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.
9 comments:
Excellent stuff Journalism Jenni. I'm about to start mine in a tick lol umm the course is quite hard work by the looks of it but I'm sure I'll gradually adapt to it :) add me on Facebook if you want lol
WOW so cool to get a comment (woot woot). I was not expecting to have to study philosophy and think deep about life for journalism, but its all good really.
I heard that you single journalism students have to learn shorthand and really train in more reporting type skills, and that it's hard (hate feeling like I am missing out on the REAL tricky stuff).
Facebook sounds like a good idea. Better meet you at some point too.
Good luck
jen
Hello Journalism Jenni!
Sounds all so professional!
I love it!
Love your new posts, how exciting and interesting! Looks really clever ;)
I have seen that painting you were talking about, I do think, in Rome. Infact I'm almost sure. hehe.
Raphael apparently painted in the faces of people he knew at the time, in the painting, some of the people thought it amusing, other did not hehe. So the tour guide said.
Anyway, Ciao for now!
I will keep reading regularly :)
Thanks for your compliments Pippa dear. You are fortunate to have seen the painting 'in real life', how authentic!!!
Excellent notes with one or two literal errors - (eg Empiricism). This is more of a report on the content of the lecture (it was long because it was the first one). And very good too and useful for anyone who missed it! My notes are now posted on the journalism website see: http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=106. In the seminar and on the blog you can certainly post your notes, and that will be very useful because I can correct any small errors - or other students can. The fantastic thing about the internet is that all that intelligence and youthful energy in that sweaty lecture theatre can be harassed in the interests of the group as a whole - of course not all people will make an equal contribution, but we can multiply the learning effect enormously... especially if we start linking up with students on other courses, other universities, other countries, other languages... pretty much I think millions of first year students around the world are discussing these topics or something similar - many different perspectives. It is very exciting and although there are worries for students I would give my right arm to be starting as a student now, when so much is changing.
On single hons / professional training in journalism. Single Hons (as we emphasise when people apply) can be really tough because it combines a serious degree (HCJ, Intro to Media) with a standard professional training course (BJTC - external validating body) with very high standards. The majority of BJTC courses are postgraduate (post graduate diploma or MA). One thing to think about is doing a 'fourth year' to get to the MA level (BJTC). On the MA you do very similar stuff on the professional training side to the BA journalism, but you don't do any of the HCJ theoretical study - so it is possible. If you can afford it 3 year general degree, plus a fourth year on a BJTC postgraduate training course is a good way to do it, if you can afford that (four years in higher education = very expensive). You get to the same point in three years with the BA journalism, but it is like getting four years in to three. So there are advantages and disadvantages both ways.
Hello Chris Horrie
I am so delighted to receive your comments. Thank you for pointing out errors. I hope that you and other students will continue to correct any errors on content I post here, I do have terrible tendancies to go off on a tangent.
It is useful to refer to yout notes as well, thank you for the link to that.
As you express, the internet is an amazing learning tool and I so look forward to discussing and debating ideas with others.
Thank you for the information on the single honours route, I would be interested to do the 'fourth year' that you speak of, I think that it would be a good investment, But yes lets see if I can even survive my second week yet.
I find it entirely daunting to be faced with so many big ideas and knowledge that is difficult to grasp, I worry about not being able to understand things; ideas 'going over my head' so to speak. I find John Locke impossible for example. I am however also so excited, there is so much treasure to discover.
With John Locke part of the problem is the antique writing - like Shakespear - but the ideas are pretty simple (and very familiar since his work essentially unlies the constitution of the USA which is why he is a world-historical figure. These are indeed very big daunting ideas which are extremely difficult, so it is perfectly normal and exactly where you should be if you are finding this very hard - it IS hard. If you found any of this easy to understand there would not be much point in doing it surely.
I have studied Shakespeare and even Chaucer before, so I did not think that the old English would be a problem. However with John Locke I find that there are so many elequent words and bits of fancy expression, as well as lot of repition and explaining where he is coming from and how he does not want to be criticised that it's hard to grasp what he is actually on about. For example in the epistle to the reader in commenting on his chosen subject matter he says 'but to confess the truth, I am now too lazy, or too busy, to make it shorter'. I find this an entirely useless thing to tell the reader.
As you say, it is meant to be hard and that is a good thing otherwise there would not be much point in doing it. So I am up for the journey.
Post a Comment