journalismjenni

Learning Through Play with Kirsty Gardner

2011-12-13T18:34:00.008Z

A Witness to Reality Interview by Jenni Koetsier

Kirsty Gardner is a teaching assistant at All Saints Pre-School in Winchester and she enjoys being hands on and involved with a wide range of activities. However, she interacts with the children from a knowledge base of how to shape spontaneous play as a learning tool. She explains that children are like sponges and that they absorb everything around them.

Kirsty Gardner who did a degree in Early Childhood Education Studies and Social Care now works with children

Jenni Koetsier from Sound Radio spent a morning 'back at playschool' and observed how, for three year olds, 'play' is important work and vital for development. To listen in please click on the link: learningthroughplay

Dance Criticism

2011-12-01T00:21:00.000Z

Review One

Dance Magazine such as The Dancing Times

Word Count 1, 077

Dance Review - The Point, Eastleigh – 10 November 2011

The bgroup’s premiere of The Lessening of Difference choreographed by director Ben Wright.

The bgroup was founded in 2008 by Ben Wright who has had eighteen years of international experience as a dance artist. As well as performing with Adventures in Motion Pictures, in 1995 he choreographed the role of the Prince for Mathew Bourne’s Swan Lake. Wright has also worked as a movement director for Operas, most recently Glyndebourne’s Knight Crew. Last year Wright’s company created a hit with About Around performed by four dancers in ‘the round’ so that the viewers had to be involved with the action.

Tonight at the first performance of Wright’s most recent work, we are invited on a journey of episodic ‘real-life’ stories portrayed through digital projection by Dick Straker, conversational text by David Charles Manners, and gesture based dance movement by a quartet of performers in costumes designed by Theo Clinkard. Every story expresses one particular aspect of intimacy, that of physical love. Realities are passed on from personal points of view because Nuno Silva narrates the poem ‘I don’t believe you’re gone’ enticing us to empathise with him completely in his loneliness. We do not know why his partner left him and perhaps we would side differently if we did.

Any text draws parallels of meaning, a fluid contact duet where bodies fold into one another like jigsaw puzzle pieces (touch never being interrupted throughout every embrace or lift) is befitting to the author’s ‘all this, all you, all me’. Manner’s writing is certainly rich and meaningful; it is far more powerful and effective than Wright’s choreography which couldn’t stand alone.

I must mention the captivating video design by Dick Straker who has worked with many non-standard projections and visual media including projections for Riverdance (1995). Throughout the The Lessening of Difference we are treated to an array of text, picture, and video projections on screen; the falling snow is particularly ‘real’ so we feel cosy and form associations when snow falls at the end of every ‘story’. The picture of heart wings is a repeated theme mentioned in narration, on the paper passed among the audience, and on the screen that Kier Patrick stands in front of flapping his arms, presenting the freedom of the soul. Guy Hoare who worked as lighting designer for Henry Oguike for six years, gives good interpretation for intimate sections contrasted with cheerful brightness when the performers throw ‘snowballs’. A chair, duvet, microphone, scrunched balls of paper, someone writing, another playing a banjo are the things that exist on stage before anything really ‘begins’. It’s as though we stumbled across someone’s private life, the boundaries taken away.

Sound Design by Alan Stone is incredible as it comes from physical objects, a music box, an old radio, and instrument on the stage. Music is also suggestive as to tone, a Fado the Portuguese genre expressing permanent loss and its consequent life lasting damage, is sung as a solo, giving us the sense of someone contending with the aftermath of a melancholic break up. Later we have the Habanera from Carmen, sung beautifully but mocked with a candid xylophone accompaniment. Presently the stage is brightly lit, and all four dancers dressed in ridiculously blue high school wrestling singlets are running, jumping, physically pushing and catching one another in-between the occasional sexual grunt which sets the audience into fits of giggles. They rampage to Why Can’t I be You by The Cure, buttock cheeks are exposed and after one of them steps up to the microphone and says ‘these limbs made glorious’, they all rhythmically dry hump with pelvic thrusts, and sing along.

Stories are portrayed with extreme honesty and vulnerability. Patrick strategically positions the duvet and settles down to perform, pouting and posing for his Apple Mac laptop, perhaps he is on video chat on all fours reversing his rear to the web-cam to Barry White’s ‘The First, the Last, My Everything’. Elsewhere there is a women’s solo performed in silence, and she does really silly things, they are almost seductive but then pitifully comical too and she clearly longs for attention. You feel that in bed this is as confident as she dares to be and at the end of her solo, red roses are thrown on stage and her relief is very tangible as she says “thank you” because finally she is noticed.

The key message of The Lessening of Difference is that it doesn’t matter who you fall in love with. It is the desperate physical hunger for the intimacy found in another that is integral, so duets portray both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The audience breaks into laughter at several comical points but there is forced participation too, a piece of paper is given to ‘pass on’ and dancers climb on our chairs whispering “sorry”. Yet I think it’s unique for any performance to achieve the extent of audience involvement The Lessening of Difference does; you don’t feel like you are in the auditorium and ‘they’ are on the stage.

Wright copies a position within an Indian rite where a naked corpse is laid and someone wanting to ‘face the true intimacy of life and death’ places a hand on the corpse’s chest and lower belly. Manners experienced this ritual himself and suggests in his writings that during, he felt a touch of the console offered by a higher spiritual being ‘comfort from imagined gods, Salvation’s hope, or Divine Grace in promise’. Wright claims to collaborate with Manners but seems to makes a piece about shallow sex instead. Intimacy is a multidimensional complex and has many various facets and if Manners truly witnessed the love between death and life, it would be a love far beyond the human figure and orgasmic ecstasy that Wright’s choreography disappointingly portrays.

Manners writes about ‘essential shared experiences that unite us’, thus if you have experienced any unconditional compassion, sacrifice, understanding or companionship you won’t appreciate the animalistic content of the supposed ‘lessening’ of ‘difference’. You will leave feeling sad and empty that the agreed and here portrayed concept of universal love is so far from the truth. The attempt to define our common humanity is lost as I couldn’t feel more different. Spiritual love and physical love is never simultaneously explored, unless in the case that two spiritually awakened people who love each other, become one.

Review Two

Broadsheet such as The Guardian

Word Count, 433

Dance Review – The Theatre Royal, Winchester – 03 October 2011

Ballet Black’s 10th Anniversary Gala Performance

In celebration of their 10th anniversary Cassa Pancho’s Ballet Black gave a showcase of distinguished variety, starting flirtatiously as the music’s lyrics repeatedly ebb and flow ‘falling in love’. Confident smiles from the dancers invite us to participate in the atmosphere they create. Short red skirts expose muscularity and Sarah Kundi demonstrates assured use of line and high extensions, dynamic or controlled as required.

Robert Hylton's Human Revolution sees Cira Robinson and Jazmon Voss run towards one another so their faces meet consequently close. There is no music to begin, only silent intensity which encourages a sense of rivalry. They each perform solos while the other intently gazing, muscles fired in eager anticipation. When the music does start it sounds like a heart beat which is visually interoperated with circular pacing intercepted with immaculate precision and poise. Traditional ballet pirouettes as would be seen in a coda overlay ingenious craftsmanship because they are repeated a second time so that the turns coincided. Robinson slaps Voss’s chest and then spins away from him but he pulls her towards himself and lifts her. Now they move in clockwork unison…did anyone in the auditorium remember to breathe? Thus, Da Gamba which followed seemed disappointingly unconvincing and excessively cordial in comparison, but being his first choreography for those who don point shoes we must commend Henry Oguiki for his creation to Bach’s Cello Suite in D minor.

Shift, Trip … Catch was choreographed in 2005 by Antonia Franceschi who used to dance as an apprentice with New York City Ballet and has since taught for Rambert Dance Company and Richard Alston. The piece shows off a sassy Kundi and Robinson dressed in white bikinis, and they incorporate hip and torso undulations between bourrées executed with powerful limbs stabbing the floor like needles.

After interval the gala came to an end with a long winded narrative piece, the first ‘story’ to belong to the company’s repertoire. Orpheus was choreographed by Will Tuckett who trained at The Royal Ballet School and he has since choreographed for English National Ballet and The Royal Ballet. Tuckett uses a Stravinsky score to narrate the story of Orpheus elegantly performed by Ballet Black’s longest serving Damien Johnson, whose character removes his blindfold prematurely and as a result tragically loses his wife Euradice performed by Sarah Kundi. It is very vivid when at the penultimate scene, the furies eat Orpheus like interrogators who become dogs ‘devouring’ with animalistic movement and the odd twitch as means to confirm if he is dead.

Review Three

Broadsheet such as The Guardian

Word Count 581

Dance Film Review - Caught, The Envelope, and Nacscimetno - Parsons Dance Company

The David Parsons Dance Company was founded in 1985 by the commercially successful David Parsons who has since created over 70 works for his company. The ten full time dancers do an annual New York season, otherwise touring nationally and internationally for 32 weeks of the year.

Parsons is renowned for creating multidimensional works, with a strong interest in technology, interested in how much can be said through a picture depending on whether the decisive moment is captured or not. Parsons performs a solo Caught with music by Robert Fripp and lighting that he designed himself. Flashes of light allow split second glimpses so the audience speculates ‘where is he?’ Sometimes he is ‘caught’ mid leap, alternatively travelling so fast that we see him in one flash, and in the next; at the opposite end of the stage, and we begin to wonder if we are missing anything.

The Envelope explores moving objects, with cheeky, plucky music by Rossinni that suitably compliments the tiptoeing and slinking entrances. The seven dancers are clad in black costumes designed by Judy Wirkula, they also have Arabian headscarves scarves and incongruous dark glasses. A dancer determinedly throws an envelope off stage, quite repeatedly in-between multiple turns, but alas the envelope keeps flying back at him. The other dancer’s join in the fascination make rectangular shapes with their arms, stacked up like a stepladder. They circumspectly place the envelope in their mouths before strategically dropping it or they might have an obsession with passing it on to one another, twitching whenever it is received but eager to be rid of it. There is a’ four cygnets’ parody with arms linked and travelling footwork leading into soldier’s kicks which triggers the rolling out of a carpet and so the passing of the envelope becomes regimental. In the slow solo, Parsons holds his ankles in a crouch, as though a reflective bullfrog on a lily pad, but the piece ends quite nonsensically and ironically because as the envelope finally leaves, another is thrown on.

Nacscimetno is based on Brazilian social dancing with people having a good night on the town with everyday clothes, costume by Santo Loquasto, and music by the composer Milton Nacsimento whose name constitutes to the title. The piece commences with a male dancer travelling towards and around his female interest. It’s as though he kisses her cheek, ‘boy meets girl’ and she is moving too, animated with enchanting leaps and turns that wind up like a corkscrew and then release back. The eight dancers fill the space, alive with skipping that moves both backward and forward with sudden changes of direction. Girls run to jump to be caught and spun around by their male partners and the unfolding skip or a springy ‘grape vine’ sequence definitely reminds one of social dancing. As a conclusion approaches the original couple just walk slowly, and stand amongst the frenzy which then stops too and in close proximity to one another the group lunges and sways from side to side with sweeping arm movements, like a slow windmill that gathers pace. They all fall to the floor leaving just one of their community standing, but then they all make a soft cluster with heads rested on one another as to slumber, and oh so gently uncurl to stand and form a horizontal line, their arms linked across their backs to walk away from us.

Review Four

Broadsheet such as The Guardian

Word count 401

Dance Film Review - Esplanade (1975) by the Paul Taylor Dance Company -

Video Published in 1988

Inspired by simply watching people going about daily life in the street, Esplanade, choreographed by pioneering American modern dance choreographer Paul Taylor, is based on everyday movements such as skipping, running, jumping and walking. Taylor intended to use physical people, and they do maintain high energy throughout the piece in a manner beyond the average person’s capabilities, but it is skilful choreography and modification of the ‘pedestrian’ movements that constitutes the piece to becoming ‘dance’.

This is a joyous piece and Taylor’s famously athletic company certainly enjoy to move, and move they do because their bodies are habituated to his capabilities to push non-dance movement into the realms of rich dance. Esplenade is a captivating piece that tests perceptions because Taylor stopped dancing the year before it was made, beginning to choreograph without the reliability of his own movement vocabulary choosing ordinary movement, and we gasp at the genius of it.

There is an element of relational humanity expressed in Esplanade which compliments the inevitably cheerful music by Jan Sebastian Bach. The bright blue background as stage set and the choice to have each dancer in an individual colour ranging from pink, to peach to lavender add a playful quality to the overall visual experience. Taylor aimed to provide food for the eye; engaging the senses of his audience.

Although in the genre of pure-dance there is a glimpse of characterisation and narrative portrayed through slow sections where couples embrace, or a female dancer might kneel close to her male partner who places a hand on her head as though to soothe or provide comfort and reassurance. Dancers gesture reaching out and towards to walk slowly surveying their surroundings with calculated gaze.

However most movement exists fast-paced - as if in a playground with spatial patterns altered and rearranged almost by accident; sometimes the nine dancers (six women, three men) all move together, running in a large circle, then without warning cluster and clump. No lines in space, vertical, horizontal and diagonal are left unexplored. Female dancers literally run and leap, flinging themselves towards respective male partners in the trust that they will be caught, so the total commitment to each movement is exhilarating. Taylor has certainly succeeded in presenting a delectable visual platter.

Review Five

Broadsheet such as The Guardian

Word count 400

Dance Review - The Point, Eastleigh – 05 October 2011

The Featherstonehaughs say a final goodbye with Sketchbooks of Egon Schiele

Choreographer Lea Anderson presents a re-working of the 1998 hit, Sketchbooks of Egon Schiele inspired by the Austrian 20^th Century figurative painter. Anderson’s craftsmanship takes us on a journey of intricate tense movement between exact poses of stillness as intimidating eyes stare out from hauntingly painted faces. The six all-male Featherstonehaughs wear audacious suits that are textured stiff with bright coloured paint designed by Sandy Powell. They literally become sketches using splayed fingers iconic from figures in Schiele’s thirteen sketchbooks.

Sometimes in the silence we hear the sound of the dancer’s shoes but the electric guitar and set of drums have a powerful influence too. Played live so the molecules fill the space the music is performed by Steve Blake and Will Saunders who also composed it. Anderson decided to set the piece to new music because, as she explains in her pre-show talk, ‘it didn’t quite fit before’ and she has a particular love for live music and the atmosphere it creates.

At one point in the piece three of the Featherstonehaughs move together, and when I say together I mean they are ‘just’ walking across the stage but one cannot help being impressed at legs moving in mechanical perfection. Spatial patterns and stances are presented before they stop… another pair has been staring at them like voyeurs but now take a turn to move with an uneasy jittery quality. This interplay between the two groups continues and a sense of aggression builds particularly since some of the stances reek with attitude. One wonders if this is a piece about zombie like mannequins come to life or a catwalk gone wrong but the eye so appreciates the repetition and the shapes created.

One might ask if they actually move, will the pace increase, is this a build-up …and if you hold these questions you are rewarded; the movement does become fast and frenetic with them all moving simultaneously. Suits are replaced with Powell’s skin tight ‘nudity costumes’ (painted red nipples, extenuated genitals and pubic hair). We see the versatility of the performers who were ridged with tense movement before, but now execute fluidity and control of curved continuous shapes. The Featherstonehaughs culminate an unforgettably impressionable goodbye, demonstrating their accomplishment since their founding in 1988.

A Day in the Life of a Young Parelli Enthusiast

2011-10-31T13:34:00.000Z

A Photo Documentary Collection by Jenni Beth Koetsier

Ten year old Kate Koetsier has daily responsibilities pertaining to her pony Cloud. She lives on Longfields, the youngest in a family of horse lovers. Kate's mother and two older sisters also follow the Natural Horsmanship programme Parelli which focuses on the phsychology and personality of horses. A strong relational bond between horse and trainer is the inherent focus, including a lot of ground work and trust exercises.

Collecting the Ponies from the Sanctuary of their Field

A Moment of Companionship During the Grooming Session

Riding like the wind

Beyond the point of no return, the split second of calculated calm before Cloud jumps

The double balancing act; if you're not living on the edge you're taking up too much room.

Chilling out ...

History and Context of Journalism Year Two Semester Two Exam Questions and Revision:

2011-05-14T08:58:00.001+01:00

History and Context of Journalism Year Two Semester Two Exam Questions and Revision:

1) Outline the verification principles as part of the school of thought known as logical positivism. Hoe might this principle be applied in the day-to-day work of a journalist?

Most ‘truth claims’ need to be categorised as true or false. This is not a question of metaphysical truth but of justifiable truth. As a journalist the responsibility is to state something as ‘truth’ as long as there is enough evidence to suggest so, and to list these factors. For example “Mr x was convicted of murder, following y court case, with the account of such and such a witness, supported with b CCTV”.

The Vienna Circle (1922) is a group of philosophers having a common applied understanding of the logical positivism according to Wittgenstein and ‘Tractatus’ (1921). The Vienna Circle greatly influenced 20^th Century philosophy. They used logical analysis, categorising two kinds of statements. One statement is reduced to a simpler statement about experience (empirical) and the other statement cannot be reduced (thus metaphysically meaningless). All statements are true, false or meaningless. For example there is proof that there is fibre in bran flakes so this is ‘true’. There is proof that rabbits don’t lay eggs so this is ‘false’. However there is no proof, or perhaps not even a method of proof, that there are pink elephant on another planet. Though this may be unlikely we have no proof and thus this statement cannot be deemed ‘false’ but rather ‘meaningless’. In short a proposition’s meaning is defined by its empirical (experience through the senses) standing, otherwise it is meaningless. This philosophical discovery greatly questioned the validity of other philosophical schools of thought such as metaphysics. The statements that the Vienna Circle refer to are synthetic ones (ie. Facts about the world) as apposed to analytical ones.

In chapter 31 ‘Philosophy of Logical Analysis’ of Russell’s book ‘History of Western Philosophy’ (1946) it is stated that since Pythagoras there has always been a distinction between those concerned with mathematics as opposed to those influenced with the empirical. Modern philosophy combines the empirical with the deduction of human knowledge. We know that 2+2 is 4 because of logic rather than empirical experience having seen two couples in a dance forming a quartet. Maths consists of known, proven and logical truths that can be ‘tested’ in many ways. 3+1 is actually the same as 4 and 2+1 is the same as 3. This is not to say that mathematical knowledge is a priori either.

Alfred Ayer was influenced by the Vienna Circle (1922). He wrote ‘Language, Truth and Logic’ (1936). The verification principle as formulated by him states that for a sentence to be verified it must contain empirical truth otherwise it is metaphysical, meaningless or literally senseless.

Perhaps when Wittgenstein wrote ‘that if which we cannot speak we must remain silent’ in Tractatus (1921), he meant that that which cannot be proven as with regards to science must be left alone since no conclusion can be reached (not to say that such things cannot be discussed or explored within art, fictional literature, the expressive arts or poetry).

