a design based on purpose, so that the purpose directs the design, and not continue to let the design the purpose. What would "education actually end up looking like? What would the objectives be? Where would functional life applications within personal understanding; and social interaction and resolution be on that list? Why were they never really on the list in the first place? But that is a whole different aspect. But is that area humanity still exists in the dark ages.
As an educator, I think you have greater insight than I do, and appreciate your thoughts and feedback.