viernes, 23 de agosto de 2013

Indagando sobre Michel Onfray - Articulo de Doug Ireland

Introductory Note to Onfray


Doug Ireland




Michel Onfray, the brightest star among the younger French philosophers, is a brilliant prodigy, a gifted and prolific author who, at the age of only 46, has already written 30 books.
      I first encountered Onfray on the page when I read his 1989 book, Le Ventre Des Philosophes: Critique de la Raison Dietetique (The Philosphers' Stomach), and was completely captivated by his wit, his talented pen, and the prodigious cultural knowledge he displayed. Would Diogenes, Onfray asked, have been an adversary of civilization and its uses absent his obsessive taste for raw octopus? Would the Rousseau of the Social Contract have been such an advocate of frugality if his daily menu had included something more than dairy products? Had not Sartre, whose nightmares were peopled with crabs, suffered his whole life long in his theoretical architecture from his aversion to shellfish? Onfray hooked me with his inventive, amusing, and thought-provoking meditations -- and since then, every time Onfray publishes a new book, I pounce! Reading Onfray is a tonic.
      The son of a manual agricultural laborer and a cleaning woman, Onfray was a professor of philosophy for two decades, until he resigned from the national education system in 2002 to establish a tuition-free Université Populaire (People's University) at Caen, at which Onfray and a handful of dedicated colleagues teach philosophy and other weighty subjects to working-class and ghetto youth who are not supposed to be interested in such intellectual refinements. Onfray has never forgotten his underclass origins, and his dedication to helping the young of the left-out classes is admirable and inspiring. The Université Populaire, which is open to all who cannot access the state university system, and on principle does not accept any money from the State -- Onfray uses the profits from his books to help finance it -- has had enormous success. Based on Onfray's book La Communauté Philosophique: Manifeste pour l'Université Populaire (2004), the original UP now has imitators in Picardie, Arras, Lyon, Narbonne, and at Mans in Belgium, with five more in preparation.
      A radically libertarian socialist, a self-described "Nietzschian of the left," Onfray's philosophical project is to define an ethical hedonism, a joyous utilitarianism, and a generalized aesthetic of sensual materialism that explores how to use the brain's and the body's capacities to their fullest extent -- while restoring philosophy to a useful role in art, politics, and everyday life and decisions. All this presupposes, in Onfray's philosophy, a militant atheism and the demasking of all false gods.
      Onfray is a well- known figure in France -- not just through his many books, which avoid academic cant and are rendered in an elegant but accessible, sparkling prose that is admired even by critics who abhor his ideas -- but as a frequent guest on French TV's numerous literary and intellectual chat shows. The national public radio network France Culture annually broadcasts his course of lectures to the Universite Populaire on philosophical themes. But Onfray has deliberately rejected the incestuous and corrupt Parisian mediatic-politico-academic microcosm and its seductive but ephemeral blandishments, and insists on living in the small Normandy town of Argentan where he was born, just 57 km. from Caen. Free from the distractions of urban mundanities, Onfray devotes his time exclusively to his intellectual work, which helps explain his astonishing output at such a relatively young age.
      In his books, Onfray asks (and answers) the most unexpected questions: in one of my favorites, Le Désir d'etre un volcan: Journal Hédoniste, he poses such conundrums as, What do prostitutes have to say to philosophers? What would a philosophy of panache look like? How does one sculpt energy? Can an erection be ancillary to knowledge? Onfray's wide-ranging works have explored the philosophical resonances and components of (and challenges to) science, painting, gastronomy, sex and sensuality, bioethics, wine, and writing. His most ambitious project is his projected six-volume Counter-history of Philosophy, of which two tomes have already been published, with two more ready to appear this year.
      Onfray's latest book, Traité d'Athéologie (Paris, Editions Grasset), became the number one best-selling nonfiction book in France for months when it was published in the Spring of 2005 (the word "atheologie" Onfray borrowed from Georges Bataille). This book has just repeated its popular French success in Italy, where it was published in September 2005 and quickly soared to number one on Italy's bestseller lists. An acerbic, stylish, and erudite polemic against received religions in general and Christianity in particular, Onfray's latest book is a powerful antidote to the tsunami of religious fanaticism that is engulfing the Western world as well as the Islamic countries, and which is rapidly turning the United States into a theocracy. On the occasion of the publication of his Traité, Onfray debated on French national TV a panel of Catholic theologians that included the new Cardinal of Paris, Monseigneur Vingt-Trois (and swatted them all down like flies).