The News of The World newspaper and alleged journalist using phone hacking as means of extracting information for their articles (thus stolen information) is contented with passing on blame or deniability. A journalist constantly thinks 'can this information be trusted or not’ and then takes the information through the verification principle since truth in some ways is merely the method in which it is verified.

2) What is phenomenology: can there be such a thing as a subjective reality or subjective truth? What sort of standards ought a journalist apply?

Kant is responsibly for the exploration of phenomena in his ‘Critique of Pure Reason’. Everything that exists also has a noumenal nature as the unperceived object meaning that things don’t only exist when being seen but they exist, differently, when unperceived.

A naïve realist believes that things are there whether you are thinking about them or not, meanwhile it is still there but it is radically different. When you perceive the object it becomes a ‘phenomena’ which is an idea that solved many issues in technical philosophy.

Modern science and quantum mechanics is the mathematical explanation of the dual relationship between energy and matter. There is a development of time in physical things through the wave function, which is a momentum within an atom that tells its electron how to behave, which brings some various probabilities.

The quantum theory can be relevant with regards to the noumenal (unperceived) and phenomenal (perceived) worlds. The world is made up of things, really tiny particles that persist throughout time. Thus an atom or continuous ‘state of affairs’ (as Wittgenstein refers) exists for a certain amount of time and then is replaced by a different state of affairs, this is what is meant by quantum science with reference to the noumenal/ phenomenal worlds, when it is said ‘the change takes place at the quantum level’.

The active side of the mind summons all the noumenal possibilities into the one single outcome/’phenomena’. However how does this particular perception arise as opposed to another (ie. through the change at the wave function what makes certain probabilities get chosen over others)? According to Husserl (1859-1938) this is due to intention. We see what we want to see due to the extent of self deception. We can will the world into existence. Husserl also asserted that the mental and spiritual realities are different to the physical.

Husserl (1859 -1938) worked with Heideggar (1889 – 1976) who was an existentialist. Heideggar explored the question of being. His work brought about questions of intention and morals, as can be recognised in Albert Camus’ book ‘L’Etrenger’ or ‘The Outsider’. Heideggar also asserted that the past is beyond ones control, the future is unknown and therefore we only have the present and we have choice within this present.

Solopsism is a philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist. Perhaps similar to Hume who felt that there is no causation in nature, everything happens within our minds.

3) Describe in broad terms Keynes ideas on monetary policy, with an indication of how Keynesian “revolution” came about. Does “Keynesianism” inevitably lead to social regression, mortal failure, and serfdom as Hayek asserts?

The Keynsian system largely involved the printing of more money, which of course made money to be of less worth. However it also resulted in full employment and good circulation for a larger spectrum. As money is backed by gold, even if you don’t in essence have enough gold employ people anyway. Give a school teacher a salary of £20,000 per annum whether this money is legitimately in ‘existence’ or not. This is because she will in turn pay rent to a landlord, purchase groceries from a supermarket, invest in her hobby, book a holiday, and attire herself with high street fashion thus giving into other markets who in turn feedback into further ones. This is how a ‘non existent £20,000’ creates real money.

John Maynard Keynes is the economist who theorised fixed price controls. The government’s central bank to lower interest rates when prices rise and raise interest rates when prices fall. Unemployment in Britain during the interwar period (1918-1939) was sometimes as high as 20 percent. Keynes felt that the way the government spent its money greatly affected employment. He did not advocate for wages to be cut, arguing that if they were cut there would be less household income and therefore less consumption. Thus he advocated that wages remain stable as prices remain stable. Keynes asked why government couldn’t secure employment with public works projects. Similar to Adam Smith Keynes didn’t see the need to ‘socialise’ the economic market, suggesting that if there was full employment, there would be individual economic strivings (Smith’s ‘hidden hand of the market theory) who’s value would be distributed across the market.

Hayek (1899 – 1992) held the opinion that we are all as medieval serfs since we all work for the state. He wrote The Road to Serfdom (1944) arguing that central economic planning could lead to totalitarianism.

4) “Facts in logical space are the world” Witgenstein in Tractatus .Do you agree?

A fact is something that can be independently verified, but does this mean to say that the world is made up of these facts? Does logical proof and validity mean there is no ideal (and thus no heaven, no noumenal world and no physical objects)?

To better contextualise these questions we need to go back to Kant and Phenomenology. In The Critque of Pure Reason (1781) Kant explains how what we experience physically through our bodies is not the real world but merely a replica made with our brains. If everything is made by the brain, this is closer to everything being facts since the brain consists of thoughts. Therefore if the brain makes a replica of the world, we are closer to (as Wittgenstein states) the world itself being made up of facts. Further to this Kant’s ‘brain’ could be the same as Wittgenstein’s ‘logical space’.

Rejection of Plato

Ideal forms

5) Looking back at HCJ as a whole choose a topic/philosopher. Explain why they are important for journalistic reasons.

Bibliography:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Keynes.html

‎'It is self-evident that identity is not a relation between objects' (page 52). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein

2011-04-21T16:43:00.000+01:00

Wittgenstein was concerned with Symbolism as exemplified with Language. We use language with the intention to mean something with it. The relationship between thoughts, progressed into words and developed into sentences. Also the idea that the sentence is meant to present truth. What relationship does one sentence have to another sentence in order to symbolise something comprehensive? Wittgenstein is thus concerned with accurate symbolism.

I find the following statement really interesting/beautiful, taken from the introduction (by Bertrand Russell) of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 'the object of Philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a theory but an activity' (xii).

The book has a challanging preface, saying Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is not a text book but can only be understood by someone who has already had the same thoughts, or at very least, similar thoughts. The author is concerned with language, what can be summurised with our words can and therefore must be said clearly, but what cannot, must be left in silence (an idea that gives me butterflies in my stomach, for as a dancer I feel that there are some surreal things in life that cannot be expressed through words but can be conveyed in other mediums, such as dance).

Within the main body of the book Wittgenstein numbers each proposition and further comments with decimal points. For example '1. The world is all that is the case. 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things' (page 5).

Have you noticed how words even with the exact same spelling or sound but different meanings cannot demonstrate their different roles without other words around them. For example when I say 'nails' you dont know if I am talking about finger nails or the nails I bang with a hammer unless I use the word 'nails' in the context of a sentence. Wittgenstein explains this on page six 2.0122.

On page ten pictures are discussed and how in order to establish whether a picture is true or false we must compare it to reality. To this I question, what about perception?

Alfred Ayer: 'Language, Truth and Logic'

2011-04-20T13:30:00.000+01:00

Chapter One:

The process of elimination and eradication of all philosopher's prior babble and grapples with things so overcomplicated its unnecessary 'a straightforward process of elimination must lead to their discover' (pg 13). Sense experience is surely an empirical situation? How do we differentiate between raw reality and past experience, how do we limit thought? Metaphysics always questions what there is, and what it is like. Ayer doesn't reprimand the metaphysician for attempting something completely fruitless but perhaps not specific. Ayer uses the example of a sentence, even if it grammatically asks a questions but we already know the answer we might not see it as a question at all. Also, in terms of thinking 'what things are like', there is the practical issue of being able to place oneself where an observation can be made. One has to settle with the idea that some things are achievable only theoretically and not practically, as Ayer uses the example of seeing the other side of the moon.

Ayer questions whether a sentence can be deemed factual if it is truthful and if the information it contains can be proved, and further to that, proved by experience. Hence his terms factual proposition versus experimental propositions. Perhaps the sense cannot be considered providers of 'rea' information since Ayer reminds us that the sense can sometimes deceive us. Ideas about appearance versus reality.

On page 25 Ayer discusses the phrase 'martyrs suffer' and the phrase 'martyrs exist'. Because they are both grammatically organised in the same way, our logic categorises them the same, but actually the phrases are very logically different. Yes, there can be real proof that martyrs suffer, but martyrs do not exist since the whole point in being a labeled a martyr is the nation of dying for something strongly believed in. Therefore the phrase should be 'martyrs did exist' or 'martyrs existed'. If it is easy to write nonsensical sentences without meaning to be nonsensical, or indeed seeing that they are even nonsensical, then it is also (proof) possible that common problems of philosophy or nonsensical and that if philosophy is to be considered an eligible branch of philosophy it must be differentiated from metaphysics.

Chapter Two: The Functions of Philosophy

Ayer seems against deductive logic for the sake of it or as considered a main philosophical trend, he also appears against generalisation and 'laws of nature'. He doesn't see why starting points and conclusions have to correlate and be of such exactitude for successful winning of arguments. 'Thus we may conclude that it is not possible to deduce all our knowledge from 'first principles' (page 31). Yet there is this belief that it is the philosopher's duty to find the first principle.

Existentialism

2011-03-11T14:02:00.000Z

Andy Warhol 1928 - 1987:

Warhol influenced fashion, pop, music and culture. He is known for his Screen Tests, silent film portraits of celebrities and friends filmed in a factory (a good website: http://www.warholstars.org/filmch/screen.html). Some candidates were high on heroin for these films. This links with existentialism due to heroin giving the sense of no past or future. Under the influence people feel no worry for the future, no interest and no boredom. The neurons for pain and pleasure are also turned off (this is why people feel cold when coming off heroin, wanting to take more). In The Outsider by Camus the main character Meursault could well be high.

In the 1960s and 1970s there was a lot of heroin chic in music and fashion (pale skin, dark eyes, jagged bones). Also aspects of the androgynous, for example Edie Sedgwick one of Warhol's superstars, was thin, 1.63m tall and often wore her hair short looking like a beautiful man. Warhol himself was homosexual.

Politics:

The 'old left' from Marx is about economic oppression and the 'new left' is concerned with racism, personal oppression as from Hiedeggar - the past which is guilt and the future which is fear.

Existentialist Authors Love Writing About Junkies:

The Naked Lunch by William Burroughs 1959.

The Electric Kool-Acid Test by Tom Wolfe 1986 where the author writes as a literal journalist in the genre of hysterical realism. Wolfe travels with the band the Merry Pranksters, the dangerous drug LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) is involved.... as are hallucinations.

L'Etrenger by Albert Camus

2011-03-11T12:51:00.000Z

The Outsider/Stranger (as translated into English) is a short narrative associated with the philosophies of existentialism, absurdism, determintism, naturalism and stoicism.

Part One:

The main character is Meursault who oddly doesn't grieve at his mother's funeral but sits smoking and drinking coffee instead. The next day Meursault meets with someone he used to work with named Marie and they begin a sexual relationship, which could be considered absurd considering that his mother had so recently died. The author questions whether Meursault is capable of human politeness and social graces, let alone emotion and feeling.

Meursault gives constant critique and justification for people and things around him. During his first person narrative account, he in a mental state of things just happening in the now. He either classifies things as interesting or annoying. This is exemplified through Meursault's friendship with Raymond. Raymond believes that his girlfriend has been unfaithful and asks Meursault to write her a letter arranging a meeting between them; Raymond plans to beat her. Knowing full well that Raymond's girlfriend will come to harm, Meursault still writes the letter, seeing Raymond's 'interesting' and justifiable side.

Unfortunately the family of Raymond's now physically harmed girlfriend are not impressed and stalk Raymond, wanting revenge. Being on the scene, Meursault gets involved by killing one of the men because (as he justifies it) 'the sunshine and heat confused him'.

Part Two:

Meursault is in jail and unhappy that he cannot gratify his sexual desires with Marie. He also misses his freedom. He is however unable to feel remorse, described as a soulless monster that deserves to die. Awaiting his execution Meursault tells the chaplain that 'God is a waste of time'. Meursault undergoes a different journey grasping the universe's indifference towards mankind and wishing for a large audience at his execution wanting to be 'greeted with cries of hate'.

Philosophical references:

With regards to absurdisim Meursault is an unreceptive man, he only has sensory experiences. He lives in the physical alone as exemplified through his reaction to the responsibility of murdering someone 'the sun had physical effects on him'; things 'just happen'. Only in execution can Meursault acknowledge responsibility for his actions, yet the inhumanity of murder is irrelevant to Meursault, he just accepts dying as part if the status quo. Absurdity overrides responsibility and Meursault is satisfied with his death because the world is meaningless and because God is a waste of time.

Although writing an existentialism view, Camus himself didn't consider himself to be of the existentialist philosophy.Yet the book expresses strongly the idea of human life having no meaning or order; therefore peace in death. The character Meursault gives such a calm account of life, almost nonchalant, as someone who merely sees as opposed to feeling as well. The Outsider/Stranger describes the individual who cannot bond, connect or feel with another; Meursault admits to not loving Marie.

There is no over analysing and no thought for consequence. There is no regard for the future or for the past. Existence in the present is all that matters. In this sense perhaps Meursault is a hero, since he had integrity in living his life exactly to these principles.

Seminar Paper on The New Industrial Estate

2011-02-17T23:17:00.000Z

Seminar Paper

The New Industrial Estate by John Kenneth Galbraith

A Guardian newspaper article published soon after his death in 2006 describes Galbraith as a ‘visionary economist who defined, and defied, the 'conventional wisdom'’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/may/01/guardianobituaries.usa). The article also explains how Galbraith had awareness of his intelligent superiority and possessed a well developed sense of humour

Born in Canada 1908 Galbraith is remembered for his assistance in wartime price controls and for being the American ambassador to India from 1961-1963. He was a keen follower of John Maynard Keynes, the reputable name of economics and developer of selective price controls. Galbraith’s discovery differed to that of Keynes. Galbraith realised that general price controls were indeed required which were established in 1942 with the support and backing of President Roosevelt. As a result unemployment hardly existed. Galbraith understood the marriage between fixed price and income for economic stability and high employment.

Within his book The New Industrial Estate Galbraith presents the controversial message that within high industry and advances economies it is the corporate leaders and experts (which he calls the technostructure) that control everything and that they subordinate the government for their own progression and self esteem. The book presents the economy as it is, showing how everything is dominated by omnipotent corporations and that such faith is better deflated. This seminar paper looks in closer detail at a few of the chapters within The New Industrial State.

Chapter Six: The Technostructure

The dictionary definition for the term technostructure, used frequently in Galbraith’s writings is ‘the group or class of technically skilled administrators, scientists, and engineers who manage and influence business, the economy, and government affairs’ (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technostructure).

The firm or group being given more importance over the individual is difficult to consider since the individual protects himself form the masses and the individual has soul whilst corporations are soulless. Those in socialist power therefore, have the task of positively acquiring information from the many individuals within ‘modern industrial decision-making’ (Galbraith 1967, p. 76). Essentially a combination of highly specialised talent is required for the success of a project.

This combination is in three parts:

Technology itself, which dispenses the need for genius or multiple/deeply skilled employees.
Those who understand, manage, and plan the technology with scientific talent and specific skill, to result in the smooth and ultimate flow of information.
Co-ordination, the understanding that various talents must all fall and form to the same purpose. The specialist’s contributions must be tested for relevance and reliability.

Chapter Eight: The Entrepreneur and the Technostructure

The firm is subject to the market because it has no control on quantity or price of sales. There is danger in a firm growing since it results in more stockholders having a say through the voting processes and the owners having less power in decision making. Stockholders may have less knowledge than is required to make sound decision.

Large firms can tell small competitors to conform to their set prices or lose business altogether. The entrepreneur creatively conducts a system in which only a group of highly specialised and communicative people can mark the success of his business operation. Some entrepreneurs begin to resent this organisation they have created, an organisation that now their business cannot survive without. Galbraith writes that ‘Henry Ford, aging and autocratic, became increasingly resentful of the organisation without which his company could not be run. He reacted by shunning employees of specialised technical knowledge’ (Galbraith 1967, p. 104).

Chapter Nine: A Digression on Socialism

Power sits with those individuals who make the decisions within industrial enterprise. This power changes within the context of mature enterprise since only the group has access to the information required to make the sound decision. After the WW2 Britian lived under socialism ‘the purpose of socialism is the control of productive enterprises by the society …. none, or not many, seek socialism so that power can be exercised by an autonomous authority’ (Galbraith 1967. p. 113).

Chapter Sixteen: Prices in the Industrial System

Value theory is the way in which prices are set. The relationship between supply and demand is very crucial to good economy. However, ideally prices should be set irrespective of a corporation excelling in or being expelled from the market. Otherwise a business could influence the market for its own progression. Competition is also good, as Galbraith writes ‘competition is inherent in the animal spirits of the entrepreneur. In response thereto he advertises and merchandises his product with even greater energy and aggressiveness for not being allowed to cut prices’ (Galbraith 1967, p. 187).

There is a wasteful competition though, and this is in the case of an oligopoly. Galbraith uses the economic term ‘oligopoly’ which has similar meaning to monopoly in that it refers to a few firms dominating sales within a market. Galbraith explains that oligopoly is not as wicked as monopoly but only due to lack of ability not lack of desire. If a large firm can dictate change in price the economy cannot work properly.

Chapter Twenty Two: The Control of the Wage-Price Spiral

There must be enough buying power to support the labour force required; this is how the state aggregates. To test the success of the economy look at unemployment and see if its rate is low or high. Only a lot of aggregate demand would secure the employment, if any employment at all, of uneducated people. When unemployment is low Unions can have a field day since workers can strike knowing that they will not be replaced.

Price remaining constant is a good way to foresee and manage customer/consumer reaction. If the prices change the customer’s attitude and choice change accordingly which is not easily managed.

Bibliography

Galbraith, J. K (1967). The New Industrial Estate. Penguin Books: Middlesex

Dictionary.reference (online). Last Accessed 15 February 2011. Available at URL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technostructure

Guardian (online). Last accessed 15 February 2011. Available at URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/may/01/guardianobituaries.usa

Money is a human being

2011-02-14T19:35:00.000Z

Yes money is a human being with regards to its interchangeability, selfishness, control and stubbornness ..... well its a human character reduced to numerical form and adding to that, it controls our universe. There is the illusion that money is the best friend, the biggest desire, and driving force for motivation and that this, money can buy anything. Well, there are some things money cannot buy.

A soppy person might say 'money cant buy love' or 'money cant buy me', a more obvious 'reverse the situation around' example is poverty. You can pay to have a poverty simulator and go sit dehydrated in a desert but unless you are poor, with regards to culture, demographic and state of being, even money cannot buy you poverty.

We have previously learnt about Adam Smith the mechanistic thinker. Mechanistic thinkers avoid paid and seek pleasure, which in short seems very logical. This logic is expanded to form careful calculations as to how every individual's utility goes up or down depending on circumstances. There is also the long and short term utility, a precise measure of human behaviour.

The term utility is also used in economics, an example of price: there are those prepared to pay £500 for a laptop and £50 for a hoody. In economics this quite simply means that the laptop produces ten times more utility than the hoody. This is utility without morality; sheer facts and the price system with which our society works.

