Douglass vs Freire

By comparing Douglass’ love for education to Freire’s loathing for the common process of learning, it is difficult to determine for myself what I think of the system set up for children to gain knowledge through. It seems that the earlier stages are as Freire describes, but then the later stages are as Douglass depicts learning. Starting with before preschool through the beginning years of high school, all that is learned are facts and history; towards the end of high school and then through university, personal thought is encouraged, thinking outside of the box.

In elementary school, a child is required to take classes that are universal throughout all the classes. Basic math, the alphabet; both are bases for later learning, so how can Freire criticize what is meant to be the basis for progressive learning? I find what he describes as the “Banking Concept” crude. It is true that children are told things and are required to spit them back out, but a child isn’t one to learn on their own. Some kids are excited about going to school, because they know that they will see their friends. Children aren’t known to know what’s best for them, so having parents and the government makes them learn, they will not appreciate it until they are further along in their lives. I personally am extremely grateful of my high school learning, they way my teachers encouraged me to express my ideas without having to worry about them being wrong or not. But is everything that children are being filled with true?

There are so many topics that are touchy, and the type of learning that Douglass discusses is what’s so important for young learners to know. It can shake your world and it can open your eyes to the oppression and craziness that is the world today, but it will build up your ideas and that is what allows progression in the world. Take global warning, for an example of a touchy subject; so many people just believe what the entertainment industry is putting out, about how we need to save the planet and stop using pollutants. They don’t take the time to research it and find out that it could just be a high point in an endless cycle of warming and cooling the earth goes through every 100 or 1000 years; and this is what causes the populace to be ignorant of today’s issues. I personally don’t believe in global warming. Living in Alaska, we are at the head of the global warming rocket and the climate change is that of a minimal amount. I have done papers and watched anti-global warming shows, and they all have a common thread- the earth goes through stages, the ice age as an example, and though it is a good thing to help slow down the burning of the ozone layer and to reduce the greenhouse gases, it is not a thing that will kill us all in 1000 years. I just hope people will come up with their own ideals and not follow those that are put out into the air. I think this is some of what Freire is talking about when he calls students ‘depositories’, how people just take in what they are told and not thinking about it critically. Only if children were encouraged to be different and were not penalized by their peers for it would the education system be better.

Freedom of Education

Keely Boulton

January 27, 2008

No one can understand the meaning of freedom better than someone who has been under harsh oppression all their life. I think many Americans take for granted the freedom that we have and the price that has been paid, that is still being paid. One of the many things our country takes for granted is the freedom of education. Yes, most people would say that education is not always fun, its expensive in many cases and a good education requires a lot of work on the student’s end. Yet when we look at people such as Douglass and Freire it should seem easy to appreciate the freedom of education.

Unlike Douglass, most of us were not enslaved for most of our life, unless perhaps it was by Nintendo, I-pods, food or something of that nature. Douglass was oppressed and pushed past normal human limits and yet he saw that having an education could help him break free of that oppression. Douglass viewed education as a gift that he was ever thankful for because it made him aware of his rights and helped him to escape what could have been a life-long oppression. I think Freire has a similar view of education being able to free and liberate people. Freire saw that education required hard work by both the student and the teacher, but it was given freely for all people to grab hold of. He says, “Only through communication can human life hold meaning” (532). In other words, only by expressing our ideas to one another can we really achieve our purpose. Only then can we grasp the gift of education that has been freely given to us. We are not oppressed and we are not controlled by a tyranny. Why then should we not take hold of a special gift handed to us, no matter how hard it may be sometimes?

Douglass/Freire

Michael Chopp

Ariana Paliobagis

ENG 121

1/27/08

Paulo Freire and Fredrick Douglass were two men very fond of learning during their times. Like Hsun Tzu and Rousseau, they felt education was a basis for becoming complete and finding “oneness”. However, these two had other similar beliefs in the education process as well. As being born into slavery, Douglass was one of the fortunate few slaves to be taught the alphabet and embrace education. After being left without a teacher, he found ways to self-teach himself and earn the education needed to understand life. He realized “freedom” and the rights given to him in the United States. It made him realize he had been treated unfairly all his life and he wanted to fix that. Nonetheless, as he learned more about how blacks were treated through slavery, he had doubts as whether he was better off not knowing what he had learned. Freire was slightly different in the way one should learn. Group activities and interacting with other peers were main points of his. In the reading, he mentioned how learning was like a banking system, which he claims is false. A student to Freire needs to learn from his/her teacher, with the teacher inversely learning from the student too. Basically, he is stating they both gain knowledge even when the teacher is instructing the student. Looking back at both of these fine gentlemen, they would seem to get along great. Both had similar views on education, in how it showed one’s self freedom and the rights of all. It enabled people to think critically and interact with other people about their ideas. My take on their views is they are key components to learning. As a business major, group work is essential and is the centerpiece of a company. Also, a relationship on a personal basis, especially in college is vital in learning. The teacher is your number one resource and helps the teacher get to know you and learn from you.

Freedom!!

                 Frederick Douglas was born into slavery.  It seemed he began as any young slave, but circumstance shined down on him and he was blessed with an unlikely first teacher, Mrs. Hughs.  Who in the beginning opened her heart to him, teaching him the ABC’s.  Through an unhappy sequence of events she began to learn her true place as a slave holder and  now disapproved of these teachings.  But the fire had already been lit in little Fredrick’s heart and soul and it seemed nothing would hold this boy back.  He took it upon himself to further his knowledge and much to his dismay he only realized more and more the reasons for his and his peoples state and the monsters that put them there.  Though this curse that his knowledge began to reveal did not stop him.  He was determined to learn to write, despite his awareness of his oppression and the hole that it sucked him into.  Write he did!  Through his determination he created a person who would change the course of abolition.  GO FREDERICK!!