Onfray's influence is growing, especially among younger readers, all over Europe (where many of his most important works have been translated into German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Greek and Portuguese), as well as in South America (particularly Brazil), and is even beginning to make its way in China, Japan, and (South) Korea. But I've long considered it a scandal that not a single one of Onfray's 30 books has as yet appeared in English. Happily, that incomprehensible slight to a superb writer and world-class intellectual will be remedied next year, with the publication, on both sides of the Atlantic, of an English translation of the Traité d'athéologie. Hopefully this will be but the first of many of Onfray's delicious and substantive writings to appear in the Anglo-Saxon tongue.
      Until then, if you can read French and would like to learn more about Onfray, his many books, and his Université Populaire, visit Onfray's website at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/michel.onfray/ You'll be glad you did.
      The essay that follows is from one of the forthcoming tomes of Michel Onfray's projected six-volume Counter-history of Philosophy. Onfray's essay is the first major synthesis in modern times by a world-class intellectual of the work and life of the 17th century atheist priest Jean Meslier, who spent his entire adult life as a country priest in a small village in the Champagne region of France. Meslier's three-volume Mon Testament, published only after Meslier's death, was a revolutionary socialist and utopian communist call for the leveling of all inequalities, commencing as a categorical imperative with the exposure of religion's lies as the "opium of the people" long before Karl Marx. Meslier went to great lengths to insure his extraordinary manuscript's survival, so it wouldn't be suppressed by the authorities of church and State when he was gone. Having willed all his worldly goods to his poorest parishioners, before his death Meslier resorted to what we would now call samizdat, carefully copying -- with a quill pen, by candlelight -- four complete versions of his 2000-page manuscript, which he deposed in safe hands. It circulated under the table until Voltaire -- who had read it three decades earlier and plagiarized from it -- chose the moment of his own greatest battle with the Catholic Church to publish a bowdlerized version of Meslier. Meslier was influential and admired in the French Enlightenment -- Diderot also borrowed freely from Meslier while rarely giving him credit. One of the most famous Meslier phrases -- that the world's liberation would only be achieved when "the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" -- is frequently and erroneously attributed to Diderot. Meslier also became popular among early 19th century liberal Russian intelligentsia, who made French their second language; Pushkin nodded to Meslier when he wrote an 1819 quatrain that says, "with the entrails of the last Pope, we will strangle the last Tsar." (This was one of the poems that got Pushkin sent into administrative exile in South Russia by the Tsarist police.)
      Meslier was also much admired by 19th century American free-thinkers -- extracts from Meslier's Testament were published here in 1833 under the title "Common Sense," and again in 1878 as a book entitled Superstition in all the Ages, a version republished many times (both taken, unfortunately, from the bowdlerized Voltaire edition, which had excised much of Meslier‘s revolutionary politics). Marx much admired Meslier, and quoted him. And when the Bolsheviks came to power, and a stele to the "Heroes of Liberty" was erected on Red Square, Meslier's name was inscribed next to that of Spartacus. The rediscovery of Meslier began with the May 1968 student-worker rebellion in France, which adapted many of Meslier's revolutionary formulations to its own purposes.
      Now, with this brilliant essay, Michel Onfray fully restores Meslier to his proper and important place in the history of ideas and the history of the left, and New Politics is quite proud to publish it.