Using the term utility within human existence, everyone must be free to maximise their utility - hence utilitarianism (the moral worth of an action).

Aggregation is an important economic concept. Individual economic units come together to determine market price and service as contributors to the whole. However these individual units cannot be considered separate to the context 'one cannot hope to isolate individual economic units from their context, study them experimentally, and establish what could be called elementary laws of economic behavior' (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Aggregation.aspx).

Classical Liberalism is associated with political philosophy; freedom and democracy. The first liberalists were called Whigs and came into being just after the Corn Laws ceased (laws which had restricted trade). They focused on Free Trade and small government. 'Under a system of completely free trade, capital and labor would be employed wherever conditions are most favorable for production' (http://mises.org/LIBERAL/CH3SEC7.ASP).

The Kantian system is much more concerned with morals. There are categorical imperatives that cannot under any circumstance be broken, else the whole universe shall just fall apart. These include not lying or stealing for example. Classical Liberalism in some ways decentralises the church and goes against all such Kantian morals in a sort of rebel.

Deontological ethics is morals purely based on action rather than intent. If I did the washing up, I did a good and moral action; its all about the action and the action has been done. Never mind that I might have done it with a very bad attitude as liong as I act from a sense of duty; as Kant believed. Deontological theories are often contrasted with teleological ones.

Moral questions of killing one person to save one hundred come into play and determine whether you are a utilitarian or not. Should the NHS spend money on new born babies as apposed to pensioners for example?

The Labour Theory of Value by Ricardo:
Labour just as anything that can be sold, can be increased or decreased in supply. The natural price of labour is in accordance with human necessity of survival, so if cost of food rises so shall cost of labour. The market aspect to labour is quite simply that labour is expensive when it is scarce and it is cheap when it is available. If times are good labourers can have large happy families, but this increases the population and in the future wages will then be lowered. It is sad when the worker cannot even afford to buy the thing he himself made when it goes on market. See this link: http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs27c.htm.

Contrary to John Swift's satire of 'eat your own babies so you dont starve' Keynes boosted the economy by getting society to keep busy with unnecessary things. Keynes lived and worked through the world wars and the great depression and was of much assistance with his theories.

Theories such as Adam Smith's hidden hand of the market and free trade suggest, as now reffered to as classical economics, that people MUST be free with a political constitution in order to trade.

With regards to population there is the Iron Law of Wages by Malthus:
He believed that population grows geometrically. If every couple has two children the population will remain the same, for when the parents die the children shall replace them. Land and provision can merely double, but if a couple has four children these children become eight children, then, sixteen and then thirty two. This growth cannot be supported by natural rescources.

Products have the danger of overproduction and under consumption. If someone is paid a £5 wage for a £10 product he cannot affors his own product.

Marx was influences by both Ricardo and Malthus, and his findings are catagorically diagnosis rather than solution.

Money is transparent and really doesnt do anything for itself. Your precious £20 note is really just a scrap of germ infested paper. But the representation of what it could do for you is what is precious. It maximises your utility and it enables trade.

The Credit Creation Ratio means that your £1,000 in the bank enables the back to have £10,000 of lending money for anyone who has an account with them too. This is back by gold, since gold is money, but it is not instantaneously transferable.

Bond Auctions:
The government will have a bond, a security debt. The issuer agrees to pay the bond with or without interest at a later date. The issuer is the borrower and the holder is the lender. Bonds regulate the economy, and there should be enough tax brought in to pay debts.

some theories we have learnt, in modern context

2011-01-24T22:37:00.000Z

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xyzjw/Justice_A_Citizens_Guide_to_the_21st_Century/

Modernism: Nietzsche's 'Thuse Spoke Zarathustra' with mention of 'Ulysess' by James Joyce

2010-12-14T12:32:00.000Z

'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' is read by gathering segments of the disjointed religious text; in some ways its format is similar to the Bible. Within the book Astra is an ancient figure in Persian religion, founder of the Zoroastrianism religion (now scarce and mainly l in Iran/India) known for the funeral rights; leaving the corps on a pillar for birds to pick at. The key point that Nietzsche tries to bring out through Zoroastrianism is an obsession between good and evil; a dialectic history within the religion of a battle between good and evil. Another key theme is the stages of struggle and progression; the camel, the lion, the child. Struggle is good for us, we should embrace it if not bring it upon ourselves, to become the overman or superman.

Ulyses by James Joyce, exemplifies the human as a sexual being, how the Id goes wild, the Super Ego controls and conforms to society rules and the Ego mediates between the two.

Nietzsche express a modern world where there is no centre of the universe and therefore no absolute good or evil. One can questions weather this leads to anarchy or chaos, depending on if you take the Hobbes approach where the state of nature is evil so the world would be full of rape and murder, or base your ideas on Rousseau where there would be peace with no land to fight over as John Lennon suggests in 'Imagine'.

Modernism is the start of free speech. It is also about refusing to let current society rules and historical rules, morals and discoveries prevent one from living a full life. Taken to the extreme, if you have a goal and desire to kill someone, why lower yourself to societies rules and live your life unfulfilled (I think this idea is mentioned in Nietzsche's book 'Beyond Good and Evil', not saying that evil is good but that there is no evil only yourself.).

'The Origins of Totalitarianism' by Hannah Arendt

2010-12-02T21:34:00.001Z

Good evening and welcome to this blog post.

We shall begin by clearing up some, shall we say 'technical jargon' surrounding the subject:

1. Totalitarianism: the idea of a nation being ruled by a dictator without law; individual subordinate to the state

2. Antisemitism: prejudice against Jewish people

3. Xenophobia: fear or hatred of foreign people or states

4.Nationalism: excessive patriotism

'The Origins of Totalitarianism' was written in 1951 after WW2 and after Hitler's death. Ardent writes about a form of government where dictatorship doesn't allow for individualism. She discusses how Arabs and Jews lived together in post war states and how racism is deep within western society. In chapter two she discusses the Nation's state, the rights of Jews and how democracy aims to include what everyone wants in its decisions. There was no equality; Jews were just needed for their skills without being involved in the state. Within the German class system Jews had no class, therefore lacking rights.

In Part Three of the book the following topics are looked at : the powers of Hitler and Stalin, Nazism, the Nazi party, facism, biological racism, pure society, Stallinism, sovereign union, lack of constitutional law, and the power through totalitarianism.

Stalin manipulated propaganda, where we see the media's role; and early link between media power and the masses.

Biological racism aims to control and organise people to all look the same; Hitler wanted blond haired and blue eyes people. The agreement as to what is aesthetically pleasing can be done through brain washing as advertising does today, for example the Ugg boot trend. When masses are one there is a loss of responsibility as a whole, which can be used to shape a power when the masses a brain washed sufficiently.

Snobbish behaviour is exemplified by Hitler's ideas being taken to the extreme and through Carey's metaphor of bacteria used to describe the masses. Ardent thought that the holocaust was normal, a strange thong for her to say, being a Jew herself, but perhaps she says this within the broad teleological lenses of history?

Human industrialism, on an industrial scale ; organised mass murder.

'All explanations of antisemitism look as if they had been hastily and hazardously contrived, to cover up an issue which so gravely threatens our sense of proportion and our hope for sanity' (Arendt 1951, p. 11). An example of such a hasty explanation (as described in the above quote) is xenophobic outburst; essentially modern antisemitism growing as traditional nationalism declined.

Arendt explains that Nazi nationalism was not simple, their propaganda directed at travelers not members (see page 12). She also clears up that 'persecution of the powerless' may not be pleasant but that it doesn't come from human hatred alone because 'even exploitation and oppression still make society work and establish some kind of order (Arendt 1951, p. 13).

Some interesting further quotes to end off:

Arendt questions 'what happened' to case the holocaust on page 387.Her book seems to take a historical look at what came before communisim and totalitarianism in an effort to explain the birth of such ideas, she looks at Russian Imperialists for example. .

On page 407 she discusses how masses are quickly forgotten and replaced, which reminds me slightly of some of the thoughts portrayed in John Carey's 'Intellectuals and the Masses'.

On page 408 Arendt seems annoyed at the masses describing the 'proverbial fickleness of the masses and the fame that rests on them'.

Ardent put some misconstrued ideas about dictators to rest 'the widespread belief that Hitler was simply an agent of German industrialists and that Stalin was victorious in the succession struggle after Lenin's death only through sinister conspiracy are both legends which can be refuted by many facts but above all by the leaders indisputable popularity' (page 408-409)...'nor can their popularity be attributed to the victory of masterful and lying propaganda over ignorance and stupidity' (page 409).

Idealism is dangerous 'idealism, foolish or heroic, always springs from some individual decision aand conviction and is subject to experience and argument' (page 410).

Totalitarianism

2010-11-16T19:50:00.001Z

Branch of phenomenology ...

Hannah Arent thought that the Holocaust was normal; the idea of death factories on an industrial scale where hair is shaved for clothing, gold from teeth are used as currency and calcium is extracted from bones. A factory was put outside every city in Europe and no one resisted until the Soviet army stopped it.

Th romantic 'Dickens' idea, that most schooling depicts is that Hitler was a mad genius that hypnotised all Germans. In fact everyone was involved in some small way, like the people that booked the trains that transported so many Jews. Some citizens would collaborate for the chance of better life an attitude of 'just doing our jobs'.

Stalin was eventually accused of mass murder, in the ideology of Hannah Arent, instead of helping peasants we should kill them just as gypsies are a problem today. Or what about the Siberian prisons where there was no desire to escape and nowhere to escape to. The prisoners dug the 800 mile White Sea Canal which took five years, Benson and Hedges equivalent cigars were named after this canal; Stalin's way of celebrating. Perhaps economy can only survive on essential slave labour.

Organised mass murder on an industrial scale is what you get from Marxism.

Lets look into a communist quota; one third of Winchester residents must become 'slaves', and must be sent to work at the gulag. A rule is decided at random, as of today it is illegal to wear pink socks, maybe tomorrow drinking tea without sugar is an offence, and perhaps next week bow ties are a no no. Those who break these instantaneous rules are sent off to live a life of hard labour. This is the system of Hannah Ardent.

Forget films such as 'Life is Beautiful' or 'Schindlers List' and get a grip with 'Shoah', see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090015/plot summary and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W0WcZu9O74.

People turned themselves in for minor crimes as to avoid being selected for bigger crimes and the longer sentences that went with them.

Look at Animal Farm by George Orwell.

'The Intellectuals and the Masses' by John Carey

2010-11-11T06:26:00.000Z

Carey looks at some renowned names such as Jose Ortega, Friedrich Nietzche, Knut Hamsun, George Bernard Shaw, George Elliot, Alfred Harmsworth, T.S Elliot, and W.B.Yeates. He critically analyses their work in its function of society class and its masses versus intellectuals.

Spanish philosopher Ortega wrote The Revolt of the Masses (1930), where he looks at growth in population as the cause of the masses; Europe's population grew from 180 million to 460 million between 1800 and 1914 ( see page 3).

Nietzche's Zarthustra says ' Many too many are born' (Carey 1992, p. 4).

Hamsun's novel entitled Hunger (1890 and he is known as a father of modern literature.Nietzechian ideas are clearly seen through one of the characters in his novel who says 'I believe in the born leader, the natural deposit, the master, not the man who is chosen but the man who elects himself to be ruler oer the masses' (Carey 1992, p.5).Hamsun believed in 'the great terrorist', who came to be Hitler.

Shaw's novel Immaturity (1879) was not welcomed by publishers, things like Treasure Island were more popular and Shaw 'made a conscious effort to write for the millions' (Carey 1992, p. 6).

Harmsworth is similarily mentioned, due to his 'busy man's paper', the Daily Mail. He wanted to 'deal' with the interests of the 'masses', since the newspaper must make money.

Freud

2010-11-01T12:10:00.001Z

When you look at an innocent little banana, your 'Id' is thinking (and loving) very very very BAD things....and your super ego is keeping you sane, politically correct, socially controlled, and calm. But then again, perhaps Freud's thinking is not entirely 'you wants to have sex with your mother and kill your father' (obsession with actual sexual acts):

'Among the most significant contributions of Freud is the insight that not all of sexuality (desire, physical excitement, and heightened emotional productivity/sensitivity) is experienced within the context of recognisable sexual acts. And by the same token, not all recognizable sexual acts are ever totally the control of sexuality' (William Simon 1996, p. 137).

Some critic on Freud's psychoanalytic methods:

'Psychoanalytic discourse continues to predicate an emotionally dense infancy and childhood ... meanings and interpretations derived from later experience represented by metaphors of earlier experience. "Castration anxiety" has the ring of plausibility to the post pubertal man because it so neatly sums up, for all but the insensitive and unconflicted, his continuing fear of failing as a man' (William Simon 1996, p. 154).

Bibliography:

William, Simon (1996) Postmodern Sexualities. Routledge 1996

'

Modernism

2010-10-19T21:02:00.001+01:00

Menkin came up with many sayings that are referred to in popular culture, for example 'dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog is news'. For news to succeed and hold audience interest it has to be something out of the ordinary.

Nietzsche (1844–1900), was German philosopher who wrote in a mad style (spurts and dollops). He translated the writings of ancient Greek philosopher Zarathustra. Nietzsche used Zararthustra as the character within his writing (a charater that spends ten years in solitude in a quest of slef improvement), to enable him express his ideas. Nietzche's book is entitled 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra', it is essentially a spiritual journey written in prose with an even religious or self improvement feel to it. There are chapters with advice on topics such as chastity, friendship and redemption. Almost ironically the book mocks religion and the bible. Nietzsche felt that anyone who was religious or nationalist was weak, un able to progress or evolve into something better, never to become the 'superman'. The only way to become the 'superman' is to leave ones soul behind, and all emitions and even the sense of justice. Looking at characters in history, one might consider Hitler to be a 'superman' because of his great sense of power and for the destruction he caused, but even Hitler was weak in the eyes of Nietzsche because Hitler was very nationalist. Nietzsche came up with the phrase 'God is dead'. While logic tells us that in order for Nietzsche to belive that God had died, he must have believed that God had lived first, for something cannot die if it never been alive or existed in the first place. There is the Newtonian clockmaker idea, that God made the world and then left it, at immediate contemplation one could consider that this is in line with Nietzsche's thinking. Actually Nietzsche is presenting the argument that the IDEA of God is dead. He felt that God had always been an idea anyway, and idea for the basis of religion, belief, a purpose and reason for humanity to exist, a code for morality and consequence of bad action, but that the idea was no longer evolving people on, that it was now a weak, silly and old idea. If people wanted to become 'superman' they had to let it all go. Nietzsche wanted people to be true to the earth, not true to God, to leave traditions and never look back believing that God numbs the soul and that there is no Devil or hell either.

Justice, reason, virtue and happiness are what hold humans back from evolving into something better. It almost like telling a child that father christmas is not real after all, that they wont be getting Christmas stockings anymore and that they are old enough to begin buying gifts for other people, brcause that where the presents came from all along, other people, people not the magical father christmas. When the child feels hurt, betrayed and sad that their fantasy is gone mother says 'oh grow up Charlie, dont be so selfish' etc. I think it must have been hard for people to hear Nietzche's message, I dont know if it was all that attractive to follow.

In the Modernist movement, people only needed God in the gaps that they couldn't understand, the gaps not yet filled by science. Or a shift of focus from God, from something bigger than ourself to the wonder of ourselves, like in the Rennaisance 'man is the measure of all things'. Hegel's Gheist, was a different kind of God, something to aid human progession to world paradise.

Ideas of no fixed points in space, that nothing is absoloute, could bring one to live a life where there are no regrets. The now popular phrase 'that which doesnt kill us makes us stronger'.

I am sorry fellow ladies, but we are incapable of friendship

2010-10-11T18:32:00.000+01:00

Take a moment to read the following and consider how far fetched and offensive it seems, it is from the book 'Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzsche'. Chapter Fourteen 'The Friend'

"Far too long hath there been a slave and a tyrant concealed in woman. On that account woman is not yet capable of friendship: she knoweth only love.

In woman's love there is injustice and blindness to all she doth not love. And even in woman's conscious love, there is still always surprise and lightning and night, along with the light.

As yet woman is not capable of friendship: women are still cats, and birds. Or at the best, cows"

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm#2H_4_0018

Zarathustra walked the Earth a long time ago "the ancient Greeks speculated that he lived six thousand years before the philosopher Plato" (http://www.livius.org/za-zn/zarathustra/zarathustra.htm). Zarathustra was a religious teacher and his writings present some ideas, that could still hold resonance today.

I am sure that in our present society you will find men with the opinion that women cannot be mere friends to them, that women hold too much sensuality and can therefore only love, but that to add insult to injury, a women's love is contrasting and confusing ....

Women are also described as animals, 'she is so catish' or 'what a bitch', 'she is such a cow', or 'I have a date with this hot bird'.

Examples of these elements or aspects are expressed through our music. Contemplate these Bo Bice lyrics from the song 'My World'

"Did you know that you were leaving when you first told me your name
Convince me that you love me while planning your escape
Always looking past me on to someone else’s face
Tell me
Is he all the things you tried to change me into

Kept me at a distance while you told me you want more
Plans about our future made with one foot out the door
You say that it’s over but there’s some things I can’t ignore"

http://www.bobice.com/

Seminar Paper

2010-10-07T17:12:00.000+01:00

INTRODUCTION

Tabloid Nation is written with vivid description and acute humour, the Times review at the back of the book cover calls it “the funniest book of the year, perhaps of the decade”. Whilst the book is deeply informative most chapters end with a clue to the next chapter (a questioning that asks to be resolved) allowing the reader to turn the page and continue with the entertainment value of a novel. Chapter four ends with a description of the sort of help Rothermere needed to save his newspaper empire, and chapter five is conveniently entitled ‘A Helping Hand’. The characters are easy to engage with and are fascinating for their little quirks; Hannen Swaffer slept in a cupboard and hardly ever went home.

CHAPTER ONE: THE CHIEF’S MAD FROLIC

In the first chapter we are taken to Fleet Street, London in 1903, where we meet the powerful Alfred Harmsworth, with his beautifully established Daily Mail (which sold 397,215 (three million, ninety seven thousand, and two hundred and fifteen) copies on its first day of publication) and the recently launched but embarrassing Daily Mirror (which was selling less that 250, 000 copies after eight weeks). We are therefore introduced to Hamilton Fyfe who was employed by Harmsworth, to take charge of the Daily Mirror and improve it somewhat.

The Daily Mail was a successful ‘penny paper for a half penny’ (Horrie 2003, p. 19), Harmsworths first daily and national newspaper which was well planned and tested before it launched in 1896. It was to be a newspaper for busy men, each article no longer than 250 words. Harmsworth felt that his readers had “no interest in society” (Horrie 2003, p. 19) but that they needed “anything interesting and sufficiently simple” (Horrie 2003, p. 19).

