This, for me, was by far the most useful lecture as a question time-style session was run, looking at the key themes, ideas and people of the module in preparation for the final test. These were tackled in essay type questions:
1. What were the main intellectual themes in what is generally called the European Enlightenment?
The Enlightenment involved a change of attitudes to thinking about the individual as the focus for cultural, political and philosophical life. It saw the individual as at odds with the rest of society, with individual rights being restricted, which later developed into Romanticism. One easy way to sum it up is through Descartes' words; "I think therefore I am". It also saw the rise of humanism and the idea of representing actuality and reality rather than an ideal form. This can be seen in the work of Machievelli, Hobbes, Locke, Smith and Aristotle, who said that "man is a measurement of all things".
The Enlightenment was also linked with the rise of science and investigation, wanting to widen our knowledge of how the world works, and philosophical debates into why things are as they are and how they came to be, such as in Rousseau's Social Contract and other such works of the time exploring the "state of nature".
This scientific base meant that it was seen as an attack on religion because all previous ideas about the world had been defined by religion and ideas about how you should think and what you should do are all laid out in religious texts such as the Bible and the Quraan. Copernicus' discovery that, unlike religious thought that the universe revolved around earth and the human race, the solar system in fact revolves around the sun, was also a blow to religion as human importance in the universe was pushed aside. It was intellectual thought and experimentation such as this that helped to characterise the Enlightenment, as the social world changed greatly as we learned more and more about the world around us. Many beliefs that had been around for centuries were now thrown into doubt, causing much controversy and debate.
All of this exploration springs from the Renaissance with the reintroduction of Greek thought and the Classics back into the mainstream. These schools of thought dated to pre-religious times and so challenged religion and God. The Renaissance was very important in the Enlightenment as it bred a love of learning and education.
2. What would a world before government, the state and private property have looked like? Discuss with reference to what you have read for the HJC course.
This is looking at a time before anything was known, often referred to as pre-historic, and what the original state of man would have been, originally based on the Garden of Eden. There were many differing views on the state of nature: Hobbes saw it as a time of anarchy where it was a "war of all against all", with "nature red in tooth and claw". This is in stark contrast with Rousseau's view that human nature is naturally good and "pure" and that natural communities would be formed, with everyone relying on one another, like the "noble savage". Rousseau thought that the advent of private property was like a fall from eden, "then one day a man put up a fence" and that society went downhill from there.
Locke however, saw the state of nature as people having natural freedom and being naturally good, but obeying natural discovered laws to create a fair society, developed through the ability to reason that God gave us. He therefore saw the state as having the role of enforcing individual rights and protecting ownership and property. Hobbes said that a leader was needed to prevent us killing off the race in the state of anarchy, that we need one person to protect us all both from those within our own community and those without. This "mortal God" was needed to save us from ourselves and could do whatever he wanted as long as he protected individual rights, meaning he was a virtual dictator.
My personal view on the state of nature leans towards Hobbes' anarchy, but i think that people would naturally group together and protect each other over time.
3. Briefly Describe the concept of "empiricism" with special reference to John Locke's theory of human understanding.
Empiricism goes back to the idea of epistomology; the theory of theory, thinking about thinking etc. Empiricists such as Smith, Newton and Locke said that everything we know comes from sense data and experience, with no innate ideas. We are born with a blank slate or "tabula rata" and then behave in a naturally scientific way, collecting and processing data.
This is often seen as a national characteristic of Britain and America, this clashes with "Continental Idealism" which says that we do have innate ideas, such as religion. This thought was prevalent in France and to an extent in Germany. It suggests that we can know things "a priori" and that things can be known purely in the mind rather than having to be experienced first hand. As Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am".
Locke's idea was different from both of these. He said that we are born with a blank slate, but given a brain capable of reason by God which enables us to gather and process information and experiences gained by our senses. Therefore, the combination of sense data and ability to reason create knowledge, therefore, as Newton said, the universe is "knowable". On this issue, as with many others, Locke managed to skirt the issue of religion by saying that God gave us this ability, this skirting of the issue is characteristic of his opinion that religion should be private and not made public or involved in politics. This view was greatly influenced by his life experiences and the fact that he was dead set against the "divine right of Kings".
