I agree with your logic and points of emphasis. I can’t make any more presumptions based on these few paragraphs.
I think there are times in a discussion where it can veer into many different directions. I’m very practical minded when it comes to criticism and analysis. It is a good discussion. Sorry if I came off lecturey I think I just felt like writing something lol
Paulo Freire, Brazilian philosopher and educator, proposed an educational method for adults based on what he called “the problem posing method.” This method was based on dialogue that he deemed necessary for education and was not oppressive and controlling. Freire argued that traditional educational methods were inherently oppressive because they served the interest of the elite, instituted what he called “the banking method” in hopes to turn people into better workers. In contrast to this, Freire advocated for an education that was liberating and required dialogue. Dialogue, however, could only take place with profound love.
“Profound love” is an interesting phrase to find in any materialist method, especially with what we imagine or maybe have experienced regarding education. Our society has trouble accounting for it because of how we determine what counts as material or objective fact (this is our ontology). Love, to the rational materialist, appears as chemicals induced to stimulate biological processes. The body is a machine that produces love-like social behaviors, love is just a bunch of chemicals, and so on.
Friere’s method treats love as a subject/object relation, in both the subjective inner working of the individual (I love someone), the way the individual’s actions reflect their inner experience (I love someone, so I act like I love them), and how that practical activity changes the outside world (I experience love from loving someone). He uses a process of positive and negative statements to concretely define love, like “loving is a desire to liberate an other, not a desire to enslave them.” And at the end of his process, establishes “love” as an objectively revolutionary subject.
I am more and more convinced that true revolutionaries must perceive the revolution, because of its creative and liberating nature, as an act of love. For me, the revolution, which is not possible without a theory of revolution—and therefore science—is not irreconcilable with love. On the contrary: the revolution is made by people to achieve their humanization. What, indeed, is the deeper motive which moves individuals to become revolutionaries, but the dehumanization of people? The distortion imposed on the word “love” by the capitalist world cannot prevent the revolution from being essentially loving in character, nor can it prevent the revolutionaries from affirming their love of life. Guevara (while admitting the “risk of seeming ridiculous”) was not afraid to affirm it: “Let me say, with the risk of appearing ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by strong feelings of love. It is impossible to think of an authentic revolutionary without this quality.”
So for him, the teacher/student dialectic is founded in revolutionary science. Educational dialog is liberating, and the act of self-education is the practice of self- liberation. None of these ideas are unfounded in the Marxist tradition, in fact they’re a direct application of Marxist revolutionary theory. After all, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways, the point is to change it.”
And the basis for Friere’s pedagogy, is asking questions and posing problems, through a teacher/student dialectical pedagogy used as a practical means to free ourselves and others. Without it, as Friere once described it, “When education isnt liberating it is the dream of the oppressed to become the oppressor.” This is what makes “winning the debate” a subconscious act of hegemony and subjugation. Even if it isnt our intent to carry out acts like this, the social structure (superstructure) that exists perpetuates itself through these actions.
So in order to educate an other we have to be actively trying to educate ourselves, because educating ourselves is a means to liberate ourselves, but is only possible when we commit ourselves to liberating an other. In doing this, the other also takes on the role of teacher and student, becoming preoccupied with liberation through education of the self and others.
Anyway, as someone who reasons in a similar way as you, I’ve found the book to be very helpful and enlightening. Its kind of a difficult read, but I’m into that I guess
Interesting. However, I worry about this method’s usefulness in an online forum like piefed. I’d gladly use this method on a platform like Discord which encourages shorter messages and longer conversations. But piefed encourages us to throw walls of text at each other. I’ve found failure in the past when trying to convince others to think for themselves, because they get annoyed by My questions. It’s easier to measure success in the applause of the audience, who are listening instead of speaking, and are therefore more receptive. I can tell an audience what to think, and they will listen, perhaps believe Me. For this reason My debate style is optimised against the metric of the audience.
Your criticisms are likely valid. How can I do better?
I think youre doing well.
I agree with your logic and points of emphasis. I can’t make any more presumptions based on these few paragraphs.
I think there are times in a discussion where it can veer into many different directions. I’m very practical minded when it comes to criticism and analysis. It is a good discussion. Sorry if I came off lecturey I think I just felt like writing something lol
Ever read Pedagogy of the Oppressed?
Thanks! No, tell Me more
From this article
“Profound love” is an interesting phrase to find in any materialist method, especially with what we imagine or maybe have experienced regarding education. Our society has trouble accounting for it because of how we determine what counts as material or objective fact (this is our ontology). Love, to the rational materialist, appears as chemicals induced to stimulate biological processes. The body is a machine that produces love-like social behaviors, love is just a bunch of chemicals, and so on.
Friere’s method treats love as a subject/object relation, in both the subjective inner working of the individual (I love someone), the way the individual’s actions reflect their inner experience (I love someone, so I act like I love them), and how that practical activity changes the outside world (I experience love from loving someone). He uses a process of positive and negative statements to concretely define love, like “loving is a desire to liberate an other, not a desire to enslave them.” And at the end of his process, establishes “love” as an objectively revolutionary subject.
He writes about Che Guevara in the notes:
So for him, the teacher/student dialectic is founded in revolutionary science. Educational dialog is liberating, and the act of self-education is the practice of self- liberation. None of these ideas are unfounded in the Marxist tradition, in fact they’re a direct application of Marxist revolutionary theory. After all, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways, the point is to change it.”
And the basis for Friere’s pedagogy, is asking questions and posing problems, through a teacher/student dialectical pedagogy used as a practical means to free ourselves and others. Without it, as Friere once described it, “When education isnt liberating it is the dream of the oppressed to become the oppressor.” This is what makes “winning the debate” a subconscious act of hegemony and subjugation. Even if it isnt our intent to carry out acts like this, the social structure (superstructure) that exists perpetuates itself through these actions.
So in order to educate an other we have to be actively trying to educate ourselves, because educating ourselves is a means to liberate ourselves, but is only possible when we commit ourselves to liberating an other. In doing this, the other also takes on the role of teacher and student, becoming preoccupied with liberation through education of the self and others.
Anyway, as someone who reasons in a similar way as you, I’ve found the book to be very helpful and enlightening. Its kind of a difficult read, but I’m into that I guess
Interesting. However, I worry about this method’s usefulness in an online forum like piefed. I’d gladly use this method on a platform like Discord which encourages shorter messages and longer conversations. But piefed encourages us to throw walls of text at each other. I’ve found failure in the past when trying to convince others to think for themselves, because they get annoyed by My questions. It’s easier to measure success in the applause of the audience, who are listening instead of speaking, and are therefore more receptive. I can tell an audience what to think, and they will listen, perhaps believe Me. For this reason My debate style is optimised against the metric of the audience.
Ah, I see you’re still doing the bit, I’ll leave you to it. thanks for humoring me writing about one of my favorite subjects!