The Daily Mail was the first daily newspaper to offer a section devoted to women; ideas on cookery and flower arranging for example. This delighted the women of society since the only alternative was a weekly women’s magazine that cost six pence. Since the women’s pages of the Daily Mail brought such utter delight, Harmsworth’s logic does not appear at all faulty in suggesting an entirely separate newspaper devoted to fulfil these domestic categorical requirements. The Daily Mirror was to be a ‘ladies newspaper’. It was written by ladies, to be read by ladies. The newspaper however, proved to be a “the laughing stock of Fleet street” (Horrie 2003, p. 17) and Harmsworth came to believe that “women can’t write and don’t want to read” (Horrie

2003, p. 17). Fyfe had to fire the team of lady journalists “a horrid experience … like drowning kittens” (Horrie 2003, p. 18). It was wonderful that these ladies gave weather reports for Cairo forgetting Cardiff, or that in an effort not to cause “mental paroxysm” (Horrie 2003, p. 21) they wrote articles with little content, the longest article being on the topic of a best friends house.

CHAPTER TWO: THE POPE OF FLEET STREET

The Daily Mirror became a picture paper, Hannen Swaffer its rescuer. Swaffer raised the sales from 250, 000 to close on a million in only a few years. He was a drunkard and ‘fantastically scruffy’ (Horrie 2003, p. 23), employed by Fyfe (who as we remember was employed by Harmsworth). Fyfe explained in his memoirs that the Daily Mirror was not supposed to be provider of serious factual information to the readers but “to entertain them, occupy their minds pleasantly, prevent them from thinking” (Horrie 2003, p. 24), since pictures are easier than words.

Swaffer was relentless in his efforts for the acquisition of many photographs, good photographs, and any photographs. He worked with Harry Guy Bartholemew, a technical expert, in making cameras lighter, easier to transport, easier to use. He even got his hands on a dramatic close up shot of the dead King Edward VII; a feat that sold 2,013,000 (twenty million and thirteen thousand) copies of the Daily Mirror. Swaffer called himself the Pope of Fleet Street since he was so influential.

CHAPTER THREE: GHOULS, CRIMINALS … ANIMALS BENEATH CONTEMPT

In 1905 Harmsworth became Baron Northcliffe, on his fortieth birthday he made the realisation that a life in politics was actually his calling, not to become Prime Minister and therefore have the chance in being voted out, but of using his newspapers to pull strings behind the scenes.

CHAPTER FOUR: HERALD OF DOOM – THE FREE GIFT WAR

In April 1922 Harmsworth, or Lord Northcliffe was in ‘a deep state of psychotic paranoia, babbling constantly about supposed attempts by German or Bolshevik Russian agents to poison or shoot him’ (Horrie 2003, p. 33). He died at the age of 57, August the 14^th 1922, a rare bacteriological infection, but it could also have been syphilis. His brother Rothermere inherited the papers; a new shape of national press was about to begin; the age of ‘free gifts’ where newspapers competed with one another. A certain coal miner managed to clothe his whole family for free, canvassers were sent out to offer ‘cameras, tea-sets, laundry mangles, encyclopaedias …..’ (Horrie 2003, p. 34).

CHAPTER FIVE: A HELPING HAND

Rothermere began moving in the world of politics, the chapter opens with letters of correspondence between Rothermere and Adolf Hitler, Rotheremere thanks Hitler for his ‘bloodless solution’, saying that the people ‘are not so concerned with territorial readjustment as with dread of another war’ (Horrie 2003, p. 36).

CHAPTER SIX: BART… EL VINO’S VERITAS

Harry Guy Bartholemew was nick named ‘Bart’, as mentioned in chapter two he was a technical expert and a photography organiser; he had assisted Swaffer in rescuing the Daily Mirror when it changed from women’s paper to a picture paper. Bartholemew was always the helpful, quiet and unthreatening character but ‘by 1934 … Rothermere’s influence … was …starting to wane’ (Horrie 2003, p. 43) and the board began panicking about falls in sales. Bartholemew decided to take action, he spent time with all of the directors and worked to gain the trust and confidence of John Cowley, managing to persuade Cowley to make him editorial director of the Daily Mail and the Sunday Pictorial; he had big changes in mind, changes that were to become the ‘model for popular journalism throughout much of the world for the rest of the century’ (Horrie 2003, p. 44).

Bartholemew was born in 1878; and joined the Daily Mirror in 1904. He was extremely uneducated and found communication, reading and writing hugely difficult.

Someone described him as “vulgar, semiliterate, cantankerous, suspicious, and jealous of any who withstood his authority, a man with a passion for crude practical jokes, and a ruthless determination to trample on anyone who got in his way’ (Horrie 2003, p. 44). This account makes him sound like a selfish and spoilt child, someone who was so insecure that he had to be overtly obnoxious and authoritarian.

Swaffer was Bartholemew’s boss when he first came the paper, and Swaffer was his great influence and inspiration .Much like Swaffer, Bartholemew was also a heavy drinker and a frequent candidate for El Vino’s, a wine bar. It could be argued that Swaffer employed Batholemew because he could hold his ground in a drinking match. Bartholemew had a passion, to work all night to have his pictures ready for the next day’s paper, the Bartlane method allowed pictures to be transmitted by radio, so the Mirror could have quick access to American photographs. Bartholemew married a widow, thirteen years older than him; he certainly sobered up and behaved at home.

CONCLUSION

Part One of Tabloid Nation ends with tantalising hints of Bartholomew’s success; it seems a range of people had the chance of a season to improve the Mirror. In 1934 the Daily Mirror’s sales had dropped from over 2 million to 800, 000, sales essentially halved; there would be no readers by the year 1940 at such a rate. We are not yet told how Bartholemew succeeds but are briefed on a new member coming on board, Rothermere’s nephew, another Harmworth by the name of Cecil Harmsworth King, and we are given this positive ending sentence ‘Bartholemew and King, soon to become the new lords of Fleet Street. Within a few short years they were to create “the biggest-selling newspaper in the universe” and lay down the foundations of Tabloid

Britain

’ (Horrie 2003, p. 46).

The next time you take a glance at the Daily Mirror, on some pokey shops shelf, in the cement caked hands of a builder, poised in the possession of an eager bus reader; remember its legacy from women’s paper to humiliation of Fleet Street, to picture paper, to grotesque picture paper, to forgotten paper that merely provided money to improve the Daily Mail. Through drastic failures to incredible and unbelievable sales increases, and finally to the actual foundations of our tabloid journalism, as it exists today.

Bibliography

Horrie, C (2003). Tabloid Nation. London: Andre Deutsch Ltd (Carlton Publishing Group). Pages 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 33, 34, 36, 43, 44, 46.

A sense of revision is in the air: the development of the newspaper (1815-1915)

2010-05-24T19:10:00.000+01:00

Question Five: Discuss economical, demographic, political, technological, and social factors influencing the development of the newspaper and periodical journalism 1815-1915, the century when the world became what we know now.

Economics:

Printing things to make money had never happened before but with free trade and the liberal profit regime newspapers became profitable business making money.

Demographics:

This deals with population and concentration of people. The build up of cities and diminishment of rural farm life accounted for communities in which a large amount of people, speaking the same language and being interested in the same things were an appropriate and easy target for newspaper.

One of the problems of the 19th century was crime in cities.

Politics:

The time frame describes a season of great freedom, liberalism in speech, the repeal of stamp duty, free press, liable law, no more censorship, liberal political regime, and irradical press.

Technology:

The steam driven press was a great advancement for printing newspapers, thousands of copies were printed overnight which increased circulation, a huge area of importance for newspaper. The success of railway trains improved distribution, another vital area. Before newspapers would travel at the back of stage coaches arriving a week after they were printed, talk about old news. The telegraph wire allowed for news on the same day in the 1860's, one of our very successful newspapers today is named after this (The Daily Telegraph).

Socialism:

William Randalph Hearst had to deal with when he took over the Examiner in San Fransisco; trying to reach different classes, genders, and languages and later when he dealt with the New York Scene.

A sense of revision is in the air: materialism and idealism (Hegel and Marx)

2010-05-23T01:21:00.000+01:00

Question Four: Contrast your understanding of philosophical 'materialism' with 'idealism' with particular reference to Hegel and Marx.

Materialism considers that the world is made up of atoms and matter while idealism considers that everything happens in the mind. A good way to describe this difference is through the following sentences 'the world makes love go round' (materialists) and 'love makes the world go round' (idealists ...... and hippies).

Hegel is our number one idealist, he is the great teleological historian who believed that everything had a purpose, for example a seed becomes a plant, the acorn becomes the oak tree and society is always fighting wars and expanding towards a better society otherwise there is no point. His idealism is apparant through manifestation of the spirit, something other then physical matter. Hegel believe in something called Ghesit, a German word for which there is no direct English translation. In its simplest form Ghesit means ghost but it can also mean mind and because Hegel was a christian thinker it can also mean God.

Dialectical change involves the thesis, anti thesis and synthesis as an advantageous method for argument and persuasion between two opposing ideas.

Karl Marx was a follower of Hegel and 'stood Hegel on his feet' (often misquoted 'stood Hegel on his head' because he did disagree with his master on idealism). Marx criticises mechanistic materialists for he was a dialectical materialist.

A sense of revision is in the air: Terms used in logic

2010-05-23T00:42:00.000+01:00

Question Three: Define and briefly discuss the following terms as used in logic.

a) Axiom

This term comes from Geometry and it represents a starting point of absolute solidity and truth. Aristotle uses it as his beginning statement, that cannot be argued with, in his syllogistic or deductive logic. Depressing as it may seem to dwell on it for too long, perhaps the one thing we can be sure of in life is that we will die, and so famously:

All men are mortal (an axiomatic statement)
Socrates is a man
Therefore: Socrates is mortal

b) A priori

This is the concept of being born with knowledge or innate ideas, knowledge without experience. The empiricists oppose this idea, in particular Hume and Locke. John Locke believed that people are born with a blank slate or a tabula rasa and that knowledge is ONLY gained through experience in the physical world.

A priori logic is also completely independent of experience, certain conclusions can be reached without experience, for example all widows have dead husbands and all bachelors are unmarried.

Descartes said 'I think therefor I am'.

c) A Posteriori

This, as can be established from the name, is the direct opposite if a priori. All conclusions must be reached through some sort of experience for example some widows are devastated and some bachelors are incredible lonely.

d) Deduction

Deductive logic is largely concerning the process of going back to the original axiomatic information, for example its not an apple tree its a tree, or we know its a tricycle because it has three wheels (if it had two wheels it would be a bicycle). Once again Aristotle deductive logic comes into place here.

e) Induction or Synthesis

Induction is about adding facts and data to reach a legitimate or at least plausible conclusion, it is used all the time in science. For example saying that caffine is bad for you, carrots are good for your eyesite or eating after 8pm makes you fat is not enough without the induction of data, it requires the addition of data to calculate the odds. Hume: saying that the sun sets this evening means it will rise tomorrow requires scientific inductive reasoning.

Remember the Thesis, Anti These and Synthesis as well.

A sense of revision is in the air: Keats and Kant

2010-05-23T00:24:00.000+01:00

Question Two: Compare the epistemological stance of Keats in the Ode on a Grecian Urn to that of Kant in The Critique of Pure Reason.

Both of these thinkers consider how we can be sure of what we know. Keats was a romantic poet as were Shelley, Byron and Wordsworth. William Wordsworth wrote the very well known poem entitled 'Daffodils' (one of my mother's favourites). This poem could be classified as a noumenal poem because it is about exquisite daffodils on a high mountain where no one can appreciate their beauty, which leads to question why God took the time to create their intricate beauty in the first place. This was the theme of romanticism, looking at nature to question life's purpose and meaning.

In Keats poem Ode on a Grecian Urn there is a crucial line 'Beauty is truth and truth is beauty' (http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html), they are one and the same thing, this is all you can know, and it is all you should know, this is all you need to know; a wonderfully simplistic consideration and outlook for life.

Immanuel Kant is famous for his philosophy of the division of worlds, the noumenal and the phenomenal. A thing in itself, when it is not being perceived is noumenal. That same thing, when being perceived becomes phenomenal. This involves thinking beyond normal perception and leads to questions whether things look the same or are even still there when we are not looking at them. The aesthetic epistemology assists in this regard. Aesthetics is literally the study of beauty, obviously finding something beautiful is up to individual opinion and taste, but some things are considered universally beautiful such as a sun set. Kant states that the feeling or emotion experienced when one sees something beautiful is a connection with the noumenal world and a proof that it exists.

A sense of revision is in the air: Wollstonecraft

2010-05-20T16:08:00.000+01:00

1) Wollstonecraft asserts that the social subjection of women was partly due to nature and partly due to the system of education given to men and women. Why might she have thought this?

This questions requires reflection of what was learnt in semester one, regarding the state of nature and what it is, the two people with particular importance to this question are Rousseau who thought that mankind is naturally bad and Hobbess who thought that the state of nature would be living in fear.

Wollstonecraft accepts that women are physically weaker than men, which is essentially a Romantic idea since Romanticism is all about nature and humankind being determined by nature if not worshiping nature. So women are subjective partly by nature, an accepted contract with nature for Wollstonecraft things like pregnancy for example; nothing can be done about it since it is a natural and biological phenomenon as society couldn't make a law saying 'from now on Men carry children in pregnancy not Women' (that would be both impossible and ludicrous).

However, the system of education during Wollstonecraft's time (1759-1797), did not assist the 'natural problem' if you will, instead it made it worse. Society was very influenced by Aristotle, his writings and the Bible were the two main sources of guidance certainly through the dark ages and medieval times. Aristotle's ideas are laughable with all the scientific enlightenment of information we have today, for example he stated that women are not only a weaker species they are also a different species (something that one might joke about in today's modern society but not intrinsically believe). Aristotle also believed that women were unable to reproduce, to put it in an exact sense, there is no such thing as the female egg, just sperm. In addition to this, women are naturally slaves and must be made and told to do things, else, oh my goodness they will just fall about from anxiety or something for they cannot take initiative.

Wollstonecraft wrote the book Vindication of the Rights of Women, which interestingly criticises women themselves, for accepting their role. She awakens women's need for independence, separating out ares of life saying that in the public sector human beings should come first and that gender specifics only mattered in private life.

Wollstonecraft rejected Aristotle but was influenced by Rousseau, a love/hate relationship with his ideas. She loved his ideas on freedom, expanding it from Royalty. But she disagreed with his book Emile in which it is taught that a women's role is to please a man, to be humble and submissive.

The San Fransisco Examiner

2010-05-04T21:42:00.000+01:00

When William Randalf Hearst was 24 he became editor of the San Fransisco Examiner (that rivaled with the Chronicle) and turned it into a success. He made the paper more interesting because ‘he began to run crime stories on his front pages’ (Nasaw 2002, p. 77) which meant that instead of ten percent of crime stories there were twenty four percent.

It was hard work running the paper, in a letter to his mother the young Hearst wrote “I don’t go to bed until two o’clock and I wake up at about seven in the morning and cant get to sleep again, for I must see the paper and compare it with the chronicle. If we are the best I can turn over and go to sleep with quiet satisfaction but if the chronicle happens to scoop us, that lets me out of all sleep for the day. The newspaper business is no fun and I had no idea quite how hard a job I was undertaking” (Nawsaw 2002, p. 72).

Hearst understood that reducing the number of stories and shortening them as well as adding more images would

‘materially aid the comprehension of an unaccustomed reader’ (Nasaw 2002, p. 75), he also 'reduced the number of columns and the number of stories, doubled the size of the headlines’ (Nasaw, p. 74).

Although 'Hearst though one of the youngest and most inexperienced in the office, was the boss and beloved’ (Nasaw, p.68), he brought in new people and paid his staff well ‘ a full 50 percent more than most of them had been making elsewhere’ (Nasaw, p. 69)

Bibliography

Nawsaw, D (2002). Hearst. The Chief: The Life of William Randolph. Gibson Square Books Ltd: London

Popeye

2010-05-04T16:36:00.000+01:00

Rupert Murdoch is the modern equivalent of a man named William Randalph Hearst (1863-1951) who was similarly powerful in the field (of what became) modern populist journalism.

Interestingly Hearst 'commissioned most of America's most successful comics such as 'Popeye', 'Blondie' and 'Mutt and Jeff' (Nawsaw 2002, Forward), as well as other acclaimed achievements.

Hearst invented 'yellow journalism', started a Spanish-American war, dabbled in architecture designing San Simeon, he was the inspiration for the incredible film 'Citizen Kane', and he owned 10% of America's newspaper circulation. As a child he explored Europe with his mum instead of being formally educated like other children but he still made it to Harvard, and then was asked to leave.

His journalism career began when he was in charge of San Fransisco Examiner at the age of 24. Hearst went to great lengths to make his newspapers interesting, he used more visual images, he had articles no longer than 250 words, he changed the arrangement of headlines so that anyone could easily understand the fundamentals of the content instantaneously. In San Fransisco 150 languges were spoken and there were 40 different newspapers in different languges, a perfect place for the 'tablod gold rush'. Hearst learnt to play with greed and fear, telling people that there was lots of gold (when there was not) is playing on the greed (just as Daily Mail today frequently discusses the beauty of the National Lottery).

Hearst was from the wild west and people underestimated him, yet he conquered the newspaper market, he made newspapers fun (comic strips), and played on competition. He developed a system, literally called the William Randalf Hearst Method, an actual way of approaching problems of reporting, step 1: think of a story, step 2: stand it up. There is a famous journalistic quote 'you supply the headlines I supply the war' (Hearst http://ketupa.net/hearst.htm).

This is Hearst's palace, San Simeon.

Bibliography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearst_castle

http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/yellow.html

http://ketupa.net/hearst.htm

The life of Marx 1818-1883

2010-05-03T09:50:00.000+01:00

'The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally'.

(Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844),
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html).

Who was he, what did he do, why is he remembered today?

Some sources suggest that Marx was more a of an economist than a philosopher and that he didn't want the socialists the grasp and label his ideas. Other sources recognise him as 'the most influential socialist thinker to emerge in the 19Th century' (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html), rather then an economist.

Interestingly many of his ideas were ignored until after his life, when half of the world's population lived under ideas that classified themselves as Marxist theories. However, there is evidence to suggest that the 'original ideas of Marx have often been modified and his meanings adapted to a great variety of political circumstances' (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html).

Marx grew up in a middle-class family near the river Moselle in Germany. Many of his ancestors were rabbis but his father was baptised as a Protestant as not to lose his job. Marx studied law at the University of Bonn and later he studies more seriously at the University of Berlin when he began to disagree with Hegelianism.

(A photograph of Marx's house where he lived growing up in Trier).