Tomado de  http://newpol.org/content/introductory-note-onfray

viernes, 9 de agosto de 2013

The banking concept of Education by Paulo Freire

Paulo Freire was a Brazilian ideologist whose radical ideas have shaped the modern concept of and approaches to . In his essay The 'Banking' Concept of Education, Freire passionately expounds on the mechanical flaw in the current system, and offers an approach that he believes medicates the learning-teaching disorder in the classroom. The flawed conception, Freire explains, is the oppressive “depositing” of information (hence the term 'banking') by teachers into their students. But, according to Freire, a “liberating” educational practice (his problem-posing method) negates the unconsciousness of those in classroom roles, and no false intellectual stimulation can exist within that practice. On the contrary, in any case, the student is responsible for understanding the material one way or another depending on what style the teacher adapts, even if the content is un-relatable to the students’ lives. If a teacher has a certain premeditated lesson, then there can be no true independence on behalf of the student, because both the banking and problem-posing concepts are anti-autonomous.
The “banking concept,” as termed by Freire, is essentially an act that hinders the intellectual growth of students by turning them into, figuratively speaking, comatose “receptors” and “collectors” of information that have no real connection to their lives. Freire states:
"Implicit in the banking concept is the assumption of a dichotomy between human beings and the world: a person is merely in the world, not with the world or with others; the individual is a spectator, not re-creator. In this view the person is not a conscious being (corpo consciente); he or she is rather the possessor of a consciousness: an empty “mind” passively open to the reception of deposits of reality from the world outside" (247).
What Freire means by this is that the banking concept imposes a schism between a person (teacher and/or student) and the “real world”, resulting in the evident demise of his or her true consciousness, since the former can only be realized through the relationships and connections the individual draws from the material to their life. In this view, Freire claims that by assuming the roles of teachers as depositors and students as receptors, the banking concept thereby changes humans into objects. Humans (as objects) have no autonomy and therefore no ability to rationalize and conceptualize knowledge at a personal level. And because of this initial misunderstanding, the method itself is a system of oppression and control.
To alleviate this “dehumanization” produced by the banking concept, Freire introduces what is deemed as “problem-posing education”. In this approach the roles of students and teachers become less structured, and both engage in acts of dialogic enrichment to effectively ascertain knowledge from each other. According to Freire, “Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other” (244).
This means that true comprehension can only be fashioned though conversation, questioning, and sharing of one’s interpretations by all persons in the classroom. Within this concept Freire calls for an equal playing field, or what one of my former teachers called “mutual humanity”: “It [problem-posing education] enables teachers and students to become Subjects of the educational process by overcoming authoritarianism and an alienating intellectualism” (253-254). However, Freire failed to observe that incessantly within the apparatus of a classroom there is an imbalanced power structure between the teacher and the students. For all intents and purposes, the teacher is always an authority, no matter what.
However, inherent in the problem-posing method is a two-pronged line of attack, meaning there are two classroom modes within the one problem-posing method. One is pseudo-dialectic, which is the illusion of students and teachers actually “discovering” knowledge with and from each other, because the teacher poses a question but already has the solution in mind. In this way, the students are directed towards a particular outcome, and do not have independent thought-processes. The other is genuine dialectic, meaning the teacher poses a question with no intention of steering the dialogue towards a single answer. Depending on the amount of experience the teacher has under their belt, they can expect a certain percentage of the possible answers, but it is the remaining percent of answers, which they had never actually considered, that they in fact take interest in.
Freire asserted, “If it is true that thought has meaning only when generated by action upon the world, the subordination of students to teachers becomes impossible” (247). What this means is that passive “learning” thwarts true consciousness, which then means no active imagination can be produced in which action is facilitated. In view of the fact that “mock” problem-posing  does not necessitate agency on behalf of the students, then the method is, too, ineffective at facilitating consciousness that precedes reflection, which can therefore not be acted upon. Hence this method does not grant the students “liberation”, and their so-called independence is but an illusion. (Let it be known that for the sake of argument the ideas of “illusion” and “reality” are taken loosely to reflect the nature of different educational methods, not the nature of the ideas themselves).
On the flipside, genuine problem-posing diminishes a teacher’s authority to a level that does not obstruct the exchange of ideas. Necessary participation, attendance, effort in assignments, and so on and so forth are indeed authoritative, however within the classroom dialogue there is a natural conversation that is not hindered by authoritativeness. At this point it is necessary to consider the nature of freedom: the difference between being free and being free of. True freedom is profound; can anyone ever truly be free? In this case of genuine problem-posing, the student is free of the oppression of limiting intellectualism inherent in banking and pseudo-dialectic.
In essence, the Freirian spectrum- with “banking” at one end, pseudo “problem-posing” at the center (which essentially is a form of banking) and genuine “problem-posing” at the other end- mimics the real world in that one is always subject to some degree of authority. The dynamics of those relationships depend on how much each party is willing to give and take, meaning to what degrees the authority renounces their control and the subject allows them. The notion that students believe they are granted true independence in a classroom has consequences in and on the world at large. Illusory freedom is disastrous because it is a belief in something that is not truth- it does not exist. Therefore students become part of the “real world” believing they know all simply because they were under the impression they were free when they “learned” it. In reality, the students had never discovered what was true for them, and consequently were led to accept an idea and regard it as true without question.
In the instance of true dialectic, the student regards the minimal authority as a non-threat, whereby the student then becomes the final authority on their convictions. In the real world, this is instrumental in fostering a  of enlightened, open-minded and independent persons. Freire elucidates:
"In problem-posing education, people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation. Although the dialectical relations of women and men with the world exist independently of how these relations are perceived (or whether or not they are perceived at all), it is also true that the form of action they adopt is to a large extent a function of how they perceive themselves in the world. Hence, the teacher-student and the students-teachers reflect simultaneously on themselves and the world without dichotomizing this reflection from action, and thus establish an authentic form of thought and action" (252).
What Freire means is that problem-posing is dynamic because, according to the text, reality is in a continuous state of change. He is saying that although the actual dialogue subsists whether or not the subjects recognize the true nature of reality, their actions are formed by their perceptions of their own reality. The revolutionary component of problem-posing is when both the teacher-student and student-teacher contemplate their own “realities” and are then empowered to imagine otherwise. Because of and through this imagination, the teacher-student and student-teacher act upon those considerations, and thus revolutionize the current reality and “advance humanity”. The authentic form of thought and action produced by genuine problem-posing is the key to human progression: by placing oneself in the timeline of humanity to learn from the past, examining one’s life in relation to the present while questioning everything, and moving onward to shape the future while never ceasing to idly negate those lessons.
Education in the post-modern society has become the backbone, the foundation for the persons of that society that will one day hold the reigns. The future of humanity is closely linked to the individuals produced by education, and the methodological circumstances in which that intellectual transformation took place. Necessary to the future is an attention to the present in which we vow to set genuine, dialectical education as the bar to initiate advancement, and search for the rebirth of imagination.

