People make no sense with their mental gymnastics ….this is a departure from reason logic and common sense Fieri says knowledge gets in the way of what they are trying to teach .
No. His theory outlines the problem with the concept of knowledge, not empiricism. Knowledge is often selected and 'banked' meaning that little is done to generate energy, creativity, and knowledge from the learner. Please try and understand the nuances of his ideas rather than fear them.
@@LilithsErrand You’re joking right? What Paulo was teaching was a religion. He was teaching his students what to think not how to think . He taught the proper responses for the questions they had. That’s called indoctrination. This is not freedom of thought opinion or choice .This is intellectual theft and manipulation of the minds of our youth under the guise of a fake morality and manufactured premises .
Freire actually fundamentally disagreed with the kind of marxism in action that was communism. He believed that social change that was revolutionary became just as oppressive as 'the right' -- which bears out in history when we understand just how similar Communist Russia and Nazi Germany were. Change is to happen by the oppressed, and the oppressed is not a static concept and is always changing. This means there are no teams, no groups better than others, no hobbyism, but awareness and conscious action in response to what is happening in the world. Ugh. He's so misunderstood yet so brilliant. Makes me sad.
@@LilithsErrand Okay, but don’t all neo-Marxists disagree with and critique vulgar Marxism? Freire called being “literate a form of bourgeois property” which is a Marxism formulation and perspective. You’re allegedly becoming literate within the *existing system/hegemon* which propagates the same systemic inequalities and dialectic dynamic between the oppressors and the oppressor. That is why I said “pedagogical Marxism” and not “pedagogical communism.” Freire fundamentally warped education itself into a Marxist construct where teachers (dominant) and students (submissive) are abolished and instead both parties are juxtaposed as learners “in dialogue” with one another which undermines traditional educational hierarchies. He advocates for decoding your political circumstances through education so that you can “proclaim the world,” overcome the “culture of silence,” and usher in the Marxist utopia. Well our kids are failing in school and failing behind the rest of the world including China at churning out high performing candidates for the labor market. Freire is a rehash of Mao’s Red Guard which resulted in the deaths of millions. But Marxism seems quite content to break a few eggs to make an omelet. The problem is that post-1965 and the FHA of ‘68 there was no more systemic racism or oppression. Marxism itself is broadening a divide between people that was closed long ago. So what good is awareness and conscious action when your lens and moral compass are completely broken? Marxism inevitably pushes towards eugenics, abject poverty, and slavery. We’ve seen it in every single Marxist society before and it is currently the plight of the black community in America.
The gateway standard for true critical thinking, thinking that seeks to improve over time, is clarity. You cannot improve reasoning without being clear. Fiere does the opposite. He uses terminology that conflates ideas, thus language which becomes purposefully unclear. He is a sophist. Thus our schools are literally peddling sophistry. It is no wonder they are doing so poorly.
@@yellowporsche8172 Yes that is what I meant, thank you. The whole premise is based on teaching people how to critique the existing systems in order to transform them into a vision of the world implanted by the educators, effectively turning people into activists rather than teaching them how to be successful within the existing systems. If the program was to mentor people at the bottom to become more effective within the system then perhaps turn them towards bringing others up as well, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. But teaching people that they have to actively critique everything without even teaching them the basics of how to improve their situation seems like the wrong direction. Also, these critical pedagogies always seem to ignore the most important factors when looking at socio-economic outcomes. And somehow these topics became controversial to even discuss - stable families & communities, cultural attitudes towards learning and education attainment, low intelligence that cause people to fall out of the bottom, etc. The politics of education (purposeful reference) need to be ignored by all sides in order to honestly assess causes and have rational discussions where common ground can be found and acted upon. I could give you examples of how I would reframe arguments from either side of the political aisle (from a US perspective) if you'd like.