Marx filled his life with things like joining the Young Hegelian Movement giving a stark criticism of Christianity, moving onto journalism in 1842 and becoming the editor of Rheinische Zeitung, a radical newspaper with the involvement of industrialists. He moved to France and in 1843 joining groups to merge French socialist and German Hegelian ideas. He became a communist writing down his ideas (Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts which were only published after 1930), and he formed an important friendship with Friedrich Engels. Being expelled from Paris in 1844, Marx and Engels moved to Brussels where the study of history was the primary focus. He looked at history, men, their materials and their production and how this shaped them. By looking at the past he predicted current downfalls; industial capitalism in to communism.

Marx wrote constantly alongside his discovery. He wrote Poverty of Philosopy as a stance against the ideas of Proudhon, and of course his famous Communist Manifesto published in 1848, revolutions shook Europe which Marx was positive about.

Marx married Jenny von Westphalen and they had six children of which three survived, in the 1850's they lived in poverty, and income was sometimes scarce.

http://www.canpopsoc.org/journal/CSPv9p109.pdf

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html

Karl Marx

2010-05-02T13:07:00.000+01:00

Marx was an economist and therefore less interested in philosophy. He came up with the theory of 'wages, prices and profits', and the labour theory of value. He sees economy as the motivation for the development of society throughout history; man is the productive creature. Aristotle sees man as the rational animal, one who can use reason and logic. Plato sees man as the political animal. Kant considers man to be moral; knowing the difference between right and wrong while Hegel saw men as historical animals constantly considering the past and predicting the future.

Frederick Engels was Karl Marx's co-writer and they claimed that their methods were in fact scientific. Marx takes from Hegel, the idea that humans are on a journey; from feudalism to liberalism or capitalism. Marx admired Hegel but used him negatively to analyse the mechanistic materialism or empiricism; the idea of God being a clockmaker in conjunction with Newton. Locke and Hume. People respond to what stimulates them, utilitarianism avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. Marx however doesn't agree with this wanting instead to be rid of 'mysticism'. He said 'I am not a Marxist', he didn't like his ideas being taken by socialists.

John Locke was an avid materialist and Marx likes to differentiate himself from this, he states that humans do not begin with a blank slate or tabula rasa, that instead, situations and created by men and men must be educated for them.

Marx does agree with perpetual and dialectical change, taken from Hegel. In the Communist Manifesto Marx looks at history and the struggle of the classes, taking the Hegelian dialectical system of a starting point or thesis, the opposition to this; anti thesis and the battle between these two, the synthesis. He uses this method to understand class struggle (the bourgeois and the proletarians).

In history the state has actually been what provides one class being against or more powerful than another or in other examples, caught in the struggle too. In the French Revolutions the pheasant got rid of their monarchy but then didnt have the political power to rule themselves; hence the Napoleon dictatorship. There are many stories of the struggle between the bourgeois, the owners of production (banking, factories, farms, land) and the proletarians (not to be mistaken for pheasants) who had no properly, status, freedom. They sell their labour and have to buy everything they need from the bourgeoisie . They have a right to things but not the means to every achieve them. They are a class fighting against the bourgeois for the state. The proletariat, because they have nothing to lose, are the people and don't have ideas of nationalism which causes war, so they could rule with much success; an international class with a good work ethic.

The proletarians had nothing to lose but their chains, the most revolutionary class of the nineteenth century. They had legal rights, but these don't count because they had no means of production. Private property is very different to something that can go onto produce other things which is capital (eg. a farm that sells milks, making money and investing as opposed to a pet cow called Daisy). Means of production in feudal society were owned by the state, the King and aristocrats. Capitalist society today is owned by private people and pheasant are replaced by wage earners, people who have no land but who give their labour, the monarchy has less power. There is more freedom today, anyone could become bourgeois; this is usually aristocrats who chose to break away from that duty and start a factory.

Socialism is the ownership of means of production. The ultimate goal however is communism, to irridicate class struggle.

Communist Manifesto

2010-04-27T21:36:00.000+01:00

Greetings and salutations

This blog submission considers a particular vision of Karl Marx, one that encourages us to open our minds to see Communism in a less extreme and negative light. So without further ado, welcome aboard the Communist Manifesto.

Whats is it?

The Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. It was published in many countries, translated into respective languages (including German, Flemish, French and Italian). It was translated into English in 1841 and published in 1848. It is written in very clear language, the ideas are still relevant today since the rules, reasons and principles are very precise.

What is it's purpose?

It was written because ‘communists should openly, in the face of the whole world’, suggest their solutions to rid class struggle where the ‘oppressor and oppressed’ exist (eg. Landowner and Serf in Medieval history). Marx writes that the truth of communist ideas must be shared since people are living under a perception that is a 'nursery tale' when Communists are 'practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country'.

How is it structured?

The first section considers the pull between Bourgeois (middle class or capitalists) and Proletarians (wage labourers who have to give up powers in order to survive). The second section discusses proletarians and communists. The third section (which has three sub-headings) explains socialist and communist literature. The second section is debatably the most enjoyable in providing a good sense of what the communist ideas are all about and why they could address very serious problems.

What is its message?

Modern Bourgeoisie society developed from the ruins of feudal society and is viewed negatively; the bourgeois family is merely a money focused unit and bourgeoisie society uses too much mass production. The working class have always been exploited even though they produced the higher classes wealth and splendour (for example, Israelite slaves built many of the Egyptian splendour). The Proletarians were a group of workers who were effective through good communication and set up to establish themselves as different to the communists although they focused on the 'common interest of the entire proletariat'. Conservative Socialism desperately tried to hold onto bourgeoisie society although the opposition wrote pamphlets against them. Being against the 'Royal We' (the oppressor says but doesn't do), questioning the necessity of trade, insulting gigantic means of production, notices of eviction, no private property, communities of women, regulated and scheduled life, proletarians having the skills; use them as a machine, this is the essence of the debate.

We are told that the Communist Manifesto was hugely influential but what was its actual effect on the world and what 'real' examples of Communism are there?

'Successful' examples of Communism include, China today, the Russian Soviet Union (1922 - 1991) and the Kibbutz's in Israel. Communism has been successful in Russia and China because of very strong, dominate and forthright leaders. The Communist Manifesto was successful because it is so practically written, so simple and relevant. It also gave the poor a chance to have power which was attractive. China is very monitored and controlled and citizens do not always have much access to the Western World; a very 'closed' country.

In a Kibbutz, based on Marx's ten rules, married couples were discouraged to sit together since coupling presented exclusivity, and they were not permitted to have kettles in their rooms, not because of cost but because 'couples owning teakettles would mean more time spent together in their apartments, rather than with the community in the dining hall' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz). There was very little space for individuality or traditional family life, children slept in a communal children's area and only spent a few hours with their parents a day. Financially 'kibbutzniks had no individual bank accounttime-wasting experience' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz).

Would England benefit from a communist society today and is such an idea even conceivable?

A messageof communism is to provide financial equality; less of the unfair divide between extreme wealth and extreme poverty and to therefore provide a society that is acutely fair. It is probably more conceivable for the higher classes to take on a deep and intellectual consideration for the nation's well being in this regard, particularly if it could be proved that it would save and improve the economic crisis for example. Whether they would be willing to sacrifice their status and wealth for the cause is debatable. It would therefore be assumed that the wage labourers and the unemployed would benefit greatly and eagerly support the ideas of communism instead, however this would mean that they would have to work in a particular, structured manner. Today an unemployed person can sign in at Job Seekers and receive a weekly benefit (usually £50) merely because they are looking for work. There is quite a difference between being paid to look for a job whilst enjoying and considering your freedom, and having to do a job, without being paid individually but being assured that you will have everything you need in order to live.

I should like to end of now with a recommendation to watch this very entertaining video (it is the Communist Manifesto illustrated by cartoons, amusing indeed):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KUl4yfABE4

Please do debate, expand on my questions or answers and ask your own.

Jenni

The City Mouse and The Country Mouse

2010-03-09T21:29:00.000Z

Charles Dickens was interested in writing about urban issues, particularly London city life. On the other extreme we have Cobbett who was fascinated with issues in the countryside and wrote the book Rural Ride, a determined man in his sixties galloping about the place and giving an account of what he saw.

We constantly find ourselve s referring back to the French Revoution on this course, and learning that the Revolution is a key impact on the world. Brian Thornton explained today that the French Revolution is key to what England has become today. You could argue that there are two versions of the French Revolution, one political (France) and one industrial (England).

Interestingly our precious sunny England had some advantageous ideas and successfully managed to keep troupes distant from the first part of the Napoleonic Wars following the fall of the French Revolution. Leaving Europe to it they built an empire (India, Singapore, South Africa which is actually my birth country, Sri Lanka etc). The Napoleonic Wars were so expensive that the French came up with the system of Income Tax in 1799. So those who pay income tax, that is an original reason why: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/reader_guides/article4067154.ece

There was a season called the Transatlantic Triangle Trade. In the 16th Century there were 1 million slaves sent from Africa to America, in the 17th Century, 5 million, and in the 18th Century there were 7 million so you can see how the numbers grew before the Abolition of Slavery Act in 1833: http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/economic/antislav.htm. Ships would literally throw slaves overboard and let them drown so as not to be caught with slaves on board.

Manchester became renowned for 'becoming great', you could say that it was the centre point of the industrial revolution in England. Population grew from 17,000 to 180,000 from 1760 to 1830. Marx and Engels write about this a lot.

In terms of growth in industry, small simple inventions like gaslight enabled factories to have people, mainly women and children, work around the clock.

At the end of the war there were Corn Laws put into place, a tariff on grains making bread very expensive. The poor lived on bread as the greatest component to their diet so they greatly suffered with incredible poverty, starvation and disease such as Cholera because of no money to afford good rent so living in places with very bad sanitation. The idea was to protect farms and agriculture, but the most vulnerable were hurt most. Later these tariffs were repealed (1846) but the pay given to the poor was also reduced because, 'oh yes with cheaper bread they can live for less so they are being paid too much, and we cant have that can we?'.

There are stories of exportation and martyrs in Tolpuddle, Dorset and the Peterloo, Manchester massacre. Parliament was run but the elitist and only 2% of people had the vote. Ironically the big cities of Manchester and Leeds had no votes whilst the Village of Old Sarum had 11 votes and 2 MP's. Luckily there was the Reform Act in 1832: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832.

Cobbett noted that the countryside was empty of people and life, empty were there could be development, opportunity and activity. Landowners used to give small portions of their land as common land and England used to be a patchwork quilt of cute little happy farms. These were closed down and made into big running fields.

Poor houses were horrible places, the poor were made to feel like prisoners, husbands and wives, parents and children were separated and everyone was only fed enough to be kept alive, but slowly getting weaker and dying. This is were Dickens story of Oliver Twist is very topical 'Please Sir, may I have some more?'.

Cobbett was an anti radical who then became one, he saw that rapid industrialisation would change natural country life. He was a passionate man who rode all day believing that getting soaked would cure his whooping cough. He is an example of a journalist, he talked of the lost cause of farm workers who were stick thin walking skeletons.

Dickens saw London's population double in 50 years. He expressed his view and what he saw as wrong, through his novels, essentially the Eastenders of that day. In conclusion, Cobbett's writing is colourful and engaging whilst Dickens works on your emotions.

Why is history so sad?

Hegel

2010-03-04T12:00:00.000Z

Hegel was born in 1770 and died in 1831. Looking at these dates in the context of time and history we discover that Hegel's influence and life work was during the French Revolution (1788 to 1804), the one year and two months of Great Terror (1793-1794), and the Napoleonic wars (1803 to 1815); this was the cultural, social and economic constraints with which he worked and formed his ideas. He wrote about human freedom, not utilitarianism (as J.S.Mill did), he was not interested in human rights, he had a new idea of freedom, not of liberty but of moral obligation and duty. If everyone obeys universal ideas such as 'I must not lie', 'I must not steal', 'I must not take my best mate's wife' then all will be well, no bad things, a free society of perfection.

Hegel was a German idealist. He was a devout Christian, very religious and interested in spirituality and mysticism which is a universal idea of all religions being connected to a consciousness oneness with or awareness of divinity. Some of his ideas are similar to those of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, that rights are given they are not universal or automatically given. Particular rights are age specific. Hegel is similar to Marx and Darwin in the idea of change and how everything is always changing or evolving. There is a self analysis and logical understanding for each individual which should become universal.

Private desires come into conflict with what a whole group may need or desire. Hegal looked at history and the current Prussian state to which he belonged and considered what was closest to a perfect society. He liked Ancient Greee in history and Prussia in his current time.

When you have a thought, you are thinking about something that steps towards change since everything according to Hegel is always changing. When you reach a conclusion about something that thing has already changed again, the thought might remain but the actual thing has moved on.

Geist is German word thats we cannot translate with absolute exactitude, but it is often thought of as mind, ghost or spirit. Because Hegel is a Christian, Geist can also mean God. There is the idea of paradise before Adam and Eve sinned and were sperated from God and that all history since then is the human attempt to re connect to God, one day there will be a reunion when Geist. Hegel is quite possibly the first philosopher of history.

Useful link that explains mysticism: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/m/mysticism.html

The French Revolution Timeline: http://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/timeline.htm

Change with meaning and pattern; dialectic based on the idea of the world being teleological: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic, and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/teleological

Kant

2010-03-02T16:31:00.000Z

Kant believes that we are absolutely certain whether we are being honest or not even if we don't know the factual truth, i.e we know to the best of our ability and understanding. There is a moral universal law, an innate sense of intuition or understanding between right and wrong. A journalist might not always have the correct facts but should never intentionally lie either. Kant went as far as to say that it is better for the whole universe to collapse then for someone to lie. Utilitarians believe that someone might do something out of malicious spite but that if these actions result in some general good, it is morally acceptable, they are interested in the consequences of actions whilst Kant was interested in the action itself. A ghastly example; six people are starving, if they kill one and eat him, five live, which utilitarians could consider as advantageous in serving a greater number of people. If they made decisions according to Kantian theory they would all starve and die, I think it is all very well to survive, but having survived one still has to live with oneself and would this be possible if you knew you did something wrong? People cope with doing wrong by comparing their wrong to the wrongs of others which are greater or by justifying themselves.

Like an ant listening to Mozart; ideas on intuition and 'feeling' being a legitimate guidance and discerning factor.

2010-02-23T16:17:00.000Z

Kant, the German Idealists:

Kant lived from 1724 until 1804 and is an intellectual major who wrote Critique of Pure Reason (1781) which looks into the problems of causality and empiricism (let us not neglect to remember that the idealist are complete opposites to the empiricists). Her also wrote Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and Critique of Practical Reason (1788).

Kant came up with the idea of Nouminal and Phenomenal worlds. A lot of empiricists have concerned themselves with objects and whether they exist when we are not looking at them, for example Hume, who's ideas state that objects flash in and out of reality/ existence depending on when we do or don't see them. Hume also thought that there is no actual causation in nature; everything happens in our minds. Hume's idea means that when you leave your bedroom to go and collect the post from the front room, your bedroom completely disappears in your absence even though you assume that it is till there and quite certain that it will still be there when you return. Kant managed to answer this idea of disappearing quite simply, he believed that things or objects exist in their own right whether they are being looked at or not. However when they are not being perceived by us they are different to when they are perceived by us; the difference between the Nouminal and Phenomenal worlds.

There are two worlds or types of reality, the nominal outside world which is the light that stimulates the retina, a world concerned with science; invisible atoms and electrons etc. Then there is the inside perceptual world that we experience, the phenomenal world. This means that the world that we experinece with our bodies is not the real world but a replica made with our brains. Although we cannot see the nouminal world we can feel it, like an ant could feel the vibrations of Mozart music and perhaps appreciate it without knowing or understanding it. We use our intuition to feel the noumenal world, what some would call hormones might actually be a deep connection to something bigger felt through emotions; the unmeasurable emotion of love is your connection with the noumenal world, it is not just hormones. Similarily you might look at art and 'feel something deep' and this is aesthetic intuition and appreciation, once again a connection with something more. This is Kants idea anyway.

Some useful web pages:

http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/webstuff/book/chap1.html

http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047

http://kantwesley.com/Kant/HumesTwoErrors.html

Lecture One: Liberty

2010-02-21T16:31:00.000Z

1. John Wilkes

Wilkes is said to have had bad teeth inside a jutted jaw, a mouth that spoke with a lisp. He was however quite charming and had is fair share of lovers which he gazed at with his crossed eyes, he was also a good writer known for being one of the first journalist if you like. He did write an inappropriate piece of text entitle 'Essay on Woman' which caused an amount of scandal no doubt as did his lifestyle of drugs, orgies, alchohal and an insiders knowledge of prison. Wilkes annonomously wrote for the paper North Briton, of which issue 45 is most famous as he visciously insults the King, and people desperatly wanted him arrested. On the brighter side, he is responsible for establishing some laws that journalism still benefits from today. He also helped the common man to vote.

2. Mary Wollstonecraft

Wollstonecraft had a difficult early life with a father that had affairs and was constantly drunk and angry, Wollstonecraft was left to protect and stand by her mother. Having to take on this role may have influenced her ideas. She had to work hard as a governess for little pay but she did endevour to educate herslef by reading Locke, she agreed with his idea of the 'blank slate' and and Rousseau although she didn't like his book Emile. She was only in her early twenties when she wrote the Education of Daughters. Her contribution to the whole idea of Liberty was the encouragement of education for women, which she found freeing. Interestingly Wollstonecraft was a Unitarian, she did not believe in the Catholic trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). She felt that there are no men or women, just people. She had many affairs but did mary Goodwin who actually wrote her biography, completing wrecking her reputation for about a hundred years; she had so many good ideas for women and for healthy family reputations but the way she lead her own life was contrary to this and therefore possible hypocritical. She did have a daughter, the well known Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein.

3. Liberty ..... what is it accordng to Locke?

Locke wanted to take power from the King and give it to the individual. Why not trust people, give them freedom and power and equality of oppertunity.

4. John Stuart Mill (politics)

At the age of seventeen Stuart Wilkes was in prison for giving out leaflets on contraception. He was the son of philosopher Jeremy Benther who explored th idea of maximising pleasure and minimising pain. Stuart Mill helped women get the vote. He was an intelligent man from the outset, imagine a three year old who could read Greek. He was inspired by the work of William Wordsworth. He believed in the freedom of speech, something will always benefit from being challanged, it makes it stronger if nothing else for we cannot not be so absoloutely sure as to not have or ideas questioned.

John Keats. 1795–1821

2010-02-18T09:31:00.000Z

A discusion of the poem
Ode on a Grecian Urn.

This poem reminds me of the concept in C.S Lewis's The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe (from the Narnia children's series) where the Witch makes it so it is always winter ... but never christmas. Keats writes of the lover that can never express his feelings: 'bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss', and the brachnes of a tree that can never move onto another season: 'ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu'. Yet there is a bitter sweet encouagement within the poem that appears to say that although you cannot have what you naturally want, need or desire, it will still be there and you will therefore still have the hope and longing for it: 'yet, do not grieve; She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss, For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!'

