The Instigator
kennis
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
daveblauvelt
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The purpose of education is the development of the person.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 855 times Debate No: 32122
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

kennis

Pro

Education helps develop a person. People are continuously being educated through daily activities all through their lives. For now, I will simply focus on education in the terms of a classroom. In "Pedagogy of the Oppressed", Freire discusses how the circumstances of a classroom can effect what the student takes from the class. Freire is against what he called the "banking" system of education. His saw this method to be oppressive as it belittles and dehumanizes the students to "a container" that is waiting to be filled by the "all-knowing" teacher.

So I ask you this: when a teacher is oppressive and does not allow discussion, and therefore does not make connections to reality, how is a student supposed to relate what is learned in the classroom to his/her own life? For this exact reason, Freire came up with problem-posing education; this method allows interaction between the students and the teacher, thus encouraging connections to be made in real life situations. Freire states: "Banking education resists dialogue; problem-posing education regards dialogue as indispensable to the act of cognition which unveils reality." When a person is able to make these exceptional life connections through dialogue, they are then able to grow as a person and develop themselves.
daveblauvelt

Con

You previously said, "So I ask you"how is a student supposed to relate what is learned in the classroom to his/her own life." The purpose of education is not the development of the person. Education, according to Hirsch is purposeful for the development of a society. What is learned in the classroom relates to a persons life. If a student in class learns anything, that knowledge will be carried forward to the society in which the person resides. People are only pieces to the puzzle of life. The goal of education is to achieve the important aspects of a society, which include economic prosperity, social justice, and an effective democracy. Hirsch says, "The complex undertakings of modern life depend on cooperation of many people with different specialties in different places." The goal of education is not the development of the person, but rather the development of life.
Debate Round No. 1
kennis

Pro

How can one relate what one has learned in the classroom if one is not permitted to explore and question what is being taught? You previously said, "The goal of education is"the development of life." People are alive, are they not? To effectively develop one"s life, would one not have to first focus on the development of one"s self? It is vital to put emphasis on the individual before the attention can be placed on society as a whole. As Freire states, "the solution is not to "integrate' them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become "beings for themselves.""

The society you are referring to is full of clones; no one is able to break free from the standard knowledge that is being fed to them in the classroom. How would you define the quality of a society where no one is able to think for themselves and express themselves as an individual? Would this not be considered a form of dictatorship? I do not believe oppressive education to be a method of teaching; it is a form of brainwashing. Nothing, not a person or society, can develop from this practice.
daveblauvelt

Con

The teaching method of oppressive education you refer to as, "brainwashing," is in fact wrong for the standards you mentioned. However, in terms of creating a successful society, the interests of a person"s "development" are minimal compared to the society itself. Although teachers may be oppressive, it is the most effective form of schooling for the benefit of the group. Individuality is what breaks a society; unity is what brings it together. Education is nothing more than a form of creating a universal environment where people have common background knowledge to interact and succeed for the benefit of all beings. As Hirsch said, "If strangers share very little knowledge, their communications must be long and relatively rudimentary." When you previously said, "To effectively develop one"s life"focus on the development of one"s self," you misconstrued my statement by assuming that I was referring to the "life" of an individual, when I was actually referring to the life of society. Oppressive education is wrong in the development of an individual, but for the purposes of a culture it is a more than an ideal technique that allows society to operate successfully. This is why this system of "teaching" is continuously utilized; it is for the greater good.
Debate Round No. 2
kennis

Pro

You said you were referring to the life of society and not the life of the individual. Yet, society is made up of individuals, so your statement contradicts its self. What is society if no one exists? You agreed with me when I referred to oppressive education as brainwashing and wrong for the individual, and yet you say it is necessary for society. How can something be appropriate for the group if it damages the individual, which the group consists of? In fact, you stated, "Individuality is what breaks a society; unity is what brings it together." The problem with society does not have to do with individuality, but the fact that humans are not treated with respect. For this instance, I am referring to misconception of the authority in the classroom. This takes us back to the issue of oppression. Freire believes the solution to this problem is that the teachers and the students should both be "simultaneously teachers and students." This simply means that no one is seen as higher, or better, than the other; it is a "give and take" learning environment.

The overall fact is that we are all continuously learning and developing through the new information we encounter. "In this incompletion and this awareness lie the very roots of education as an exclusively human manifestation." We as humans are supposed to develop throughout our lives; we grow with each unique experience. This education is what makes us individuals. This education is what makes an outstanding, well versed society. This education is what encourages us to develop.
daveblauvelt

Con

You did not find a contradiction in my statement. In fact you only helped prove my thesis further. By stating, "This"no one is seen as higher, or better, than the other" your saying that uniqueness does not exist. If uniqueness does not exist, can we also say individuality is not present as well? The environment you describe, where there is no oppressor, is "supposed" to be influencing the characteristics of individuality. However, if the "ideal" learning environment includes "teachers and students being "simultaneously teachers and students,"" does that not mean that everyone is on the same level of existence? Therefore, once again, individuality could not possibly exist if everyone is on the same level of being and therefore no one develops anymore than another. Education subsists to create a society filled with ordinary people. Education cannot possibly focus on creating individuals for a multitude of purposes. There is a reason why classes are taught in groups and subject matter is universal among a society. Companies such as Exxon and CBS only put money towards American schools for one purpose; they want society to develop collectively, not individually. What good would the growth of a single being be when society runs as a unit? This is the problem Hirsch describes so well, "The chief function of literacy is to make us masters of the standard instrument of knowledge." A person included in the one third of society that is illiterate could not possibly effectively communicate with the valedictorian of Harvard.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.