@@SisyphusDungball Hello Aric, thank you for preparing an insightful comment and response. In many instances, you have written concerns that are relevant and appropriate to pedagogy. Some of the things you are writing are critical pedagogy, such as the issue of socio-economics connecting to education, which, by the way, was the basis of Freire's rationale. First, he wrote his text in response to Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth because Fanon had concluded that the use of violence to fight colonial violence was the only answer. Instead, Freire was offering a change in pedagogy so people would recognize forms of oppression to be able to leave it. Through critical reflection and action - known as praxis - they can understand the systems they live in and how those systems relate to their living conditions. Not everyone is oppressed, and not all people oppressed are oppressed equally. Albeit, I believe we all experience different forms of oppression, but I digress. Second, Freire's critical pedagogy stems from his personal experiences. He spoke about being middle class in Brazil, and as a child during the Depression, his family lost everything, becoming impoverished. He was hungry and tired because he had to work even though he was a little kid. He remembered his diminished learning because he was hungry and tired. When the family recovered socio-economically later in the 1930s, his educational experience vastly improved because he had food in his stomach and his job was only to attend school. I don't know your identity with society, so I cannot comment on you. But, I can comment on myself. When Borg says we must place ourselves in the context of what we are teaching, we can understand our biases. For example, if I am teaching citizenship to a group of language learners who need to understand the history of their new nation, my identity and biases can impact how that knowledge is created. If I have a heritage associated with colonialism, my perspective and understanding will differ from an Indigenous person or a person from a colonized state. Even if I know the knowledge is wrong, I will still have biases because of my identity. That is reality; we have biases, such as thinking critical pedagogy is Marxist. I am using a specific example because I know that we teach incorrect knowledge where I live because my government does not wish to acknowledge that we founded our nation on Indigenous dispossession. Suppose I do not use praxis or listen to Indigenous peoples or try to learn about the founding of my nation. Instead, I teach this incorrect knowledge because I do not know better, or I think the settler-colonial narrative was a past event instead of an ongoing structure. Or I don't have the understanding to critically question the history of nation-building that we only understand as an act of amazing modernity and ultimate civilization. In that case, I am contributing to and normalizing a false narrative. In closing, I don't think you should bring Marx into it because Marx was an observer and was writing about how we, the workers, whom he called the proletariat, were being oppressed by the capitalists who pay/paid us nominally while taking the profits of our labour. I don't want to get into profit and risk; I am a reasonable person and understand why we need some capitalism. However, the capitalists have convinced you and others that Marx is a threat when Marx was only pointing out the obvious. If other people took Marx and exploited his writings into something intangible and oppressive, blaming Marx, who was dead by then and using Marx to imply existential harm to our current society, suggests to me that you have bought into the capitalist narrative that politicizes education and other aspects of culture/society. I am neither a Marxist nor a capitalist; I understand them both. Accusing Freire, Borg, or I of Marxism is politicization because 100% labelling people Marxist today is a political act to divide society by implying we are a threat to society. In the end, critical thinking is agency. Teaching critical thinking goes back to Plato, as well. Making educational systems that just download knowledge as a 'discourse of the master (Lacan)' only creates soldiers. I am not a follower and thank God for that. I can also critique Borg's lecture and have no problem doing so. I loved his enthusiasm, and that adult education for social change is doable. Are you a teacher Aric?
Under 4 minutes and he has already said this is about collective social change. Amazing that people cannot see what's under the covers.
The scariest thing is that these people really seem to be ignorant to just how unbelievably evil their ideas actually are.
People make no sense with their mental gymnastics ….this is a departure from reason logic and common sense Fieri says knowledge gets in the way of what they are trying to teach .
No. His theory outlines the problem with the concept of knowledge, not empiricism. Knowledge is often selected and 'banked' meaning that little is done to generate energy, creativity, and knowledge from the learner. Please try and understand the nuances of his ideas rather than fear them.
@@LilithsErrand You’re joking right? What Paulo was teaching was a religion. He was teaching his students what to think not how to think . He taught the proper responses for the questions they had. That’s called indoctrination. This is not freedom of thought opinion or choice .This is intellectual theft and manipulation of the minds of our youth under the guise of a fake morality and manufactured premises .
I hate how these ppl always say to target children.. Like its so clearly indoctrination not education
Pedagogical Marxism
Freire actually fundamentally disagreed with the kind of marxism in action that was communism. He believed that social change that was revolutionary became just as oppressive as 'the right' -- which bears out in history when we understand just how similar Communist Russia and Nazi Germany were. Change is to happen by the oppressed, and the oppressed is not a static concept and is always changing. This means there are no teams, no groups better than others, no hobbyism, but awareness and conscious action in response to what is happening in the world. Ugh. He's so misunderstood yet so brilliant. Makes me sad.
@@LilithsErrand Okay, but don’t all neo-Marxists disagree with and critique vulgar Marxism?
Freire called being “literate a form of bourgeois property” which is a Marxism formulation and perspective. You’re allegedly becoming literate within the *existing system/hegemon* which propagates the same systemic inequalities and dialectic dynamic between the oppressors and the oppressor. That is why I said “pedagogical Marxism” and not “pedagogical communism.”
Freire fundamentally warped education itself into a Marxist construct where teachers (dominant) and students (submissive) are abolished and instead both parties are juxtaposed as learners “in dialogue” with one another which undermines traditional educational hierarchies. He advocates for decoding your political circumstances through education so that you can “proclaim the world,” overcome the “culture of silence,” and usher in the Marxist utopia. Well our kids are failing in school and failing behind the rest of the world including China at churning out high performing candidates for the labor market. Freire is a rehash of Mao’s Red Guard which resulted in the deaths of millions. But Marxism seems quite content to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
The problem is that post-1965 and the FHA of ‘68 there was no more systemic racism or oppression. Marxism itself is broadening a divide between people that was closed long ago. So what good is awareness and conscious action when your lens and moral compass are completely broken? Marxism inevitably pushes towards eugenics, abject poverty, and slavery. We’ve seen it in every single Marxist society before and it is currently the plight of the black community in America.