Dont try to supress government control; just give me my freedom

2010-02-17T18:15:00.000Z

John Stuart Mill who lived from 1806 to 1873, a century later than Wollstonecraft. He wrote about liberty and what people meant by liberty and then what he meant by liberty, saying that the conflict between authority and liberty is a subject much discussed throughout the ages but that he himself does not appreciate the way in which the focus on the good of society is regarded as being of higher importance than the good of the individual person. John Stuart Mill feels that if everyone lives in accordance to what they feel is right, without harming others, this is morally better than trying to do what everybody else says is generally right. John Stuart Mill writes about society dominating the individual ‘both by the force of opinion and even by that of legislation’, he also says that ‘this encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but, on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable’ (Stuart Mill 1869, ch.1). Stuart Mill feels that to focus on one’s inner conscious or state of being and actions is advantageous in having control; however Stuart Mill does understand that the individual may also have effect on others through his individual actions. To sum up John Stuart Mill’s ideas, for him freedom meant space to be an individual more than suppression of the governments rules on society which was the common idea of the time; lets make rules to prevent those in power hurting the weaker community too much. Yet John Stuart Mills was against the idea of unlimited state control.

The 'man-hater'

2010-02-17T18:00:00.000Z

This is summary on the ideas of Mary Wollstonecraft (after having read Chapter One and with special attention to Chapter Four of ‘A Vindication of the rights of Women').

Wollstonecraft was born in 1759 and died in 1797; she was an English writer of great influence and clearly a feminist. Her best known work is probably ‘The Vindication of the Rights of Woman’, it is her key ideas within this book that are most interesting to discuss during this seminar paper. As an overview, Wollstonecraft feels that woman are not inferior to men but only appear so because of differences in education and lifestyle, she says that woman are often left with nothing substantial with which to occupy their minds. She says that it is against ‘romantic wavering feelings, that I wish to guard the female heart by exercising the understanding: for these paradisiacal reveries are oftener the effects of idleness than of a lively fancy’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p. 171).

Wollstonecraft begins her argument by admitting that a ‘woman is naturally weak’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p 142). What Wollstonecraft chooses to focus on however is the idea that women are made weaker still by the society in which they live. Women are not allowed to make their own formative decisions; they have to believe and trust in the judgement of others and hope for the best. Wollstonecraft writes that women are ‘represented as only created to see through a gross medium and to take things on trust’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p.143). This idea seems to irritate Wollstonecraft as she endeavours to think in a fresh and organic way, she wants people to begin ‘dismissing’ what she calls ‘fanciful theories’, and urges people to start ‘considering women as a whole’ (Wollstonecraft 1972,p.143). This is in direct relation to Wollstonecraft’s questioning why men are given ‘first mode of existence’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p. 154), whilst women are ‘fragile in every sense of the word, they are obliged to look up to man for every comfort’ (Wollstonecraft, p.155).

A very prominent idea in Wollstonecraft’s work is the etiquette and respect shown from man to woman. Wollstonecraft sees these flourishes as something insulting ‘so ludicrous … the ceremonies appear to me … when I see a man start with eager and serious solicitude to lift a handkerchief or shut a door, when the lady could have done it herself had she only moved a pace or two’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p 148). Wollstonecraft also feels that women are dressed up in their finery only to be mocked ‘they are treated like queens only to be deluded by hollow respect’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p. 147). This idea ties up with another one of her points; dress. Women would rise and dress for breakfast only to then consider what to wear for the afternoon and then how to impress in the evening. Wollstonecraft feels that woman’s thoughts are constantly around themselves causing extreme vanity and growth of a superficial character. Wollstonecraft discusses an exact obsession with dress, not only in the wearing but also in the act of sewing clothes and paying attention to needle work. Here Wollstonecraft explains that a poor woman sews to responsibly clothe her family or to earn a living, but wealthy woman who only sew so that they may dress even better than they otherwise could are the ones who ‘dress merely for the sake of dressing’ (Wollstonecraft 197, p. 173).

Wollstonecraft appears to be passionate about the idea that women are considered to have no sense of logic or reason, they are never contradicted in public therefore unable to discuss and debate issues, this makes all social endeavour as far as a woman is concerned, very pretentious (‘women, commonly called ladies, are not to be contradicted, in company’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p. 150). Women are also not allowed to do any physical or strenuous work, they are not allowed to exercise, and their muscles grow weak and soft (see page 155).

Sexuality is discussed, in particular an interesting idea that pleasure for men is merely a sideline in comparison to their careers but that for woman, pleasure is absolutely everything, in her exact words ‘pleasure is considered merely a relaxation, whilst women seek for pleasure as the main purpose for existence’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p.152), however Wollstonecraft also writes that, a woman ‘was not created merely to be the solace of man, and the sexual should not destroy the human character’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p. 143- 144).

The education and lifestyle of women entails that they constantly spend time together giving them no time to use their intellect or consider their own passions individually; they are therefore abandoned to focus solely on their sentiments and have to be politically correct. Novels, music and poetry are their educational focuses which encourage their characters to form into something foolish (see page 154). Wollstonecraft believes that ‘gardening, experimental philosophy, and literature would afford them subject to think of and matter for conversation that in some degree would exercise their understandings’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p. 173). Essentially women do not have enough to do; this causes romantic fantasies which are unhealthy. Poor woman however, work, sustain and manage their families and are therefore hugely occupied and Wollstonecraft mentions in her writing how they act ‘heroically’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p. 174).

On page 156 Wollstonecraft quotes the philosopher Rousseau, who is clearly someone who influenced her, here she seems to agree with his ideas but elsewhere their thinking does differ, he did for example, have some ideas about woman that were contrary to her feminist ideals.

The idea than men work and strive and then are worthy reap rewards of pleasure, women are in the unhealthy place of receiving pleasures without having earned them (see page 158). If a father dies his son would receive the inheritance, and the sister would live in the household at the kind generosity of her brother, However when the brother came to marry there would be a new mistress of the house and the sister would be made to feel like an intruder upon their new found happiness (see page 159).

With regards to religion, Wollstonecraft questions how women can believe that God created human beings with man above women; she asks God if a woman can ‘consent to be occupied merely to please him – merely to adorn the earth – when her soul is capable of rising to Thee?’(Wollstonecraft 1972, p.162).

In conclusion Wollstonecraft is known as the first major feminist, early 20th century writers call her a ‘man-hater’ (Wollstonecraft 1972, p. 2). The fact that she grew up in a male dominated society could have shaped her ideas, she did refuse things such as earl marriage. Her writings suggest an aggravation towards class, she herself was born into a big family that did encounter poverty, yet Wollstonecraft was grateful that she did not have to adhere to an upbringing that middle class girls has to, which she felt brought ‘infirmity’ in later life. Upon leaving home and pursuing her own life she always endeavoured to look after and influence her siblings, for example she saved a sister from early marriage. She liked simple things, like fresh air. Wollstonecraft paints a picture of the ideal family unit where children or eductaed by an intelligent and knowldegable mother instead of being sent away to school. It is a pity, perhaps that she lived her own privae life so differently to her written and published ideals. Some say that she was hypocritcal in the love affairs she had, others see these acts as proof of her being a victim to the society in which she had to live.

The collaboration of ideas

2009-12-17T20:41:00.000Z

Hello

I believe that a quick recap of match the author to the book is rquired (no significant order of appearance):

Hobbes: Leviathan
Smith: Wealth of Nations
Locke: Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Swift: A Modest Proposal
Rousseau: Social Conract
Machiavelli: Prince

I should like to have a brief recap on some of the philosophers as they come to mind:

John Locke in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding writes about the tabula rasa which is the blank slate of the mind; we have no innate ideas which is an epistemological thesis.

Descartes was interested in maths, reason and idealism. He is similar to Plato's ideas on ‘forms’. Descartes thought Aristotle to be a waste of time. The middle ages was very Catholic, full of dogma and Aristotle's ideas. Descartes believed in the mind ‘I think therefore I am’. He considered that maybe the material world does not exist (much like the film Matrix).

Hobbes has a negative view of Humanity he felt that the state of nature would be a terrible place of war and rage, in some ways he is similar to Machiavelli in his sense of negativity.

'Big names' with regards to the Scottish Enlightenment are Hume and Smith, and the 'big thing' to remember is the steam Engine.

Francis Bacon attacked Aristotle’s syllogistic logic (which is deductive), it didn’t help with science (Bacon used inductive logic). Remember that Aristotle believed that we were born with innate logic.

Epistimology is the thinking about thinking and the ideas about ideas. It is difficult to climb out of your brain and consider you own thoughts in so analitical a fashion.

A priori is Copernicus’s theory, it means knowledge independent of experience (contrary to empirical view). Galileo believed this as well.

*drum roll* ........ Sir Issac Newton's Newton law of gravity lasted until the 20th century (until Einstein came along) which is a very impressive amount of time. We consider Newton to be the first modern scientist. He believed in a priori (forms). He was also an empiricist and a scientist. He believed that God created the universe and then he left; the clockmaker. He, like Descartes, disproved Aristotle.

Let us not forget the touch of significance amongst our philosophers; Galileo was born on the day that Michelangelo died and Newton was born on the day that Galileo died representing a connection. Galileo is the transition between the middle ages and modern day science.

John Locke is popular among English and American thinkers, especially the American.

Ludwig Wittgenstein believes that human intention will always override logic and that people will always believe what they find convenient to believe.

The rise of science happened over the 17th/18th century, this is a lot to do with the European enlightenment (what Rousseau rebelled against/did not agree with).

Journalism is all about the nature of truth and what can or cannot be believed.

Adam Smith is an 18th century philosopher said to be the father of economics. Russell doesn’t mention Adam Smith at all in his book i.e. he has been hugely unpopular and goes in and out of 'fashion'.

Rousseau and Social Contract Book 1 (Seminar Tuesday 17th November)

2009-11-17T19:56:00.001Z

Rousseau was born in Geneva year 1712 and had no education after the age of twelve. His mother died giving birth to him, so the poor old chap was not off to a particularly advantageous start in life. Rousseau himself had five children but gave them all away, to an orphanage. He be lived that children are bonded to their parents and that such a notion is not freedom, likewise parents are obligated to be responsible to their children which is not freedom either.

Rousseau didn't agree with Hobbes's state of nature, he believed that we were free before society and his ideas try to get us back to that freedom although it is impossible and he sometimes suggests that. He thinks that we have been influenced by the bad habits of civilization.

The Social Contract was written in year 1762, where he speaks of the chains of society 'man is free yet everywhere he is chains'. Today we live in a Representative democracy which makes sense, one student pointed out that we are not born free though, we are born into the 'chains' of society. This idea disproves Rousseau's idea that we are born free and then somehow captured into systems of society.

Rousseau believed in the general will, where there was a sense of belonging and a becoming a part of a system, anyone who refuses would 'be forced to be free'. Rousseau can be difficult to read because he is ambiguous and contradicts himself.

As well as discussing the Rousseau topic our seminar leader encouraged us to explore ideas on freedom, what it is to be free, are we free and the difference between freedom and liberty. We were all asked to write what we feel the difference between liberty and freedom is. I wrote that 'freedom is a natural occurrence to do with the individual such as forgiveness or a state of being. Liberty is the result of a war or specifically strategist movement, often something following after violence'. The seminar leader explained that the word 'freedom' comes from English and that 'liberty' comes from Latin. 'Freedom' is used in philosophical and moral things whilst 'liberty' is to do with political things. He pointed out that in French or German there are not two words to describe these similar things and that being English speaking we should learn to differentiate between the two and make use of them. I think an easy was to understand the difference in usage is to look at phrases such as 'free spirit' or 'free thinker' (you wouldn't use liberty in either of those examples). One student defined freedom for herself as 'being able to do anything buProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

being aware of the consequences'.

The government censors what we see (media), we then talk about what we see, and in this regard the government controls what we talk about/ So are we free? We are only shown one aspect of reality, we make assumptions, we flock. 'Society of the Spectacle' by Guy Debord is a good book to read on this topic, there is also a black and white film (see youtube). The book 'White' was also recommended this is a book by Richard Dyer and it explores how how ethnicity is presented; what we see on TV is not true reality. Is the white, good looking, muscular man really the epiphany of sexual attractiveness or do we assume so just because this is what is portrayed in media? I grabbed this book out of the library and intend to take a peek.

What is your idea of freedom?

'Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains' (Rousseau, the Social Contract , 1762)

2009-11-11T16:43:00.000Z

It is important to note that the Romantics focused on individual passion rather that the rise of science which was the previous movement called the Enlightenment. Frankenstein is a useful film to watch because Mary Shelley, the author of the book that the film is based on was a Romantic author. She was only twenty one when her book was published. The story is about a scientist who creates a human who turns out to be a monster, a lot of emotions are explored and an ultimate message of what it would be like to play God. If we look at poetry William Wordsworth and John Keats wrote in this time period. With regards to music, Beethovan was a radical composer of his time.

The American Revolution based on Locke and the French Revolution instigated by Rousseau consisted of ideas on democracy although interestingly both men didn't like the idea of democracy to begin with. They felt that a government's importance is its purpose. Therefore the legitimacy in a government is not its form but rather its purpose and fulfilment of that purpose.

Locke's law of nature states that all mankind is equal and should defend their rights and persecute those who violate their rights (remember that we learnt that Locke didn't believe in the Divine Right of Kings). This is very different to the thinking of Aristotle which states that men are not equal but that some were born for slavery and others were born to dominate and rule.

The problems with John Locke's law of nature is conflicting interpretations on how to defend ones rights, someone judging his own case (bias), and the fact that the innocent man might not be able to defend himself. In order for these problems to be resolved people actually formed a society leaving this state of nature and asking for the consent of the government to protect their rights. Rousseau agrees with Locke that legitimate government is formed by the consent of governed but he has a different idea on the purpose of government. He felt that people lacked the resources to survive, so there was a preservation of the individuals who established a government based on general will, obviously people who failed to act in the general rule failed to be legitimate.

Democracy had problems, so John Locke devised something called the representative democracy where the legislative and executive were separate from one another so that the people that consider themselves 'exempt from the laws they make' (John Locke) may have a general interest in the benefits of the whole community.

I think that the most intersting thing about Rousseau is the fact that he believed in 'forcred freedom', making people be free, the question is if this is then true freedom? Rousseau looked at society and how and why men consider themselves to be masters over he others. H esays that the family is the oldest 'society', but that children are only bonded to the father for as long as they need him. Rousseau uses this as a platform to say that the natural state of mankind is to care for his own individual preservation first and foremost. The difference between a family and the state is love between father and child, a love that is impossible for rulers to feel for their subjects, in it's place is 'the pleasure of commanding' (Rousseau).

Rousseau talks about surrendering under compulsion and questions power 'all power comes from God, I admit; but so does all sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor?' (Rousseau 1762). He says that people in control do not necessarily have the right to be and that we should only obey 'legitimate' power, this is what makes slavery wrong; we do not naturally have any power over someone. Rousseau says that someone who gives himself up willingly or 'graciously' is out of his mind and that madness is illegitimate. There is no balance in slavery, on one end there is unlimited control whilst on the receiving end there is forever surrender. If a slave belongs to me he has no right against me because his right belongs to me too (I couldn't go againts myself).

Rouseau belived that a man may have all that he needs to live (state of nature) but that he should not take any more land for example then he needs for 'subsistence', and if he does it should be throuhg hard work and it should be legitimate.

We are biologically similar to animals but we differ in that we have general will, free choice, ethics and a morality structure. Roussea believes that giving up a persons freedom is giving up what makes them human and he says in the social contract that 'to remove freedom from a man's will is to take away the morality from his acts'.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kirkjasto (online) (last accessed 13 November 2009). Available at: http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/mshelley.htm

youtube (online) (last accessed 13 November 2009). Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlJFKJXHSvU

youtube (online) (last accessed 13 November 2009). Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnXhRsFXSQk&NR=1

constitution (online) (last accessed 14 November 2009). Available at: http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm

Wordle, Addison; the adventures of a shilling

2009-11-11T15:25:00.000Z

title="Wordle: Addison; the adventures of the shilling"> src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/1323080/Addison%3B_the_adventures_of_the_shilling"
alt="Wordle: Addison; the adventures of the shilling"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">

Wordle, John Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

2009-11-11T15:21:00.001Z

title="Wordle: John Locke: An essay concerning human understanding"> src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/1323062/John_Locke%3A_An_essay_concerning_human_understanding"
alt="Wordle: John Locke: An essay concerning human understanding"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">

384 BC - 322 BC: Aristotle

2009-11-04T19:02:00.000Z

Aristotle

The Greek with an impact:

Aristotle had ideas including metaphysics, ethics, politics, deductive logic and physics. He had a great impact to the people of his time and his impact stayed until others such as Descartes (1600's) came along much later and suceeded in disproving some of his theories as science advanced.

Russell writes that we need to look at Aristotle in the context of those who came before him and those who suceeded him, in both lights his achievements and later being disproved are equaly gigantic. Russell writes that 'it was two thousand years before the world produced any philosopher who could be regarded as approximately his equal' (Russell 1946). It is interesting to learn that Aristotle became a student of Plato at the age of eighteen and remained his pupil until Plato dies twenty years later (348-7 B.C). Thirteen years old Alexander then became the pupil of Aristotle, people like to think that in each case the elder influenced the pupil although great differences can be spotted. Apparently Alexandar was quite horrible in nature, probably forced by his father to take instruction from Aristotle and therefore having a bad attitude about it. Russell argues that Alexander's arrogance or drunken behaviour couldn't have possibly come from Aristotle.

Aristotle was so different to those who went before him, he wrote like a proffesor and he divided his ideas into more structured methods of readership. Russell writes that 'the Orphic elements in Plato are watered down in Aristotle and mixed with a strong dose of common sense' and that 'Aristotle's metaphysics, roughly speaking, may be described as Plato diluted by common sense' (Russell 1946). This is difficult because Plato's work and sound judgent don't blend very well together.

My understanding of Aristotle's doctrine is a divide between adjectives (descriptions) and propper names (real substantial things). For example a person can exist without playing with barbie dolls but a person can't exist without doing something. Same as a descriptive word such as gentleness cannot be without some sort of subject. These syntactical differences can then be understood in a metaphysical manner; substances and universals. This builds onto ideas of matter and form, ' in the case of a calm sea, water is the matter and smoothness is the form' (Russell 1946).

Aristotle felt that form cannot exist without matter and matter cannot exist without form and that everything consists of matter and form.