              It would seem that Paulo Friere was trying to free the minds of the students and open them up to thoughts of their own, discoveries about themselves and the world, and to take this subservient control away from the arrogant teachers.

Individual Education

Douglass’s and Freire’s views on education are slightly different because of the situations each of them faced. However, in many aspects, the two men’s ideas are very similar. Freire saw the danger that traditional education can bring because students are only educated to the level that their teacher is educated. The “banking system” is used to deposit information the teacher has into students’ minds; therefore, the students can not learn beyond what is taught. Douglass, on the other hand, believes that through his individual education one can achieve freedom. Because Douglass was a slave he was not educated in the traditional sense but his specific education helped abolish his ignorance. Clearly, both men thought that the traditional ways of education were corrupt; Freire believed that society was purposely corrupting students’ minds and Douglass also believed that society was purposely corrupting the whites’ minds to make them believe that it was humanly acceptable to own another human life. Both believe that education leads to freedom, but the education must not be tainted by society’s rules because society can alter the individual learning a student will go through to become a free thinker.  Both men feel that ignorance leads to oppression. Freire considers the form of the “banking system” as a form of oppression because the student is under the dictation of the teacher, who supposedly only teaches certain ideas and themes to her students. As for Douglass, he considers the white man educated, because he was as a child, and the black man ignorant because he was not educated. Because of that lack of education he allows the white man to own his body; however, one would never see a slave owner owning an educated white man. Each man faced similar struggles in different settings but in the end they both believe that education will lead to freedom if that education is not tainted by societies’ general beliefs.  

Freire v. Douglass

Henry Robertson

English 121

Mrs. P

Freire v. Douglass

          The two papers, regarding education, discussed below are by authors who have written during differing time periods.  Douglass’ work is from the late 1800’s (a time of slavery) while Freire writes during the late 1900’s (contemporary society).  Does one hundred years of separation between writings make a difference between two authors and their thoughts on education?  Maybe.

          Douglass was a slave during the late 1800’s. According to him a learned slave is a free slave.  In order for him to learn how to read and write he would have to teach himself.  The very beginnings of his schooling was by a teacher, the wife of his owner.   The rest of his education was self-taught.  He worked very hard for very long to gain his education.  He used his friends and turned them into teachers without them knowing it!  He would ask them to teach him one little thing at a time and sooner or later he put it all together and could read and write.

          Freire wrote during the late 1900’s.  His thoughts about the educational process compared it to a bank.  The teachers would put thoughts (the money) into the heads of the learner (the bank).  This type of learning can also be called rote memorization.  In his eyes this is the worst type of learning.  He believed the only way to learn is by doing. However, he did not believe in the “well rounded” sort of learned.  He felt humans should only learn what they need to know for whatever they wanted to do in life and nothing more.  He also believed that a teacher can learn from the student. 

          In comparison, both authors felt the somewhat the same – you must learn on your own.  However, Douglass felt guidance is necessary at first, while Freire did not.  Further, Douglass felt a person should learn as much as possible while Freire felt a person only needed to learn what was needed for that person’s future.

           My thoughts on this subject are very biased due to my career as a teacher.  I have taught on both a personal level as well as a university setting.  My teachings are based on the student learning on their own with guidance.  I agree with Freire on the fact that students must conform to whatever the teacher decides to teach which is not conducive to “user friendly” learning.  Grant it, this type of learning happens in grade school and high school. It is in college that the student is able to “choose” what he or she wishes to study.  One would think that this would help the student learn and provide for a better environment.  However, history will show students have become very lazy and only wish to “get by” the easiest way possible.  Understandable that there are a choice few who work very hard and go the extra mile to learn as much as they can. These narratives are not geared to them.  Both authors have very valid points about how people should learn but they are divided.  It is my feeling that students should learn through both school and on their own but as much as they can, not just what they need for their profession.  They have to go the extra mile and learn outside of school to succeed.  Through my experiences as a teacher students no longer do this. It is a detriment to their future and is only understood after the fact!  The best way to learn a topic is to teach it.  Also, as Freire suggested, the teacher can learn from their students.

Side Note: I do not wish to offend anyone.  I am only speaking through my experiences as a professor at University of North Dakota, MSU Bozeman, and as a flight instructor.  I understand that not everyone is lazy.  My teachings are very similar to how both Freire and Douglass feel about education.  In essence, I combine the two to provide the best possible education to produce the best students.

Douglass & Freire

Mary Alice Dewees

Writing 121

Ariana Paliobagis

 

 

          After reading Freire’s ” The Banking Concept of Education”, I was a bit conflicted by what he wrote. While I understand his comparing oppression to education, I do not comprehend how one can escape what he referred to as formal education. The student must learn the basics like reading and writing in order to participate in progressive learning.

 I do agree that once the basic foundation is made, active learning is the best format. To simply recite facts memorized back out serves no one. I know from personal experience that I would remember something long enough to be test on the material. I wonder what Douglass would have thought of Freire’s ideas on education?

Douglass viewed education as a means of achieving freedom; knowledge equaled freedom. Douglass, I believe would have jumped at the chance to be able to sit in a classroom and be filled with facts, formulas and discipline. It must be said Douglass himself was a pro-active learner on is own and I believe some people are just born that way. It is inconceivable to these types of people to simply accept what is being taught without their own independent research.