Tomado de: Freire, Paulo. “The “Banking” Concept of Education.” Ways of Reading. 8th ed. Bartholomae, David and Anthony Petrosky. Boston: Bedford- St. Martin’s, 2008. 242-254. Print.

jueves, 8 de agosto de 2013

GLOSSARY

  • Pedagogo = Pedagoge
  • Educación = Education
  • Educación Bancaria = Banking education
  • Entorno = Environment
  • Comunidad = Community
  • Alfabetizar = Alphabetize
  • Oprimido = Downtrodden  
  • Opresor = Oppressor
THERE WAYS TO FIND IDEAS/ CONCEPTS IN ENGLIHS

i) Consultando con la profesora de Ingles.
ii) Buscando las palabras en el traductor de google
iii) Buscando en un diccionario de ingles.

PAULO FREIRE
BRAINSTOR MING




miércoles, 7 de agosto de 2013

GLOSARIO CONECTIVISMO

DATABASE - BASE DE DATOS
CURRENCY - MONEDA
NETWORK - INTERNET ( INFORMAL)
TECNOLOGY - TECNOLOGÍA
ENABLE - ACTIVAR

TEXTO 1: CONNECTIVISM

http://www.connectivism.ca/about.html

TEXTO 2: Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age

http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

CONVALIDANDO INFORMACIÓN SOBRE CONECTIVISMO

A)    QUÉ ES EL CONECTIVISMO?
B)   QUE ES LO QUE LA DIFERENCIA DE LAS OTRAS TEORIAS DEL APRENDIZAJE?

C)   EN QUE ESTÁ BASADO?


A)   Es una teoría del aprendizaje que utiliza las innovaciones de la era digital
A)   El conectivismo presenta un modelo de aprendizaje que utiliza los conocimientos de las tecnologías
B)   Utiliza otras vías de aprendizaje y se mueve en un entorno informal
b) es una teoría alternativa, distintas competencias, y conecciones Permite realizar conecciones personales y autónomas
c) “do something”
Utiliza la emoción, otras destrezas, las conexiones de internet y de las redes sociales.
c) integra los principios del caos, y de network, sirve para realizar conexiones rápidas para el aprendizaje,