Bibliography:

Gap System. (online) (last accsessed 4 November 2009). Available at:
http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Mathematicians/Aristotle.html

Russell, B (1946) History of Western Philosophy London: Routledge. Pages 157, 159, 162,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peRqNZ4Tpm0

1478-1535: More

2009-11-04T18:31:00.000Z

Sir Thomas More

More is remembered for refusing to sign the Act of Supremacy and therefore accused of committing high treason to King Henry the VIII and was executed, I admire his courage to remain steadfast in what he believed to be true but find his ideas on Utopia to be very strange and incoherent; the place sounds so boring. However I appreciate that these ideas were routed in trying to create peace within society; 'What you cannot turn to good, you must at least make as little bad as you can' Utopia, Bk. 1. (1516).

Bibliography

Luminarian (online) (last accessed 4 November 2009) Available at:
http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tmore.htm

1466-1536: Erasmus

2009-11-04T17:20:00.000Z

Erasmus.

The illegitimate son of the priest

Erasmus was intellectually brilliant but also very humble and witty. Erasmus and More are both products of the northon Renaissance. Russell says that neiher were philosophers 'in the strict sense of the word' (Russell 1946) but they are important figures in the pre-revolutionary times; they helped to react againts scholasticism which is a strong Christian idealogy based on Aristotle.

Erasmus surpassed his schoolmaster in Latin. He attented the University of Paris for a while but didn't find his time there to be helpful. Erasmus didn't actually enjoy philosophy, Plato or Aristotle.

He discovered the pleasure in 'kissing girls' (Russell 1946) in the year 1499. This is when he made friends with More 'who encouraged him to undertake serious work' (Russell 1946). Erasmus wanted to comment on the Bible but realised that he needed Greek, so in 1550 he set out to learn some, he was fluent after two years of study. He worked on some translations, tried to learn Hebrew but 'gave it up' (Russell 1946).

Erasmus wrote a book 'The Praise of Folly', folly is impersonated as a woman who sings her own praises and expresses that happiness is found through loving oneself. Erasmus also makes fun of national pride in his writing; those who get happiness from their own conceited selves.There are some pieces of writing that suggest that Erasmus would have welcomed the Reformation, this is however not so. His book concludes with the statement that 'true religion is a form of Folly' (Russell 1946)

Bibliography:

Russel,B (1946). The History of Western Philosophy. London: Routledge. Page 472, 473, 474

RENAISSANCE HUMANISM, CATHOLICISM,
AND THOMAS MORE (online) (last accessed 4 November 2009). Available at:
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://artsweb.uwaterloo.ca/~j4rodger/moreTOPIA/erasmus.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://artsweb.uwaterloo.ca/~j4rodger/moreTOPIA/humanism.html&usg=__4nBdR3znnHUAqhwxgQCfgsnFGuQ=&h=450&w=342&sz=60&hl=en&start=2&sig2=y54yyoAE4XpShgoYHtjAag&tbnid=WYxdWUSNPex8tM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3Derasmus%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG&ei=ScbxSoTKHobWmgOJosmXDQ

1469-1527: Machiavelli

2009-11-04T16:57:00.000Z

Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli the Florentine

This man was a political philosopher. His ideas were scientifically and empirically based on his own experiences. Russell states that ‘much of the conventional obloquy attached to his name is due to the indignation of hypocrites who hate the frank avowal of evil-doing’ (Russell 1946). I think that this is in the context of Machiavelli’s bad reputation. He wrote the book ‘The Prince’ in which he suggests that princes should only do things if it pays to do so.

Savonarola ruled Florence when Machiavelli was in his twenties. The ruler was executed and this had a great impact on Machiavelli, following this in 1498 he got a post in the government and was much involved until the restoration of the Medici in 1512, Machiavelli was against them and as such was arrested. He was given permission to live in the countryside, he became and author and wrote The Prince. Russell says that the book was ‘dedicated to Lorenzo the Second, since he hope (vainly, as it proved) to win the favour of the Medici’ (Russell 1946).

Machiavelli also wrote ‘Discourses’ which is a much more liberal piece of work. Russell writes that ‘those who do not also read the ‘Discourses’ are likely to get a very one sided view of his doctrine’ (Russell 1946).

‘The Prince’ aims to look at the current events of Machiavelli’s own times, a time when power was very corrupt and ‘few rulers were legitimate’ (Russell 1946). Everyone was very cruel and less shocked about being cruel. Russell thinks that today we would see Machiavelli as an ‘artistic connoisseur in statecraft’ (Russell 1946).

Russell says that Machiavelli was ‘intimately acquainted with his villainies’ (Russell 1946). I think that this means that he was not afraid of his own evil nature, of his own natural baseness and vicious acts but rather understood them deeply. He felt that religion had a purpose not in truth and virtue but as a thing that joined people together, Russell calls it a ‘social cement’ (Russell 1946).

Bibliography

Russell, B (1946) History of Western Philosophy. London: Routledge pages 464, 465, 466, 467.

Gutenburg the Goldsmith and the Press

2009-11-04T14:14:00.000Z

This inventor was born in Germany and he was a goldsmith until he invented the first printing press with movable type and advanced mechanisation. It was so successful that people used it until the end of the 20Th Century. Before Mr. G people used block printing and movable clay type and xylography.

The beauty of the printing press was not only mass production but also standardisation, we all know that a mouth to mouth story passed on through generations or a story read by one and retold by another loses it's exactitude.

Bibliography

About.com:inventors (online) (last accessed 4 November 2009). Available at :
http://inventors.about.com/od/gstartinventors/a/Gutenberg.htm

The Great Idea Finder (online) (last accessed 4 November 2009). Available at :
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/printpress.htm

Arrogance of Addison; order is what makes things intelligible (recap of week six seminar)

2009-11-03T17:05:00.000Z

Addison felt that publishing was a great way to spread ideas of religion and the universe to the common man. He felt that the writer should be clear and precise; organised in his thoughts and aim to please the reader not himself. He encouraged writers to keep their work energetic for the reader. This is all very well considering that the low of thirty and high of sixty percent of the people of his time could read, i.e. he was unable to reach all the masses because of the illiteracy.

'Spectator 476' (http://essays.quotidiana.org/addison/spectator_no_476/) examines in contrast different writing styles; the order or disorder in approach. Following a skeleton of structure to base your work upon as a writer is said to be much easier for the reader to understand, these ideas can apply to essay writing as a student. Knowing a lot but not having the necessary skill to present it well might make you less of an intellectual than someone who has fewer facts but presents them in an intelligible manner. Looking at the aspect of gathering information for modern day journalism I think that this concept is a good thing to keep in mind. It is not only about the content; it is the representation of the content. Addison is quite rude in criticising the writers that are not straight to the point saying that they only see spots and blemishes, he himself was a popular author. Addison appeared to appreciate the work of others, so was that sincere or sarcastic?

Addison's essay about laughter (http://essays.quotidiana.org/addison/laughter_1/) is philosophical. He presents two contrasting arguments, that laughter is good but that it is also bad. Laughter can be considered a defect in the construction of human identity. Work of the great past artists can be considered to be more pristine because they laughed less and focused more. Among academics today this is still considered to be true. The heavy academics are deeply serious whilst a shop worker might have a jolly giggle at every advantageous opportunity. Addison says that humour is good for relaxation therefore good for society but that it can soften the human mind.

I think that you could say that Addison was racist or certainly xenophobic. He targeted foreigners in his writing in an attitude of mockery and superiority. His writing style also consists of sarcasm and dry humour, some of his work is very funny until you pause to consider whether he is being serious at which point it could be considered entirely self praising and arrogant. In the essay about the shilling http://essays.quotidiana.org/addison/adventures_of_a_shilling/) Addison comments on the world and its trade. He mentions his friend’s view on the extreme nature of money’s being passed from hand to hand around the world relating ‘I defy (says he) any of these active persons to produce half the adventures that this twelvepenny piece has been engaged in’. This attitude of trade being too good to be true or too far fetched is adopted in his writing suggesting that he found the idea ridiculous.

Addison suggests a hate for superstition, alcohol, marriage, the army and the habitual speed and increase of worldwide trade. In the 'Royal Exchange' he speaks of intent dislike for the tastes for luxury that people began to acquire, he didn't like the commercial attitude of the merchants. Why need things that do not come from Britain? He found trade to be selfish, flamboyant and self obsessed. He felt that the by disturbing nature we defy it, and go against it. He believed in the loyalty to one's own country. He is daring in saying that he is unsure if people will agree with him. He says that it is impossible to be popular all the time. He had to change method to hold interest.

Could we say that the writings of Addison are similar or different to those of Locke? I think that Locke is a lot more conversational talking to his friends while Addison attacks more general matters and ideas. Do you think that Hobbes was an influence on Addison because he came before him? Hobbes’s state of nature is that we are bad; does this idea come through in Addison's work? It is clear that he finds the school of politics unclear, he hates extravagance, he rather believed in good manners and conduct.

In conclusion conversation is a lot more immediate than written text and it is therefore imperative that it is clear and comprehensible. Written work is less translucent; it can be checked. Written work also seems to immediately enter a realm of more assumed authority. People base their surety of something to be true with such phrases as 'Oh but I read it in the paper this morning'. A journalist needs to write with an understanding of both sides of the argument. Our seminar leader called this 'sitting on the fence with authority' allowing people to make their own decisions. A good writer needs to be able to adjust his or her writing to suit a particular readership; one must always consider who their audience is and target them appropriately. What’s on my mind? How do I make it understandable?

Bibliography:

Literacy (online) (last accessed 4 November 2009). Available at:
http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/print_culture/literacy

The horror bestseller of the 1500's: Fox's Book of Martyrs

2009-10-27T20:31:00.000Z

These are the horror stories of the Catholic inquisition that people would read for entertainment with their little candles. It is definatly a piece of work that paints that catholics in a bad light. One reads of people such as Willian Tyndale who was burnt at the stake for translating the New Testement into English so that the common man could read it. Or John Bunyan the author of 'A Pilgrims Progress' who was arrested for preaching without a license.

'Doctor Who'; the journeying through past times in a Journalism lecture

2009-10-27T19:43:00.000Z

Chris Horrie taught today's lecture and provided some amusement in describing the clothing that the people of Joseph Addison's time would have worn, acute descriptions to their very tall wigs for example. In the 1600's and early 1700's there was an immense amount of focus on insincere politeness, all the men bowing and making gestures in their French style silks, jewels, and wigs. Chris 'acted out' what sort of elaborate insults would have been devised in such times and we learnt how Joseph Addison's writings mocked current affairs with his use entertaining description as a writing style. My favourite of Addison's essays is the one about the Shilling that goes travelling around the world as an illustration of the trade of those times. Chris showed us another essay where Addison again comments on trade, he states how a woman's complete outfit 'has seen one hundred climates' for example. Addison can come across as quite xenophobic in his writing, their is also an air of superiority in his tone.

Joseph Addison's writings are the first western journalism. Addison writes with dry humour and a sarcastic undertone. He wrote in the time of the Restoration of Charles the II. Americans today are obsessed with the British history, culture and politics of the 1600's and early 1700's because it is what they based their republic on. As such it is actually easier to get hold of Addison's works in America rather than here in England. The real connection between England and America is the writings of John Locke and the reason why it is important for us to look at this 'American' element of history is because contemporary journalism today is essentially American.

It was interesting to learn that Addison mocked empiricists and that economics today basically comes out of empiricism. Chris Horrie used an example out of one of the student's bottle's of water asking why an elite brand name car is more expensive than water, when if you don't drink water you die and if you don't have a car you are ok? Why is water 60,000 times more expensive than a car? why not 70,000 times more expensive? Economics then breaks down each step and answers why, this is closelt linked to research and experience which is essentially empericism. Not how the two words are similar as well.

I am going to end this post with Chris's definition of journalism 'journalism is a business of turning information into money, or selling information'. This could be selling hard or factual news (eg. price of gold or the exchange rate) or more gossip news (like Britney Spear's latest diet), but it is information that peopl want and will pay for. The most you can really get for a newspaper, for example something like the Financial Times is £2 but if a million people want to buy it, you are in business.

The Romantic Movement

2009-10-26T14:38:00.000Z

From the eighteenth century to present times everything from art, music and literature to philosophy and politics was greatly influenced by what is names the Romantic Movement, a movement so powerfully influential that even people who resisted it were prone to it. The upper class or educated French who had taste appreciated focusing on emotion, particularly that of sympathy. They had pity on the poor and aimed to live quiet simple lives themselves rather than be involved with the 'corruption of courts' (Russell 1946, p . 543).

Rousseau was a pure democratic in every sense, he pleaded for sensibility. He lived a large part of his life very simply, Russell describes him as a 'vagabond'. The romantics had morals built on very different ideas from those before them. The year 1660 was a time of war between religions, intelligence was admired as were manners and 'prudence was regarded as the supreme virtue' (Russell 1964, p . 544). By the year 1815 everything was so safe that it was boring. In the nineteenth century there was a revolt against the monarchy and aristocracy and people traded the aesthetic for things that were useful instead (the philosophy of utilitarianism came about). The romantics wanted exciting individual lives rather than peace for the majority, they were interested in mystery, ghosts, pirates, haunted old buildings, and the occult. This obviously means that the realists were very much against romanticism. Jane Austen expresses her dislike of the romanticists through humour in her books Northanger Abbey and Sense and Sensibility.

The romantics were interested in exploring very remote places, in terms of Geography they found Xanadu in China and loved it because it was ancient. Although romanticism started with Rousseau, the first romanticists were German. Romanticism in England started through books, the writings of satirists, Blake, and Coleridge. Romanticism had a pause in England (because people hated the Revolution) but was revived by authors such as Byron, Shelley and Keats.

I think that there is evidence to show that the psychology of the romantics was largely focused on passionate emotion a lot of which were not constructive a lot of which was anti social. There was a lot of focus on the individual, what Russell calls 'self-interest'. This sense of self rebelled against society's 'social bounds', a political situation that sums up the Romantic period, 'self development was proclaimed as the fundamental principle of ethics' (Russell 1964, p . 448).

Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' Book 3 Part 1 Chapter 12: Philosophical Liberalism

2009-10-15T12:43:00.000+01:00

I feel that this chapter discusses the rise of freedom within politics. There is a truth between the two extremes of theories (thoughts, ideas) and social circumstance’s practice. When ones begins to ask; what is cause and what is effect, this is a ‘futile’ method of philosophical exploration.

Liberalism began in England and Holland; this was due to logical protestant reasoning and not anything of a fanatical nature. It was a time when the religious wars were regarded as ‘silly’ (page 621). Early liberalism favoured the middle class over the aristocracy and it was ‘optimistic’, ‘energetic’, ‘philosophic’; growing forces of victory.

The philosophers of Greece, for example Aristotle were not individualists, they saw a single man as merely a member of the greater and more important community -science demands a social structure. We can however trace and look at how individualism ‘penetrated’ (page 622) through later. Descartes said ‘I think therefore I am’. There was a new movement by which individualism was viewed as the extension from the intellectual sphere to that of the passions. Byron was the poet; Fiche, Carlyle and Nietzon were the philosophers of this movement (anarchism). The most ‘comprehensive’ statement made by a philosopher of these times was made by John Locke who was the most ‘profound’, and most ‘influential’ (page 624). It is plain to see from these statements that Russell approves highly of John Locke.

Note that during this period of change in thinking there was also a dispute between monarchy and parliament.

History and Context of Journalism Lecture 2 (week 3) with Brian: Looking at John Locke and Newton

2009-10-13T22:02:00.000+01:00

The lecture commenced with a recap on what we have covered so far. We have looked at the Renaissance when people looked back to the Greek philosophers; this is when Aristotle dominated intellectual thought. People then moved not the influence of Machiavelli (also known as the Dark Prince) why believed that it all very well to want to do good, but that if you wanted to be a great ruler you had to be cruel and harsh to order your followers into obedience. Hobbes than spoke of the state of nature, what the world was like before Government. He spoke of a post apocalyptic world. He said that the world would be vile and dangerous without a King. And that people would elect a ruler (which is what happened in the bible 1 Kings?). The elected King would then do whatever he wanted anyway which was the beginning of the social contract. Hobbes said that once the people signed the social contract the King would still be dominant in his rule but that this was still better than the stage of nature, where there would be continuous war. Descartes was the first ‘modern’ philosopher. He asked if there were things that he believed to be true that were in fact not true. He wanted to change the intellectual society if his time, he wanted to base things on a rock beyond doubt. His ideas used the phrase ‘it is possible’ to support his argument in doubting things. Brain used the example of knowing one’s age; perhaps your mom lied about your age, would she do this no but is it possible yes? One could argue ‘but I know my age because I have seen my birth certificate’. False birth certificates exist, so is yours false? Probably not, but is possible that it could be false? Yes there is that possibility. We do not know for certain. Descartes came to the conclusion that if he stopped thinking he would stop existing, that if we strip everything away all that we have is what’s left in our minds. This is how he came up with the stamen ‘’I think therefore I am’. Descartes asked about reality and what we perceive to be real. With regards to the subject of God, if God is seen as superior and we are seen to be inferior, how is it possible for something inferior (for example an ant) to understand a superior being (for example a human). How can we grasp the idea of something that is 100% perfect? The only way that we could have this idea is if God implanted the idea originally. There are two important things to remember about Descartes: firstly he doubted everything which would have made him a difficult person to live with, but this approach to life is exactly what is required for good journalism. Secondly He believed in innate ideas that things were there before he was able to experience them, the idea before the entity or substance.

John Locke lived from 1682-1704. He was someone who valued experience over innate ideas. He was very influential in political events. He was a product of his time, he was in the right place at the right time to write about the events experienced by himself. He moved the social contract from Hobbes. He lived though a time when war was raging. Catholic kings believed in the divine right of kings, that they could no wrong because God had ordained them. There was a civil war in England from 1641-1651, and after that Cromwell rules as a dictator. In the year 1660 Charles the second, a protestant King, was restored to the thrown. He had no one but James the second as an heir to the thrown, the problem was that James was a devout Catholic and this concerned the people. In the years 1678-1681 John Locke was much involved with the Exclusion Bill Crisis, to try and prevent James the second fro taking the thrown. James did however rule from 1685 until 1688 when William of Orange ruled after the Glorious Revolution. Locke’s father fought in the parliamentary army against the royalists. Locke fled o Holland in 1683, he was seen as a dangerous man. Why was Locke so important? There were two big ideas at the time. The first being that he did not agree with the divine right of kings which stated that kings descended from Adam and had a direct contract with God and are therefore the most virtuous to rule the country. Others (like Hobbes) believed that the power should be decided by the people although they did need a ruler. Note that Hobbes write the book entitled ‘Leviathan’ where he questions how society can be organised in the best possible way. The second of Locke’s big ideas is to do with the social contract, this is the idea contrary to the catholic idea of divine rights of kings. It is based on Genesis: ‘’let them rule over the fish of the sea’’. Locke managed to oppose both James the second and Hobbes.