What Education Equals

Samantha Kujala        1/27/08          ENGL 121          Ariana Paliobagis

                                   What Education Equals                                                

            Douglas and Freire both look at education and see it as something else not just simply education. Douglas sees his education as a source and answer to his freedom. While Freire relates education to banking and also believes there is a problem with teaching.                                                                                       

 I think Douglas was very smart; smarter than he gave himself credit for. He was clever for really having no education. For example how he tricked the other boys into teaching him how to write. Douglas was very determined to learn how to read and write. I think reading played a very important role for Douglas, because being able to read was how he found out he was living in country that was all about freedom. Just knowing that piece of information as a slave would be very shocking. Although, knowing this for Douglas is also sometimes a curse. He is punished for reading, for what he has learned, and wishes to be as ignorant as other slaves. But even with this curse he continued to teach himself and learn from others.            

Freire I believe would think very highly of Douglas because Douglas didn’t go to school he learned from others. Freire felt that education wasn’t something that should just be received from a teacher at school. School became like banking in a way, because students don’t absorb information they just store it and go through the same routine each day. Teachers were depositing information into empty minds, creating an account. Freire believed to learn something and become knowledgeable, teachers need to engage in conversations. It’s hard to learn something if you are not actively learning and really retaining the information. I definitely agree with Freire that people learn from each other. With Douglas he was absolutely learning from others and teaching others. Douglas showed the little white boys in town how different slaves were, not being able to read and write. He taught his mistress that he was no different from anyone else and could learn to read. Learning from others was an important message Freire was trying to get across and was also an essential tool for Douglas.

Educating for Awareness

               Fredrick Douglass and Paulo Freire both center their writings on the fact that it is through an education that a person becomes aware of his/her human rights and also learns to be a conscious being—one which learns from others, but at the same time is able to think on their own and draw conclusions from their different life experiences.  The two pieces are similar in the fact that they focus on education as liberating, but their ways of obtaining that education are quite different.

                In Douglass’s piece, he takes us through his journey of learning to read.  Originally, his mistress instructs him—but soon after reaching out to him, she refuses to help continue educating him.  From then on Douglass is forced to find other ways of learning to read—this is the beginning of his self-educating journey.  After learning to read, Douglass faces a new challenge–he realizes that he has been deprived of his rights for his entire life and that he no longer desires to live as a submissive slave for another human being.  With this realization, he also struggles with whether it was better for him to have this new awareness with no solutions, or to altogether be unaware but content with his old lifestyle.

                Freire’s approach to obtaining an education is quite different from Douglass’s.  Freire focuses less on self-education and more on learning with and from other people.  Throughout Freire’s piece he talks about avoiding the “banking concept of education” where a supposedly all-knowing teacher bestows his or her knowledge onto stupid, empty students (Freire 531). Instead, he thinks that the teachers and students should both learn from each other—and in doing so, each gets a better education and becomes a self-thinking, solution-seeking individual. 

                Both Freire’s and Douglass’s works confirm that it is an education that gives a person an awareness of their rights and helps them achieve mental freedom.  It helps a person change from an empty receptacle into a self-thinking individual that is capable of changing their life as well as others (Freire 531).  As both Douglass and Freire show, a lack of education often times equals oppression so it is important to become an educated individual—both to help yourself and others.

Freire and Douglass on the Emancipatory Power of Education

Felix J Grobler
Ariana Paliobagis
English 121
28th of January 2008

Freire and Douglass on the Emancipatory Power of Education

Freire and Douglass each have interesting views on the liberating power of education. They both have realized, as Douglass wrote, “the emancipatory power of education” (Douglass, p.506). The two authors address the ability of education to free people from oppression. In the case of Douglass it was the black slaves in the southern United States and in the case of Freire it was the poor people of rural Brazil. Both groups of people have never really received any form of education, most of them are illiterate. Due to this fact they are often used and controlled by other factions of people.
Freedom can only be sustained through education, this holds true for the United States as a country as well, without and educated populace a republic can not function as it is intended to. On a more personal level the same idea follows, being educated allows you to understand your surroundings and react to them. For example many of the slaves did not realize entirely how much they were being oppressed, this life was all that they had ever known. Reading in particular made Douglass first realize how much he and his fellow slaves were being oppressed by the slave owners. Without education Douglass would have never realized that the state of slavery he was born into was not a natural one. Only through the books he read did he realize that everybody deserved and should be free, including the slaves.

Freire realized the freeing aspect of education as well. Freire was mainly concerned with the theory of how people should be taught. He believed that is was crucial to even the playing field between the students and the teachers. This way they would be on the same level and able to work together better. Freire favored open discussion over memorization. He wanted to make learning an active experience. Students should not just be copy ideas down, they should think about the subject and come up with ideas of their own. This type of learning process makes students more pro-active and creative. They learn to think for themselves.
Douglass was very pro-active with his own education. He would have never learned to read and write if he had not done so. In this respect he was learning in a similar way as Freire envisions learning. Douglass of course did not have a choice, this was the only way.

Post 2

Douglass : Freire

 

            Douglass and Freire both expressed the importance of education, especially to the poor and underprivileged. Douglass proclaimed that in order to maintain power over slaves it is absolutely necessary to keep them in the dark and uneducated. I would also assume that this is the reason that Freire was forced to stop his education of the poor in Brazil by the government and thrown into jail. Perhaps once educated the lower class of Brazilians realized some unfairness produced by their government and revolted. Without an education, Douglass would not have recognized the injustice of slavery to the extent that he did and would not have become a key figure in the abolitionist movements. Douglass’s “Learning to Read” deals with how education defeats oppression, Freire discusses more the importance of how someone is taught, but I do think that Douglass would agree with Freire’s method. Freire compares poor teaching methods to filling a pot. The student is but a pot in which the teacher is to fill with information. He believes in a system where “both are simultaneously teachers and students”. This well taught education he refers to as “problem-posing education” where education is not only memorization but a process of “discussion of possible solutions”. The other form of poorly taught education he calls “banking”. The reason for Douglass’s approval of Freire’s methods is Freire’s disagreement with the banking system and that it leads to oppression. In banking teachers and students are opposites. It is assumed that the teacher knows all and the students know nothing, projecting ignorance onto the students nonetheless oppressing them. (pg 531) The main reason for Douglass’s emphasis on education was to eliminate oppression in a country that was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom.

