Why Socrates and Paulo Freire are Bad Teaching Examples

Socrates was an ancient Greek soldier, philosopher, and teacher. Paulo Freire was a modern Brazilian Marxist philosopher and teacher. Both have had a massive impact on education and are copied by millions of teachers around the world, and yet both are bad examples of teaching.

Socrates was the teacher of several famous pupils, such as the general Alcibiades. Most famously Socrates taught Plato, who founded the Academy and taught Aristotle, who was the teacher of Alexander the Great, who conquered Persia.

Socrates is famously known for the Socratic method, which is using questions to get people to contradict themselves, especially focused on definitions. Questions and skepticism can be good in moderation, but taken too far are dangerous to mental stability. Questions are useful in teaching, but that's not really what Socrates was doing.

Socrates was actually on a divine mission from the oracle at Delphi. He talks about this in his 'Apology' written by Plato, where Socrates was defending himself against charges of corrupting the youth and speaking against the gods.

(Spoiler alert, he's sentenced to death, some of his students give him the chance to escape and live in exile, but he decides to drink hemlock poison and die. Also, you can still visit his holding cell carved into rockface in Athens, Greece. I've been there.)

Here is Socrates speaking:

"I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit; that witness shall be the God of Delphi—he will tell you about my wisdom, if I have any, and of what sort it is. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the recent exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether—as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt—he asked the oracle to tell him whether anyone was wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered, that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself; but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of what I am saying."

"Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of his riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What then can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god, and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After long consideration, I thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, “Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.” Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him—his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is,—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another who had still higher pretensions to wisdom, and my conclusion was exactly the same. Whereupon I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him."

"Then I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me,—the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear!—for I must tell you the truth—the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that others less esteemed were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the “Herculean” labours, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. After the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be instantly detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them—thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to confess the truth, but I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. Then I knew that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. The poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same reason that I was superior to the politicians."

"At last I went to the artisans. I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and here I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets;—because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom; and therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and to the oracle that I was better off as I was."

"This inquisition has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies. And I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and by his answer he intends to show that the wisdom of men is worth little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name by way of illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go about the world, obedient to the god, and search and make enquiry into the wisdom of any one, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and my occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god."

"There is another thing:—young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, come about me of their own accord; they like to hear the pretenders examined, and they often imitate me, and proceed to examine others; there are plenty of persons, as they quickly discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing; and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me: This confounded Socrates, they say; this villainous misleader of youth!—and then if somebody asks them, Why, what evil does he practise or teach? they do not know, and cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they repeat the ready-made charges which are used against all philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the better cause; for they do not like to confess that their pretence of knowledge has been detected—which is the truth; and as they are numerous and ambitious and energetic, and are drawn up in battle array and have persuasive tongues, they have filled your ears with their loud and inveterate calumnies. And this is the reason why my three accusers, Meletus and Anytus and Lycon, have set upon me; Meletus, who has a quarrel with me on behalf of the poets; Anytus, on behalf of the craftsmen and politicians; Lycon, on behalf of the rhetoricians: and as I said at the beginning, I cannot expect to get rid of such a mass of calumny all in a moment. And this, O men of Athens, is the truth and the whole truth; I have concealed nothing, I have dissembled nothing. And yet, I know that my plainness of speech makes them hate me, and what is their hatred but a proof that I am speaking the truth?—Hence has arisen the prejudice against me; and this is the reason of it, as you will find out either in this or in any future enquiry."

Notice that Socrates didn't set out to teach, he set out on a divine mission, at first to see if anyone was wiser than him, and later to show that everyone is stupid. He made a lot of people mad. Kids copied him because arguing and winning is fun. This made more people mad.

What the Socratic method is actually good for and designed for is belief busting. It's getting people to realize that they don't know everything. The normal response to that is anger, then depression. But out of that skepticism can come greater understanding, although that's not necessarily the normal response.

In Xenophon's account of the trial Socrates' defense is a little different:

"I admit it," Socrates replied, "in the case of education, for they know that I have made the matter a study; and with regard to health a man prefers to obey his doctor rather than his parents; in the public assembly the citizens of Athens, I presume, obey those whose arguments exhibit the soundest wisdom rather than their own relations. And is it not the case that, in your choice of generals, you set your fathers and brothers, and, bless me! your own selves aside, by comparison with those whom you believe to be the wisest authorities on military matters?"

"No doubt, Socrates," replied Meletus, "because it is expedient and customary so to do."

"Well then," rejoined Socrates, "does it not strike even you, Meletus, as wonderful when in all ordinary concerns the best people should obtain, I do not say only an equal share, but an exclusive preference; but in my case, simply because I am selected by certain people as an adept in respect of the greatest treasure men possess—education, I am on that account to be prosecuted by you, sir, on the capital charge?"

But, Xenophon said he didn't record everything, so Plato's account and my point still stand.

