Freud

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

'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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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'

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

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)

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)

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