Response 2

Education Education is the foundation on which our country, even civilization itself is built on. Where it is available life flourishes; both monetarily but more importantly culturally. The education systems in the United States or Japan are strong and this power is mirrored by the economic benefits we see both these countries enjoying. Contrastingly, many countries in Africa, disease and famine run rampant while the educated of other countries reap the rewards. The infrastructure that allows for the widespread education of all classes is the same system that begins to become impersonal, impractical, and even alienating. The education system of the United States has become so large and diverse that giving every student an “equal” opportunity has severely restricted the knowledge available to students. While being designed to give each student a level playing field, it has only limited itself, and thus the students, to a basic sampling of subjects merely touched upon with no connection to any real world applications. Students find themselves memorizing facts, given to them by an authority for which they have no allegiance, that have no use to them only in order to advance to the next level of education. Unlike knowledge that is learned from experience, which has a direct application to daily life, knowledge learned in this classroom setting is merely a list of facts to be memorized by the student for no reason other than the teachers authority over his or her advancement to the next level of education. Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educational theorist, describes reality taught in this way as “motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable”(Freire, 531), while real life is constantly changing and reforming itself. Education is the cornerstone of a successful nation and its widespread availability is enormously important but it must be shaped to fit a fluid world.

Freire and Douglass’s Similar Ideas

Carley Buttelman

English 121

Mrs. Paliobagis

1/28/2008

Paulo Freire (1921-1997) and Frederick Douglass (1817-1895) lived about one hundred years apart; however had very similar ideas on education.  They lived in completely different times, but still found a common thought about education.  Don’t stop thinking. Don’t stop being creative. Don’t stop trying to learn.           

Frederick Douglass was a slave and did everything in his power to learn.  Neighborhood white boys helped him learn to read, which he was so grateful for. He says that he would run his errands quickly just to get a lesson in before he returned to his mistress. His dedication to learning boggles my mind, and it makes me admire him because so many people in our society don’t appreciate school. He did everything in his power to find ways to learn and find a way to escape oppression. Slave owners had complete control over their slave’s education and sometimes considered it dangerous to have an educated slave. Paulo Freire’s “banking” education resembles that of the slave and slave owners situation. Freire says that the relationship between teachers and students resembles the relationship between the political oppressors and the oppressed (530).  Slave owners believed that their slaves knew nothing just like how teachers think their students have little knowledge in the “banking” education.            

There is a common thread with both these men even though they lived during a different era. Both men seem to think that education should be appreciated, and critical thinking is a great thing. No one doesn’t have the right to think.

Douglas and Freire

Ryan Haidle

English 121

Ariana Paliobagis

Response 2

 

            Frederick Douglas and Paulo Freire both had their own views on education.  After reading both of their writings they have their similarities and differences.  The two writers’ opinions may have been affected by their positions in society.  With Douglas being an educated slave, he had different influences in his writings.

            Frederick used the analogy that an education meant freedom.  If a person can strive to get an education, their chances of freedom were increased greatly.  If someone could become educated then they became aware their rights.  Douglas also strived to always remain active, because he felt if he was continuously active, he would be able to take advantage of that situation and learn as much as he possibly could.

            Paulo Freire presented his idea of education in his writings also.  He explained his opinion on a type of learning; he called this narrative learning.  Narrative is learning is where the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing.  He said, “Narration leads the students to memorize mechanically the narrated content. Worse yet, it turns them into ‘containers,’ into ‘receptacles’ to be filled by the teacher.” (531)  With this type of education, the students memorize exactly what the teacher tells them.  This is what Freire calls the “banking” concept. 

            Although Freire explained the “banking” concept in his writing, he felt that this concept was used to liberate society.  I think Freire agrees with Douglas on the fact that education must have different forms of learning.  I think they both would agree that while being taught by the teacher they should also teach.

            According to Freire, “In order to function, authority must be on the side of freedom, not against it. Here, no one teachers another, nor is anyone self-taught.”(534) This mite be one quote that the two authors may have debated on. Douglas felt that anyone could be capable of teaching themselves through experience.  Douglas and Freire both had their own views on education, but also had some similarities.  Their opinions from their writings will be debated on forever.

Douglass and Freire: Friends from Different Times

I believe that Douglass and Freire would have been friends.  There are some major differences in regards to the era that they each come from, but I think that those differences would have been set aside.  Freire speaks out in direct opposition to what I would call tradition teaching.  He thinks that the student-teacher relationship referred to as banking is not only encroaching upon students’ freedom, but removing it completely.  Freire believes that a liberal education is what it will take to lead students to learn, not just divulge what they have memorized.  This is why I think Douglass would be friends with him.

            Douglass grew up in a time when only white people were educated and an African-American was a slave.  There were practically no people other than white’s receiving education, and this was a direct action against Douglass’ freedom.  I believe that the key point that would start their friendship is that Freire supports a liberal education while Douglass lived it.  Douglass never had a teacher who sat down with him and taught him facts.  Douglass was on his own, and he became his own teacher, breaking the trend of education through direction from a professor.

            Education plays a huge roll in regards to one’s freedom.  A person will not understand if something is wrong if they do not know the truth, and the only way for the truth to become apparent is if they learn.  The only way to learn is to have freedom, so that what you learn is not biased or dictated, but rather received with an open mind, having both sides presented.  Thus, freedom comes through education. A country stifles freedom if it limits education.