Paulo Freire has a few popular books, and is one of the primary reasons that critical theories are popular in education and schools. Critical theory comes from the Frankfurt School of philosophy which is rooted in Marxism and some Freudianism, essentially making the case that things are subjective and that those lower in society should enslave those higher in the society. This dominates the humanities, and is why many teachers of sociology, psychology, history, and related subjects are Marxists, and is connected with woke, diversity, equity, and inclusion, intersectionality, and other such concepts based on a Marxist framework.

Freire's most famous book is 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed'. I didn't read that one, I read his 'Education for Critical Consciousness'. I was surprised to find a few things.

One, Friere wasn't teaching kids. He was teaching adults.

"For more than fifteen years I had been accumulating experiences in the field of adult education, in urban and rural proletarian and subproletarian areas."

Specifically, he was teaching illiterate adults how to read. 

"From the beginning, we rejected the hypothesis of a purely mechanistic literacy program and considered the problem of teaching adults how to read in relation to the awakening of their consciousness. We wished to design a project in which we would attempt to move from naivete to a critical attitude at the same time we taught reading. We wanted a literacy program which would be an introduction to the democratization of culture, a program with men as its Subjects rather than as patient recipients, a program which itself would be an act of creation, capable of releasing other creative acts, one in which students would develop the impatience and vivacity which characterize search and invention."

We can see here that on the surface Freire was teaching literacy, but underneath he was teaching Marxism while concealing it under fancy language. Did the students know they were learning Marxism? Probably not. Just like most students and parents don't know their kids are learning Marxism in government schools today. Many teachers don't even realize that's what they are teaching. It reminds me of Socrates questioning people and finding no wisdom.

Two, Freire was dealing with basic magical beliefs in the population. He was trying to break these beliefs. So, like Socrates, his teaching was designed to break the beliefs of adults.

"A priest who lives and works in a certain part of the Peruvian plateau told me that there, cold starry nights are a sign of a snowfall which will not be long in coming. When they perceive this sign, the peasants run to the highest point of the village and implore God with desperate cries not to punish them. If hail threatens, the same priest says, peasants make a great fire, and throw pieces of ash into the air, using special rhythms, accompanied by "words of power." Their magic belief, of a syncreto-religious type, is that the hailstones are "produced" by the spirits of those who die without baptism. Hence, the sanction this community imposes on those who do not baptize their children."

"In the northeast of Brazil it is usual to combat a plague of lizards by fixing three stakes in the form of a triangle in the place most affected by them. At the end of one of the stakes there is a nail on which the peasant spikes a lizard. He is sure that the remainder will be afraid and withdraw "in procession" between the stakes. While the peasant is waiting for them to go, however, he loses part or all of his crop."

"An agronomist told me that in his round of work in a region in the north of Chile he came across a peasant community which was completely helpless in face of the destructiveness of some kind of rodent which was ruining its cultivation. When he asked them what they usually did in such cases, they replied that the first time such a "punishment" had taken place they had been saved by a priest. "How?" asked the agronomist. "He said a few prayers and the rodents fled terrified into the sea where they drowned," they answered."

"What can be done from the point of view of education in a peasant community which is at such a level? What can be done with communities which act in this way, whose thought and action-both magic, and conditioned by the structure in which they are situated-hinder their work? How can the practices of these people with regard to nature, based on the magic aspects of their culture, be replaced? The answer cannot lie with those extension agents who, in their relations with the peasants, mechanically transfer technical information."

"Magic thought is neither illogical nor pre-logical. It possesses its own internal logical structure and opposes as much as possible any new forms mechanically superimposed. Like any other manner of thinking, it is unquestionably bound not only to a way of acting but to a language and a structure. To superimpose on it another form of thought, implying another language, another structure, another manner of acting, stimulates a natural reaction: a defensive reaction in face of the "invader" who threatens its internal equilibrium."

Three, Freire talks a lot about the specific history and culture of Brazil. Ironically, Freire makes both a case against him teaching Marxism in Brazil, and against anyone outside of Brazil using his teaching methods. Apparently neither him nor most other teachers realize this contradiction in his work.

"In alienated societies, men oscillate between ingenuous optimism and hopelessness. Incapable of autonomous projects, they seek to transplant from other cultures solutions to their problems. But since these borrowed solutions are neither generated by a critical analysis of the context itself, nor adequately adapted to the context, they prove inoperative and unfruitful."

After a coup in Brazil, Freire was jailed as a communist, then exiled to Bolivia and then Chile, then he was a professor at Harvard University in the United States (because Harvard likes communists, which is ironic because communists are atheists and Harvard was originally founded as a Christian religious school), before he eventually returned to Brazil and helped found a communist political party while working on Brazil's education system.

There are interesting parallels here.

One, neither Socrates nor Freire set out to teach kids. Socrates was on a religious mission to prove that no one was wise. Freire was trying to start a Marxist movement in Brazil.

Two, both of them designed their systems to break the current beliefs of adults. Socrates had to do that to show that the people he debated lacked wisdom to prove the oracle correct. Freire had to do that to break the magical religious beliefs of the poor people in Brazil so that they could overthrow the government.

Why would two of the most influential names in education theory and practice be guys that didn't try to teach kids, and who instead tried to break the beliefs of adults?

Find more at JeffThinks.com or JeffreyAlexanderMartin.com