The gateway standard for true critical thinking, thinking that seeks to improve over time, is clarity. You cannot improve reasoning without being clear. Fiere does the opposite. He uses terminology that conflates ideas, thus language which becomes purposefully unclear. He is a sophist. Thus our schools are literally peddling sophistry. It is no wonder they are doing so poorly.
Communism
Collective social change guided by WHOS morality? Last i noticed no one is perfect.
Verbal ticks indicating psychological derangement.
Excellent presentation and explanation.
Completely coherent and consistent through the lens of neo Marxist pedagogy (theology) while also being incredibly illogical and sophilistic.
@@SisyphusDungball I think you meant solipsistic; as we are creating knowledge 'together' maybe you can expand on your argument.
@@yellowporsche8172 Yes that is what I meant, thank you. The whole premise is based on teaching people how to critique the existing systems in order to transform them into a vision of the world implanted by the educators, effectively turning people into activists rather than teaching them how to be successful within the existing systems. If the program was to mentor people at the bottom to become more effective within the system then perhaps turn them towards bringing others up as well, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. But teaching people that they have to actively critique everything without even teaching them the basics of how to improve their situation seems like the wrong direction.
Also, these critical pedagogies always seem to ignore the most important factors when looking at socio-economic outcomes. And somehow these topics became controversial to even discuss - stable families & communities, cultural attitudes towards learning and education attainment, low intelligence that cause people to fall out of the bottom, etc. The politics of education (purposeful reference) need to be ignored by all sides in order to honestly assess causes and have rational discussions where common ground can be found and acted upon. I could give you examples of how I would reframe arguments from either side of the political aisle (from a US perspective) if you'd like.
@@SisyphusDungball Hello Aric, thank you for preparing an insightful comment and response. In many instances, you have written concerns that are relevant and appropriate to pedagogy. Some of the things you are writing are critical pedagogy, such as the issue of socio-economics connecting to education, which, by the way, was the basis of Freire's rationale. First, he wrote his text in response to Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth because Fanon had concluded that the use of violence to fight colonial violence was the only answer. Instead, Freire was offering a change in pedagogy so people would recognize forms of oppression to be able to leave it. Through critical reflection and action - known as praxis - they can understand the systems they live in and how those systems relate to their living conditions. Not everyone is oppressed, and not all people oppressed are oppressed equally. Albeit, I believe we all experience different forms of oppression, but I digress.
Second, Freire's critical pedagogy stems from his personal experiences. He spoke about being middle class in Brazil, and as a child during the Depression, his family lost everything, becoming impoverished. He was hungry and tired because he had to work even though he was a little kid. He remembered his diminished learning because he was hungry and tired. When the family recovered socio-economically later in the 1930s, his educational experience vastly improved because he had food in his stomach and his job was only to attend school.
I don't know your identity with society, so I cannot comment on you. But, I can comment on myself. When Borg says we must place ourselves in the context of what we are teaching, we can understand our biases. For example, if I am teaching citizenship to a group of language learners who need to understand the history of their new nation, my identity and biases can impact how that knowledge is created. If I have a heritage associated with colonialism, my perspective and understanding will differ from an Indigenous person or a person from a colonized state. Even if I know the knowledge is wrong, I will still have biases because of my identity. That is reality; we have biases, such as thinking critical pedagogy is Marxist. I am using a specific example because I know that we teach incorrect knowledge where I live because my government does not wish to acknowledge that we founded our nation on Indigenous dispossession. Suppose I do not use praxis or listen to Indigenous peoples or try to learn about the founding of my nation. Instead, I teach this incorrect knowledge because I do not know better, or I think the settler-colonial narrative was a past event instead of an ongoing structure. Or I don't have the understanding to critically question the history of nation-building that we only understand as an act of amazing modernity and ultimate civilization. In that case, I am contributing to and normalizing a false narrative.
In closing, I don't think you should bring Marx into it because Marx was an observer and was writing about how we, the workers, whom he called the proletariat, were being oppressed by the capitalists who pay/paid us nominally while taking the profits of our labour. I don't want to get into profit and risk; I am a reasonable person and understand why we need some capitalism. However, the capitalists have convinced you and others that Marx is a threat when Marx was only pointing out the obvious. If other people took Marx and exploited his writings into something intangible and oppressive, blaming Marx, who was dead by then and using Marx to imply existential harm to our current society, suggests to me that you have bought into the capitalist narrative that politicizes education and other aspects of culture/society. I am neither a Marxist nor a capitalist; I understand them both. Accusing Freire, Borg, or I of Marxism is politicization because 100% labelling people Marxist today is a political act to divide society by implying we are a threat to society.
In the end, critical thinking is agency. Teaching critical thinking goes back to Plato, as well. Making educational systems that just download knowledge as a 'discourse of the master (Lacan)' only creates soldiers. I am not a follower and thank God for that. I can also critique Borg's lecture and have no problem doing so. I loved his enthusiasm, and that adult education for social change is doable.
Are you a teacher Aric?
How ironic that this guys last name is Borg. He wants everyone to assimilate.