Same Person, Different Era…

Benjamin Burns

Araina Paliobagis

English 121

1/28/08      

 

                                          Frederick Douglass vs. Paulo Freire

 

Frederick Douglass and Paulo Freire had comparative views on education and why it is important to human kind. Frederick Douglass was a slave that had the privilege of being taught the alphabet and was thankful for every piece of knowledge he could get. Douglass was forced to learn almost by a sort of “osmosis” in which he had no materials or book access. He was forced to learn from others and learned in a group with white children. His view on education and how he was educated was that learning by group conversation and group debate was the most effective. Douglass and Freire came from much different times and the theory of education and its importance to man-kind in Douglass’ era was far different from its importance and accessibility in Freire’s era, yet their beliefs on the issue were quite similar. Freire has observed the current state of the educational system and referred to its style as what he called “the banking system.” Which was that school was the opportunity for the students to get education and referred to the students as “empty accounts” in which the teacher makes deposits of knowledge (531). He believed that the control the teacher had over the student is “complete” and total, and that the student was to be submissive to the teacher. In his book he talks about the banking concept saying “In the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing.” He is essentially stating that the teacher was to assume that the student knew nothing, for if he knew anything he would not be seeking aid by the teacher.

This method, according to Freire, was ineffective and unacceptable. He believed that students and teachers alike should approach education like a conversation, and issues that were argued over should be resolved by different viewpoints and extensive explanation of the viewpoint. He believes that this method of education would be the most effective and most beneficial for the student.

Fredrick Douglass

Kirsten JensenEnglish 121January 28, 2008Fredrick Douglass          Fredrick Douglass was a slave who taught himself to read and write.  These assets game him a new found freedom, literally.  It gave him a different outlook on life and showed him that he deserves more than waiting on his masters.  Education was the gateway to freedom.  He not only taught himself how to read and write but he was clever about it; he used little boys and shipyards to learn simple tasks that we may take for granted.  His willpower and determination for freedom helped drive him to that light at the end of the tunnel.  The light stood for freedom.  At times, he wished that he did not have all the newfound knowledge because it sometimes burdened him to know what he could not have.  Bravely, he kept moving forward and accomplished his goals. The little boys that helped Douglass were kind-hearted but because society corrupted individuals, he protected them from the harshness of society.  That shows he has appreciation for them and how they helped him. Douglass’s story shows how powerful education is, and sometimes I think that we take our education for granted.  We do not always appreciate how far a good education can take us.  Without it we wouldn’t have doctors, lawyers, business owners, etc.; all of which are important to our society. We should take inspiration from Frederick Douglass’s story to better improve ourselves and our society as a whole.   

Fredrick Douglass

Kirsten JensenEnglish 121January 28, 2008Fredrick Douglass          Fredrick Douglass was a slave who taught himself to read and write.  These assets game him a new found freedom, literally.  It gave him a different outlook on life and showed him that he deserves more than waiting on his masters.  Education was the gateway to freedom.  He not only taught himself how to read and write but he was clever about it; he used little boys and shipyards to learn simple tasks that we may take for granted.  His willpower and determination for freedom helped drive him to that light at the end of the tunnel.  The light stood for freedom.  At times, he wished that he did not have all the newfound knowledge because it sometimes burdened him to know what he could not have.  Bravely, he kept moving forward and accomplished his goals. The little boys that helped Douglass were kind-hearted but because society corrupted individuals, he protected them from the harshness of society.  That shows he has appreciation for them and how they helped him. Douglass’s story shows how powerful education is, and sometimes I think that we take our education for granted.  We do not always appreciate how far a good education can take us.  Without it we wouldn’t have doctors, lawyers, business owners, etc.; all of which are important to our society. We should take inspiration from Frederick Douglass’s story to better improve ourselves and our society as a whole.   

Freedom of Education

Chris Kurz

ENG 121
Ariana Paliobagis
January 28, 2008

“One does not liberate people by alienating them” (533).
Frederick Douglass would have agreed whole-heartedly with this quote from Paulo Freire. In fact, Douglass and Freire may have gotten along quite well.
While Frederick Douglass spent his life trying to flee oppression in order to learn, Paulo Freire wrote about how people need to accept a world without oppression in order to learn properly. Had these two gentlemen had the opportunity to sit with each other and discuss their views on education and learning, they may have found that Freire’s outlook on the subjects described how the slaves of Douglass’ era viewed their own situation.
Freire’ perception that teacher’s needed to treat students as equals in discussion was exactly the mentality that Douglass searched for in his oppressors. Slave owners saw Douglass and his fellow slaves as work horses who were beneath being educated. In the minds of the slave owners, an educated slave was a dangerous mind, capable of independent thought and rebellion. This relationship between servant and master is a mirror image of the “narrating subject” (530) and the “listening objects” (530) Freire would write about in The Banking Concept of Education.
Freire saw the established communication between a teacher and a student as being much like that of the oppressive association between master and slave. Until the teacher learned to accept his/her students on the same level as his/herself, there could never be proper education in the eye of Freire. “In the banking concept of education, knowledge is bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whim they consider to know nothing” said Freire (531).
The similarities between Douglass’ often inhibited quest for knowledge and freedom of learning that Freire wrote about were magnificent when you realize the gap between their lifetimes. Douglass was grateful for the way his mistress initially was able, “to treat me as she supposed one human being ought to treat another” (507). Ultimately, she was the raison d’etre for Frederick Douglass despite her change of heart towards teaching slaves. Without the teachings of his mistress, Douglass may never have led himself down the road of enlightenment and freedom. The first stages of their relationship as teacher and student coincided with Freire’s feelings when he wrote, “In order to function, authority must be on the side of freedom, not against it” (534).

response #1

Response #1 by Jessi Quay

 

                There are many different views on that natural state of man, if they originated pure and good or if they started off evil and bad. Hsun Tzu believes that men were originally bad and only education can turn a man into a gentleman. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes that everything was made pure and man made them bad. While both of these men believe many different things, they do agree that men are naturally bad. It seems that by just looking at these two philosophers that man is just this evil being that has a small chance of redemption to become good again, but only if they are educated. Education can shape a man into a gentleman, and according to Hsun Tzu a gentleman is a good entity.