Locke was more optimistic about humanity than Hobbes, and his state of nature was also very different to that of Hobbes. Hobbes thought that everyone acted out of self interest whereas Locke believes that we were created by an all powerful all good God and that and that we were created with the capacity to understand things so that we could reason what is right or wrong. Locke was a great believer in property, a man’s right to property and natural laws regarding the protection of ones property even to the extent of killing someone in self defence. Moral laws are not in our brains but our brains are capable of discovering them. Brian shares how it is important to study Lock’es historical background because it is what shaped him. His idea was to have a government by consent, but every individual responding to their own internal moral rules and values. If two people argue against each other, both believing according to their moral laws that they are correct, the government is the thing that determines who wins the argument; this is when the government is needed. People however must keep their rights. Locke was interested in a society that was fair. Locke said that taxes shouldn't’t be levied without consent. He did not believe in the woman's vote and did have a theory of slavery so although an enlightened man he did have his faults. Locke felt that if the King had broken the natural law the people then had a right to revolution, this was in turn, their natural right. These ideas were a manual for the American Revolution and used in the American Constitution. We have the right to human understanding, Locke says we can be born blank but with the capability to understand things.

Innate Ideas

Plato’s forms, where the soul becomes aware of the Forms and so had knowledge before birth is an example of an innate idea. Similarly Descartes had a belief in the immortal soul with the innate ideas imprinted into it by God. Locke however, thought that experience through the sense combined with reason is what produces ideas. When matters of faith go beyond reason and experience individuals should be guided by individual reason and experience. Locke believed that individuals should ave individual revelations from God but that people are not to impose them on others. People should keep their revelations to themselves, and they should check them with reason. God created reason, if something goes against reason then it also goes against God. Locke said that religion should be separate from the government.

Newton

Newton was an unloved man, he never married, and his work was very solitary. When he was at University the plague broke out so he had to spend two years away. He spent these two years in a house alone, working. In these two single years he discovered what people have later said where the most influential things in history. He discovered the law of gravity, the three laws of motion,.m he created the infinitesimal calculus and began experimenting with light and modern optics. Newton hid these ideas for a long time. Eventually he showed his professor who actually gave up his chair for his student, the genius. Newton was eventually persuaded top wrote the book ‘Principia’. He explained how the earth is not the centre, but that it goes around the sun. That the earth is actually small and insignificant as compared to the whole universe. This fact originated as an idea by Copernicus, developed and explained by Kepler but only proved by Newton. Newton said that man can actually understand the Universe, it is no longer something that only God can understand. Newton believed that the universe demonstrated Gods;s freedom and Omnipotence . To the Cartesian people it sounded like Newton was speaking of ‘magic; and that he did not give enough fact, he never explained why. He would say that it was none of his business . Newton himself was actually religious and obsessed with the book of Revelations. Newton saw his discoveries as the rules God put down . Newton was able to explain and demonstrate how these amazing rules worked. Newton said that if science does not know something it should say so and be honest. Why should we tell God how the universe should be? If God is perfect then we can discover the world but it is not our place to question it.

Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' Book 3 Part 1 Chapter 10: Spinoza

2009-10-12T18:32:00.001+01:00

Spinoza's work ('Ethics') was published after his death. He argues that scripture can be interpreted to coincide with 'liberal theology'. He believed that there is no right or wrong. His book tackles metaphysics, psychology of passion and will and the ethics on which these two are based. Spinoza believed in logic; God's specific manifestation as a part of this.

Spinonza says that sin does not exist when viewed as a part of the overall whole. He thought that the human mind had an adequate understanding of God. All 'wrong action', is because of 'intellectual error'. The wise man endeavours to see the world as God sees it. Evil only exists in the parts of the world that consider itself to be self-subsistence. Spinoza objected to the emotions considered to be passions, seeing them as bad, I think that this is because pasionate motion caneasily block out all logical thought.

Spinoza believed that the intellectual love of God can bring joy but that personal survival after death is an 'illusion'.

His model was that facts must be recorded through observation and reason, and life dominated by a single passion is too narrow.

Spinoza lived from 1682 to 1677 and he is known as the most loved philosopher, he lived a good life. He was intellectually passed by others but always had the strongest ethics and morals. He neither fitted into the Jewish or Christian categories, his ideas were centered around God but he was considered to be an atheist. Leibniz even lied about his friendship with Spinoza; it seemed that people didn't want to be associated with him. Spinoza lived the simple life (cleaning lenses) and died at the age of forty-three.

Studying Semiotics in Media Studies; Analisis of Evian Mermaid Advertisment

2009-10-12T18:10:00.000+01:00

In the book 'Odyssey' the sailers are enticed and drowned by the mermaids. One could say that this underlying history is the symbol that entices the consumer into buying a product that cannot be all that different from another similar product. It is also something that can be reached at any kitchen tap anyway; it's all water.

The colour and specific shade of blue suggest a calm and peaceful tranquility. This colour also suggesta clear and clean purity that is fresh and invigorating. Who is it targetting? I think that it targets the health conscious woman , she is a pretty mermaid with clear and healthy skin, flowing blond hair; her belly button adds to the anatomy of the human form just as the tail depicts her mermaid nature.

Note that the water is very still, there is no rush, no waves, no other, marine life (an octopus's entangled tenticles or a squids black ink could suggest a more chaotic feeling if it were depicted). Perhaps this is to suggest that Evian specialises in still mineral water as opposed to carbonated water.

She is in water, she is selling water, it's all about water. My only criticism would be that she is in sea water, and we wouldn't want to drink that!

The word 'L'original' depicts the french origin of Evian water, the french alps and purity of stream water, the fact that the air is clear up high in the mountains. The French are also renowned for a more exotic and stylish cultural taste. The term 'original' in itself suggests a historical aspect to Evian, suggesting why it could perhaps be better than other water.

My Seminar Paper Notes

2009-10-06T19:51:00.000+01:00

Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy'. Book Three Part One Chapters 1-9; A Summary

The survival of the fittest

The first chapter incorporates a summary of the comparison between the 'modern' and medieval worlds. Firstly the church, it's view, constraints and influence on society is diminishing and secondly, science is growing. I title it 'survival of the fittest', Russell describes this season of history as the 'long fight between science and dogma' (page 512). What is dogma? Why does Russell associate religion with such a term? Dogma is when a collection of religious beliefs or doctrines is deemed to be true or authorised without any given substantial proof. However what are we if we do not believe in something? Science demands a close social structure, therefore against individualism. Did the rise of science bring along some blind followers, the individual stand up and things for himself. Russell also explains that science itself is incomplete, it tells man that he can perform all these great wonders, but not what wonders specifically. Therefore, is science really that more direct, specific and factual than religion?

In the beginning

This second chapter explains how the renaissance started in Florence, Italy. It was 'not a popular movement' (page 521) because it encouraged a way of thinking that had been already stamped out. The renaissance was the revival of the classic Greek thinkers, for example the study of Plato was revived. 'Florence was the most civilized city in the world' (page 517), it is interesting that the place deemed most refined should be the start of the uproar; change in society.

Only do it if it serves you

Here in chapter three we learn that 1513 was the year that the renaissance died, what was left behind? Well it was a time when few rulers were legitimate. Brutus believed that religion should have a place in the state as a 'social cement' , that the Romans were right to pretend to believe. But the church itself had undermined belief through evil conduct. God may be divine, pure and perfect but mankind is corrupt. People made a bad name for the church. For example this is the time when the book 'The Prince' was written stating that 'princes should only keep faith when it pays to do so' (page 528) and this is exactly what I mean by corruption. Men began to forgive anything as long as it paid. What was left after the Renaissance? The reformation began with the influence of Luther, originating north of the Alps, far from where the Renaissance began.

How the one influenced the other

Chapter four discusses Erasmus and Sir Thomas More and how these two men influenced each other. The Renaissance began later in northern countries and then got 'entangled' with the reformation. There was actually, interestingly a short space of time in the 16th Century when there was no theological controversy, rather a lot of learning. Erasmus edited a New Testament into a revised Latin translation,. Erasmus loved Latin and was very skilled in the language. He also wrote 'The Folly of Praise' . In the book he suggests that true religion is folly. He had an influence on English education because believed in the original form, only Greek or Latin texts. Russell believes that Thomas More was 'more admirable than Erasmus' (page 538). but less important. More thought of joining the order but was 'INFLUENCED BY ERASMUS' (page 538). More did law instead and went onto work for King Henry VIII. He won the King's favour up until he didn't agree with Henry divorcing Catherine of Aregon for Anne Boleyn. He resigned in 1532 and was later accused of high treason when he didn't sign the Act of Supremacy and was beheaded.

Rebellion

Chapter five discusses the reformation and counter reformation. The civilized nations, such as the Jesuits (largest Roman Catholic order) strongly rebelled against these movements. There was a change in Catholic ides, for example purgery. Jesuits believed in faith and works while protestants believed in faith alone.

Science; the great four

Chapter six (appropriately titled 'The Rise of Science') talks about the work of 1. Newton, 2. Copericus, 3.Kepler and 4. Galileo. Russell states 'its not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him but how and why he believes' (page 549). Newton believed that there was a 'need for God to set mechanism working'. According to Newton God spoke the law of gravity initially and then everything worked without him. Men wanted success, rather than being professed sinners every Sunday. Why need God? Science made mankind feel important, intelligent, liberal; it made people feel good. Galileo is renowned for his improvements to the telescope which showed him the phases of Venus and facts about Jupitar. He is known as the father of science.

The man who stuffed a chicken with snow

Francis Bacon (chapter 7) had a political career that ended badly, he was however able to continue being an influence on society.
He died an interesting death, he believed in 'hands on' study, observation and discovery, devoting his life to it. He froze to death whilst attempting to stuff a dead chicken with snow.

Bees

Hobbes was an empiricist so he believed in knowledge gained through experience. However he was also intently fond of the mathematical method. There were two opposing ideas, one of pure English empiricism where maths was not an influence and people lost sight of the true 'scientific method', and the other being the philosophy of 'pure mathematics' without experience (page 531). Hobbes was the first empiricist of those times who was open to mathematics. Most of his inspiration came from Galileo rather than Bacon.

Hobbes though that men should live like bees. Bees all live in the same beehive, they do not question their position, they do not expect more from their position and they do not question the leadership with their own reasoning. The bees make a covenant, agreeing to obey those in power.

Meditating in the oven

We come to chapter 9.

Descartes lived from 1596-1650. The man who was attacked because his 'views led to athiesm', he was opposed by the empirisict groups (including Hobbes) because of his strong mathematical interest and influence. He is rembered as the founder of modern philosophy because he proved many of the theories of Aristotle, a previously acclaimed philosopher, to be wrong. Hid ideas were daring, fresh, original and better informed. He was not particularly social, in fact he spent two years meditating alone. He could only think if he were warm and spent much time in the oven. Descartes found the bridge between algebra and geometry,a great step in mathematics because it brought about calculus.

Berrand Russel on 'The Rise of Science' with Chris Horrie (second part of first History and Context of Journalism lecture)

2009-09-29T22:32:00.000+01:00

Nature of truth.

What can be believed?

Russell was a liberal, most of his work was to do with logic and mathematics. He was a celebrity in his time. On a less positive note his work was also known to be lecherous, lustful, venerous, and erotomaniac (note that he never actually wrote anything on the subject of sex). He is in fact even accused of being responsible for Hitler and Starlin, by influencing them. He was a 'magician'.

Ludwig Wittgenstein was Russell's favourite pupil. Ludwig said that logic was useless, intention is more important. Logic was a system of thought invented by Aristotle; logic was taught as a tool by which you learnt everything.

Wittgenstein did not agree with Aristotle's idea on syllogistic logic. This idea incorporates the proposition, or thing closet to the truth, as the conclusion inferred with two others.

Chris Horrie showed on of Aristotle's example:

All men are mortal
Scarates is a man
(Therefore) Socrates is a mortal

Wittengenstein believed that language had a life of it's own as a WHOLE (similair to George Orwall's 1984 with 'newspeak'). Wittegnstein said something to the effect of 'if you cannot express and idea in words it is not an idea' and 'if we cannot speak we should be silent'. Logic is merely a game, a language game, a physcological game. NOT a tool for knowledge as Aristotle said.

Note that Russell is a Atheist. He approves highly of John Locke (which we will delve into soon on in the course).

Chris Horrie shared this idea: Think of a chair, multiple different chairs, yet they fall under the same category. The ideal of a chair only exists in a non material ideal form. The David was the perfect ideal aethstetic beautiful form.

Chris Horrie gave an example of how he would summarise some of Russell's chapters:

GALILEO (1564-1642)

Born on the day that Michelangelo died, and Newton was born on the day that Galileo died. So his life was a link. Galileo spotted what Aristotle got wrong. Galileo wanted facts rather than dogma. He built a telescope, and this is what he saw:

1. A moon with mountains- up till that point it had been deemed perfectly smooth and circular.
2. He saw the phases of Venus and how the Earth is in fact not the centre.
3. He saw the milky way (ie. individual stars) but could not see separate galaxies yet.
4. He saw eleven heavenly objects (counting the moons of Jupiter as well) when there were meant to be only seven (a perfect number)

NEWTON

He used maths to calculate existence. This includes the law of gravity, that objects attract each other according to their matter. This was tested through dropping things off towers, he developed a very consistent method of 'proof'. He was however wrong because he had an insufficient telescope. Now we know that some of his laws do not apply (black spots/holes in space). As an overall thought, note that Russell writes highly of Newton, finding his philosophy on science to be very good.

FRANCIS BACON

He, like Wittegnstein, hates logic. He didn't find it at all conducive. Russell used the term 'straight jacket' to describe Bacon opinion on logic's effect on the developments of science. He wanted to shake of the influence of Aristotle.

THOMAS HOBBES

Hobbes was similar to Machievalli, in his very humanist thinking. He was one of the main philosophers who founded materialism.

DESCARTES

Descartes had a keen interest in form. He was a mathematician focusing on 'reason' and 'form'. He thought that Aristotle was 'a waste of time'. He wanted to clear away all the rubble of the Medieval times. Aristotle believe in natural slavery for example, he honestly believed that it would therefore be cruel to set a slave free for they were deemed to be in captivity. This is a ludicrous idea, and it made Descartes hate Aristotle. In terms of truth and what can be believed, Descartes states that he is certain that he himself exists. He says 'I think therefore I am'. Perhaps thinking about you and what you know and how you know it is the only think that you can be certain of. This is important for journalists (the facts, the assurity). How original are ideas anyway?

PHILOSOPHY AFTER DESCARTES

1. Idealism: how we know what we know? It is true that Consciousness comes before matter, ie 'love makes the world go round'. The Bible has many general/broad trends-idealism.

OR

2. Imperrisism: matter exists first, ie love does not make the world go round, the world makes the world go round.

A TEST TO SEE WHICH CATEGORY YOU FALL UNDER:

Imagine a tree in a forest. There is no living thing near this tree. Nothing at all, not even the smallest ant or lady bug. The tree falls over but no one hears it fall over, no one hears at all. Did the falling tree make a sound? If you say yes you ere on the Imperrisism side, saying that things can exist even without thinking.

One student asked 'what if you respond saying you cant know for sure either way'. Chris Horrie found this to be a very good/interesting question.

First Lecture for the History and Context of Jounalism: The Renaissance (Brain Thorton)

2009-09-29T17:18:00.000+01:00

This lecture began with a half hour of what Chris Horrie calls 'housekeeping', a chat about seminar groups and instruction on how to set up our blog.

Brian Thorton covered the first part of the lecture, discussing the Renaissance. He used this picture pasted here as a basis for his talk. The Painting is by Raphael it is called 'The School of Athens.

'

The painting dates from 1509 and it was hung on the wall of Pope Julias the 2nd. The picture is of Greek thinkers, before Christ. What they spoke about made a lot of sense, but it contradicted the bible, so the Pope included them into Christianity.

This course is meant to give us a history of ideas to use as a basis as an undergraduate student. We start at the Renaissance because it's a perfect fusion of the medieval and the new world. In medieval times it was christian thoughts that dominated educated thinking. Aristotle was interestingly included into this Christian thinking.

The Renaissance started in the 15Th century. It began in Italy, a country in turmoil, individual city states in conflict. Books of Aristotle and Plato were introduced in their original (ie. not translated) forms. These were brought in with people fleeing from Constantinople. All these new ideas, crucial ideas that dominate humanity began to thrive. Artist such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael prospered.

During the Renaissance people felt free to celebrate the human form. The fresh ideas disconcerted Christianity. Christians tried to incorporate these ideas into Christianity, not wishing for the outcome to be that people follow the new ideas (a lot of which made better made sense). Unfortunately it was not 'a good fit'.

Artistic endeavour was broad. Philosophy was rigid. It was a world dominated by God.

Plato believed that this world is like being in a cave where one can only see the shadows of real things. It is possible to go out into the sunshine and experience the reality, one person can escape and that person is the philosopher.

Aristotle was a very strong thinker, it was only when Descartes came that Aristotle's thinking was pushed aside. He is pictured in this painting in the centre next to Plato. Pythagoras, known for his mathematical theory and Heraclitus who spoke a lot about nature. Epicurus believed in pleasure, that pleasure was the absence pf pain in the body and in the mind, Heraclitus's writing was difficult, he only wanted to reach the elite. He often used the symbol of fire, that it changes things. Heraclitus believed that in order to have change you had to have a violent act first. Diogenes believed in a philosophy called Cynicism, to be happy you live as simply as possible, looking at the way that dogs live. He said that he would live like a dog and had no care of manners at all. Diogenes was against convention.

Plato believed in the Divine. Somewhere beyond us, a perfect world. All we see is a tainted shadow of such a world. Whereas his student Aristotle studied biology and believed in observation. Note that Aristotle in turn was tutor to Alexander the Great.

The Plato society consisted of the idea that Kings should be philosophers. Utopia is an ideal society developed by Sir Thomas More, it describes a fictional place where everyone wears the same clothes and has to swap houses ever so often. The idea is based on communal sharing and the sharing of riches. Tollomi had the idea of other space objects revolving around the earth, the earth being the centre of the universe. This idea was not questioned.

Plato said that if there is God and there is goodness. If God said don't murder, do we not murder because God said so? If so, our lives are based on God's will. Evil and Good are therefore separate from him. If they are separate from Him then He is subject to it as well. This means that we can decide weather God Himself is good or bad.

That is all that Brian Thorton shared, Notes on Chris Horrie's 'The Rise of Science' will follow.

Hello and welcome to me and my blog

2009-09-29T17:06:00.000+01:00

My name is Jenni, I am undergraduate student doing a combined honours degree in Jouralism and Choreography and Dance. I have been asked to keep a blog of journalism lectures as a part of my studies. This blog will include summeries of both lectures and seminars, some individual readings as well as spontaneous sharing of thoughts and expression of ideas. The idea is to capture and record the learning process and share ideas with other students also setting up blogs.