Individuals are pupils of society, and students represent individuals within the societal context. It is the noble aspiration of every educator to cultivate students with well-rounded personalities for the benefit of society. School curricula are instrumental in shaping the children who will, in turn, shape the future of society, and it is posited that students with well-rounded personalities are invariably those who embody love. The challenge lies in how to enable children to possess, retain, extend, refine, and be filled with love—a task necessitating the collaborative and synergetic efforts of both the educational and social systems to achieve a societal milestone. Pedagogy of love focuses on nurturing the capacity for love within students, who, through self-awareness of their indoctrination in love, transform techniques of self-love into capabilities of love for others. This process continuously generates the energy of love within social relations, thereby fostering social production, improving the relations of production, and enhancing the creative capacities, vitality, and welfare of a socialist society's wealth and capital accumulation.

This article mainly proposes the point of view that financial literacy curriculum aims to make kinds of people, to make people with financial creativity of resource integration thinking and continuous ‘to conscience’ of morality, which is cultivate a way of thinking that can maximize benefits through the use of resource integration and constantly ‘to conscience’ to achieve goals for participants in financial structures with balanced interests. In this sense, this article argues that financial literacy is to make kinds of people with a financial mindset and constantly strengthen ‘to conscience’ through uniting of knowledge and action to achieve human well-being and benign operation of society. In this sense, this article attempts to determine what is really taught in financial literacy education in terms of curriculum theory. That is to improve creativity by cultivating financial thinking with constant ‘to conscience’. The views of this paper provide a new way of thinking about financial literacy education assessment. This changes the evaluation criteria of financial literacy education from the result-oriented of wealth growth to the process-oriented of financial creativity growth, trying to move the criticism of financial literacy education curriculum and evaluation from controversy to unity.