                According to Hsun Tzu, a man is born and is shaped like wood into a gentleman. Wood, when it is being shaped, is pressed and worked until it is the form that it was wanted to be. Like a piece of wood, a man is educated and is taught until they are a gentleman. Once a gentleman, they are constantly finding themselves with others that are learned, and as a result of that, they also are constantly learning.

                I disagree with Hsun Tzu in his idea of mankind. I believe that children are born pure and without sin. His idea of thinking is followed by the Catholic religion in believing children are born of sin and can only become forgiven through baptism. This is absurd as a way of a religion’s belief system. I actually believe that man is made bad and evil through education. If a man were never to learn what Hitler did or the tragedies of Shakespeare, they would never know the horror that is human life, and they would forever be blissful in their ignorance.

                Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes god makes all things good but mankind makes things bad and evil. It is because of this evil that mankind is the source of, that education plays a part of Rousseau’s ideals. With education, mankind can make up for the evil that it creates.

                I agree with his idea on the nature of things. If man were to leave animals and the land to itself, there wouldn’t be the problems and the many diseases there are in the world today. I believe that mankind is the reason there are people in the world that drive big SUV’s that put out so much bad pollutants into the air and that throw away massive amounts of reusable products without a care in the world. Education is a good thing, but the way that it is forced upon children when they are of an age when they most impressionable and are taught false facts that are not true, it is not being used to its true intention. Some untrue facts are the fact that Columbus was this amazing man who helped found America when in fact he murdered many a Native Americans. The intention of education is true, but the way it is acted upon needs to be changed into a way that it teaches morals and ideals that will benefit the student later in life and not mindless facts about which actor has won the most awards.

Good vs. Evil

 Chelsey Colbert

Hsün Tzu and Rousseau both believed that education is important to humankind; however, the two philosophers could not be more different on their views of the correct way to educate a child. Hsün Tzu believes that men are born evil and the only way a man can become a noble person is through strict, rigorous education. On the other hand, Rousseau, believed that men are born, more or less, innocent; because so, education is an instrument used to nurture a child’s natural intuition, which is to be curious.

            The scholar Hsün Tzu had a pessimistic view on human nature. As a result, he believed a child was born evil and through education that child could become noble. It was through education a human could follow “the path to perfection” and follow “The Way” to become a “Gentleman” (p. 456). Hsün Tzu suggests that educating a child can only be carried out in one manner, through specific studying. He compares the natural tendencies of humankind to that of a piece of wood curling; the board can be straightened through constant persistence and pressure, as a child can be educated through constant persistence and pressure.

            Unlike Hsün Tzu, Rousseau believes that men are born with natural instincts but most of those are kind in nature. Because of this, he speaks about how education should encourage man’s natural instincts to be curious and not inhibit man’s inquisitiveness. Instead of bending the piece of wood to be straight, Rousseau thinks that education should work in sync with nature. For example, children should not be forced to sit in a room for a certain number of hours per day and read out loud to other children from a book; instead, children should be one with nature and explore it along with reading texts for the ancient.

            Both men thought that education is important, one was single-minded and the other was open to different ways to learn. To one, education led to nobility and purity; to the other, education led to new discoveries and expanding philosophies. The significance of educating society was the only idea they had in common.  

Rousseau & Hsun Tzu

Michael Chopp

Ariana Paliobagis

ENG 121

1/24/07

 

                Hsun Tzu and Rousseau were two brilliant minds of our past, a couple of very talented philosophers. When it came to the subject of education, both had very opposite views. However, their main thesis on education is that it is the key to finding the good and understanding in people, as they are vulnerable and ignorant with the knowledge gained from an education.

                Hsun Tzu beliefs on education are as a child is born “evil” and through schooling and text learning, they can find their “oneness” or become a true “gentleman”.  Also, learning from about the classical times and gaining experience from the people well known in the past. If you fall off this track, you have doomed yourself and all achievement is lost. On the other hand, Rousseau believes a completely different point of view. He considers children as born as good, but just ignorant. From the moment they begin to breath, they start learning. The other difference to Hsun Tzu is that text learning and learning from the classics is not a way of Rousseau. He believes through natural experience, you will learn everything you need to know about life. Also, it prepares you for real life situations, unlike learning from a text.

                To me, a little bit of both philosophers are right. I believe, like Rousseau, that a child is born good and does begin learning from birth. However, just learning from experience can’t get you that far. In the world today, I solid education in the classroom makes you successful. On the contrary, life experience is good. Learning how to utilize that knowledge from class and use it in real life, or just experiencing new things is all learning. It is gained knowledge. But having just basic knowledge of one or the other is not gaining the true aspect of learning. All in all, they have the main idea of education… It leads to greatness and understanding.

Hsun Tzu vs. Rousseau

Describing the similarities between the educational philosophies of Rousseau and Hsun Tzu is difficult. They both have a great passion for education and believe that it is the corner stone of any society. They believe that all children should be educated, but they differ in their means.

Hsun Tzu believed that all humans were born inherently evil. His idea on education was that it was supposed to cure this evil. He believed that following the ideas of the past would lead to the getting rid of your evil. This tends to go along with traditional eastern thought. Tradition is very important in eastern cultures and therefore future generations are supposed to go along with traditional education. This idea really does not allow for the freedom of thought.

Rousseau believed that humans were inherently good. He thought that parents played a very important role in the education of their children. He thought that overprotective parents ended up hindering their children in the long run. He thought that you ought to let your children fall down and get back up again rather than stopping them falling in the first place. “People think only of preserving their child’s life; this is not enough, he must be taught to preserve his own life.” (Emile, 4) Rousseau also believed in the freedom of thought. Here he counters the thoughts of Hsun Tzu by saying “but when we consider the fleeting nature of human affairs, the restless and uneasy spirit of our times, when every generation overturns the work of its predecessor, can we conceive a more senseless plan than to educate a child as if he would never leave his room as if he would always have his servants about him?” (Emile, 4)

Both of these philosophers believed that education was a necessary part of society. Their ideas about how to educate were very different. Part of this was to their differing ideas, but I think a lot of it has to do with the times that they lived. Hsun Tzu lived in ancient China, where adherence to traditional thought was the normal. Rousseau on the other hand lived in the age of enlightenment where the freedom of ideas was much more accepted and this is reflected in his writings. Personally, I believe in both ideas. I think that you cant have great ideas without a firm footing to put them on. However without the freedom of ideas we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages. Both have great arguments and I look forward to reading more writing like these.

Rousseau vs. Hsun Tzu: Education Round One

In regards to Rousseau, I found his essay very interesting.  The idea that the best way to educate a child is to essentially allow himself to learn from everything he is exposed to in the world, as opposed to teaching him in a formal class room setting has its ups and downs.  The benefits would be that they would have a very broad knowledge of many things.  However, they would most likely not have an in depth knowledge of any one subject, which would hinder them if they were trying to get a job that was very specific in its field.  That is why there needs to be a proper balance between street smarts, which Rousseau endorses, and book smarts, which Hsun Tzu endorses.

Tzu believes that the proper development of a person comes through education as well, but he takes a different approach.  He thinks that this progress is encouraged by the studying of old texts, which basically supports the traditional style of teaching.  Book smarts are also very important because they emphasize specialization in a field.  The further you pursue a traditional education, the more specialized you will become, such as an engineer.  However, this also has its disadvantages.  If the field you step into requires any additional knowledge from a separate field, you will have limited if no knowledge.  That is why I believe you need to combine some of Tzu’s and Rousseau’s ideas, having a proper balance of street smarts and book smarts.  If you spend some extra time, you can not only understand how everything works, but you can have a deeper understanding of some important aspects.  An example would be a Civil Engineer who had prior experience in general construction, enabling him to work to a more efficient degree.

Ryan Haidle’s Response on Hsun Tzu and Rousseau

Ryan Haidle

English 121

Response 1

 

Hsun Tzu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau had different opinions on some things and were similar on others.  They are two authors that wrote in completely different time periods and are comparable through their writings.

Hsun Tzu thought that man was born “bad” but after vigorous training and education, man was transformed into something “good.”  He believed that the only way learning was successful was by associating with someone who was previously educated.  He also was a firm believer that achievements only are brought upon you by never giving up.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a few views that contradicted Hsun Tzu.  Rousseau believed that God made man good, and man makes them become evil.  He also wrote that he believed we are born weak therefore we need strength.  This strength can be possessed through education only.  Rousseau thought that success through education alone was nearly impossible.  He believed that with a little luck and a good education you would be successful.  Personally, I disagree with this statement.  I agree more with Hsun Tzu.  He believed that hard work equaled success.  I strongly agree with that statement.   

The two writers’ viewpoints may have been affected by the period of time in which they were writers.  Since Hsun Tzu’s writings were from 250 B.C., his viewpoints on education and life may have been affected by the society and his surroundings.  Rousseau having written in the 1700’s could’ve had a different outlook on the life because of the advancements in human society.

After reading Hsun Tzu and Rousseau’s writings I think a lot of people think they two authors are fairly similar.  They both had somewhat similar viewpoints on education, but I felt they were completely opposite on their views about mankind.  One believed we were born “evil” and the other believed we were born “good.”  Neither author is necessarily wrong.  These two writers will always be compared with each other until the end of time.     

IT ALL COMES DOWN

To explain the difference between Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Tzu Hzun is like explaining the difference between night and day.  They have little in common, but just as the sky is as a part of the day as it is the night and the plant and animals thrive or rest in one or the other.  So do Rousseau and Tzu Hzun have beliefs that they shared.  A short point would be that of education and a belief and passion about it.  They both describe education as the link to becoming complete.  That completeness however begins their quick separation in theories.  One goes left and the other right.  In their styles of making points and creating circumstances they both use many metaphors about nature.  which makes us believe they both had connections to the natural world. These two philosophers were as distant in their ideas as they were geographically and generation-ally.  While one thought that the ideas and rituals of his ancients and not so ancients, were to be held with a great reverence and studied and pondered.  The other came from an environment of turmoil and the beginning of a great change for the world.  Rousseau seemed rebellious to his predecessors.  Wanting new ideas and a different way of life, not just for himself but for everyone.  We must take into consideration of these differences in backgrounds if we are to try to understand these two philosophers.  Weather we agree with them or not.    Hzun Tzu was a student of Confucius and after he died his students split into two different groups. One taking a more positive view following Menicus.  While Hzun Tzu and the others took on a more negative perspective.  So negative in fact that it was first rejected.  Hzun tzu was a firm believer in education.  Believing it to be the only way of reversing man’s evil tendencies.  Being that evil was the way all children were born.  To him education was the pursuit of perfection, which in turn could only be achieved through ritual, order,duty, and dedication.  The pursuit of this was the only thing that mattered, with death being the end.  To become a perfect gentleman (which is what an educated man was refer-ed to as)was the path to the way, Tao, oneness to becoming complete.  A gentleman would have no distractions from the way.  To associate with only other gentleman and never with a “beast” or a “petty man,”(Tzun Hzu) who was weak and in his mind to be shunned.  Through this study he believed the “son of heaven”(Tzun Hzu) would thus reward him for reaching perfection. “God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil.”(Rousseau. Emile)  This is where Rousseau takes his stand.  He stresses that the way to over come man’s evil meddlings starts at birth.  With the education of nature, all its aspects the good the bad and the ugly.  Children are born with a curiosity for all things and through the enhancement and stimulus of it the child gains experience.  Through this you would grow to become a person that was confident and comfortable with change and with oneself.  Children needed a guidance that could never be forced.  The father and mother were to take this place, not a nurse maid or a tutor with his books and rules.  Children needed the experience and luck of nature and its goodwill, and the education, and kindness of his teachers.  In this way the child could grow to become truly complete and real.  Rousseau and Hzun Tzu, though they both believed in their theories and may not agree with each other were they to meet.  Agreed on at least one very important issue, education and its value and that it leads to wholeness.  Which in essence is a beautiful thing. 

Post 1

Jean-Jacques Rousseau : Hsun Tzu

Undeniable is the importance of education both Hsun Tzu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau would agree. However their views on the pursuit of education as well as the purpose of education were very different.
Hsun Tzu believed that mankind is inherently evil which lead to his strict ideals on education and restriction of free thought. If humans are born evil than no room should be given for them to expand on this nature, and as much as possible should be done to correct this. Hsun Tzu believed the only way to correct mistakes in human nature was through strict training and rigorous study eliminating use of creativity and demising individualism. He envisioned an educated lifestyle that pertained more to society than to the individual. The goal of education was to progress the group as a whole, and not necessarily the individual. Environment played a large role in his educational development and his solution was to eliminate all outside ideals other than pure study.
Rousseau, on the other hand, believed that humans were born with innate goodness, and that education should be a guide to better understand ourselves. He did not think that our education should benefit society, but benefit ourselves. He stated the importance of free thought and disagreed with the structure of formal education. He did think it important to study the facts of the past but thought that people should challenge these ideas in order to maintain progression. He emphasized the importance of freedom in early childhood development and not to discourage self discovery as experience is more important than instruction. Rousseau believed that the individual must personally experience the lesson in order to fully grasp the importance of what is being taught.
Hsun Tzu’s instruction based education reinforced the importance of society as a whole. Meanwhile Rousseau’s more experience based education related more to the individual and progression as an individual being. Although they both emphasize the importance of being educated, their forms of education are headed in two very different directions.

I guess?

Uh, I don’t really have any questions about the class or the book considering I was in class for a couple days before I made this account.  So yeah, I guess I was kinda curious about why it is that hsun tzu was so into discipline?  Not a very good question but I also was in class while all the others were answered. 

Insights of Hsun Tzu & Rousseau

Samantha Kujala

 ENGL. 121 

1/24/08

Ariana Paliobagis

                    Hsun Tzu vs. Rousseau         

          I found some of Rousseau’s thoughts to be very bizarre, but in some ways I agree with them. For example, Rousseau thought the more educated you become, the more you become evil and we are all born good. Well, I don’t disagree that we are all born good, you’re a baby of course you’re good. Although, I don’t see how becoming educated makes us evil. Some things we learn in life are bad and can possibly impact us for the worse. But what about people who read the Bible, is learning from that making us evil? Also, was Rousseau judging herself, because her ideas were educated ideas and being able to write requires learning? So is Rousseau admitting she is evil too? Rousseau also hinted toward the idea that people become successful by luck. Some people may be lucky by having someone they know be able to help them out and make them successful, but I totally disagree that people are successful by luck. At least in today’s world, if you really want to be successful you have to work hard at it. Say you’re trying to get a job, today you have to have a good resume to show experience, qualifications, and you have to have interviews so they can get to know you. I don’t believe life happens by luck, you have to work hard to get what you want, maybe not hundreds of years ago but today you do.                    With the reading from Hsun Tzu, I thought it made more sense and I liked the metaphors used to make you understand him. I do think it shows a lot about a person who gives up and drops out of high school. A person who is just lazy and doesn’t care about the education they could have, I agree with Hsun Tzu about, I don’t think they can ever really call themselves a man or woman.  But I don’t think that is totally true either and I kind of have a theory of my own. This is, when you do stop reading from texts and you’re not pushing to learn something new, you still do learn something new everyday, without even knowing it sometimes. Life is full of questions and answers.  

Tsu v. Rousseau

English 121College writing

Mrs. P

Henry Robertson

Tsu vs. Rousseau

“I once tried spending the whole day in thought, but I found it of less value than a moment of study (Tzu, p. 456).” “To my mind those of us who can best endure the good and evil of life are the best educated; hence it follows that true education consists less in precept than in practice (Rousseau, p.  483).”

Based on the two thoughts above it is easy for one to understand the differences between authors.  Tsu believes the only way for humans to evolve and succeed is through books and formal teaching.  It is also his belief that we are born evil and it is only through this type of teaching can we achieve internal goodness.  Whereas, Rousseau believes the opposite – success will only come through experience and hands-on training.  It is also his belief that we are born good and become evil through time.  Not only do these philosophers differ on education, but also how we succeed.

 Tsu bases success on dedication and hard work. He believes our forward progress with the struggles of life cannot be based on laziness. We have to put forth effort in order to succeed.  On the other hand, Rousseau bases success, to some degree, on luck.  To some extent Rousseau is right – being at the right place at the right time has created much success for some people.  However, to agree with Tzu, most people have had to work very hard to achieve their success.

Even though these authors have very differing views, to some extent, they are both correct.  In order to succeed we need both formal education and life experiences.  “Well rounded” people are not only book smart but also street smart.  Also, no one in their right mind can say that a little luck doesn’t help!