4. Discuss the origins of the periodical press in England. What role did war and trade play in these developments?
Journalism is seen as part of the empiricist movement, about discovering things and sharing information about the world, therefore intricately linked to the Enlightenment and also in synch with Locke's constitution of freedom of discussion and debate. Much journalism at this time was based on new and exiting discoveries enabled by technological advances in travel and was also dominated by the brutalities of events such as the Civil war and its aftermath, especially in Ireland, the European occupation of North America, and the religious wars on the Continent. It was often a mix of fact and fiction, because not much was known for sure about these far-away places. This can be seen in much of Defoe's writing (novelist and journalist) such as Robinson Crusoe.
5. Why, according to Adam Smith, is one country more wealthy than another?
Smith was an empiricist and humanist, with a very amoral attitude, seeing humans as not good or bad but as machines, extending the idea of the universe as a machine (made by God). He had simple ideas of psychology and a kind of law of human nature in that humans strived to avoid pain and increase pleasure, and therefore the economy would develop from these basic instinctual needs to provide comfort and minimise pain, therefore creating efficient systems of making money simply by behaving according to their human nature.
Unlike the popular thought at the time that wealth or poverty were decided by God, Smith said that societies in which free trade was allowed and taxation was low would prosper because the laws would not be going against the laws of human nature. He said that because of the "law of unintended consequences", any laws seeking to control what humans naturally do or strive towards, such as making a living, would simply backfire and not have the intended effect.
Another theory of Smith's is that the "hidden hand in the market" would mean that the natural supply and demand process means that things will work themselves out. If something like health care is needed, people will see this and see that they can make money from it and so exploit this opportunity. Smith said that this happened naturally and that countries that allowed this natural economic growth and movement would be wealthier and have a more equal society than those that restricted trade and instead of governments allowing traders to build up these conveniences, taxed the people and built it themselves who would naturally lag behind and become poorer.
However, if this approach is applied to today's economy, it does not quite work because if the government had not bailed out the banks, the whole economy would have gone into free-fall and crashed. But, Smith's ideas suggest that new ideas and models would come along and create wealth, while commodities and services that are not needed would fail and free up space in the market, therefore the market would work itself out into a more profitable and smooth machine.
Tuesday 8 December 2009
Tuesday 1 December 2009
Seminar on Jonathon Swift ( and a little bit of Smith)
Unfortunately the seminar was cut short because our room was booked out to someone, so we didn't get much done, but here's what we did discuss!
Jonathon Swift was a very contraversial Irish satirist, from the ruling classes with a strong moral centre (contrary to what you may think on first reading of "A Modest Proposal"). During much of his life he was a politician before he began pamphleteering to spread ideas regarding the state of Irish society. Although he was well educated, he wrote in much more straight forward language than many around at the time, so that less educated people could also read it and to ensure that the ideas and debate spread throughout society. He was clearly not writing for intellectuals alone, as they would not exactly have been keen on his satire. Granted, some intellectuals and members of the reading population would have sympathised with his viewpoint, but there would also have been people who would have seen it as sarcastic and petty and not of great importance.
This very fact reflects what he was writing about; a very structured society in which the ordinary people, and the Irish in general, did not have a voice or any say in what happened to the country. At the time, all the power was in the hands of the English, especially those that owned land in Ireland but did not even live there for most of the year. In "A Modest Proposal" Swift tackled this problem with the social structure through his satire, wit and irony. The extended metaphor poked fun at those in power, especially political economists such as Adam Smith. Swift also used paradoxes, such as in the title, and blunt language to add shock factor. The style of the piece also enhances this as it says that poor babies should be eaten in such a matter-of-fact tone of voice, even though this is a truly shocking suggestion. Using this shock method, Swift is trying to stir the waters and force some kind of reform in Ireland. He is pointing out that the reasons for their conflict and struggle are ridiculous and this conflict should not even be happening. He is very much commiserating with the Irish lower class, and telling the politicians that something must be done.
Adam Smith's ideas were mocked by Swift, however one or two of his propositions did make some sense. For example, the idea that the town and the country rely on each other to build wealth does appear to be true, and it is obvious from today's economy that free trade does in fact promote economic expansion and therefore creates wealth, not just for the individual, but for society in general. However, Smith's matter-of-fact, purely analytical point of view is imbalanced: morality must have a place in both politics and economy.
Jonathon Swift was a very contraversial Irish satirist, from the ruling classes with a strong moral centre (contrary to what you may think on first reading of "A Modest Proposal"). During much of his life he was a politician before he began pamphleteering to spread ideas regarding the state of Irish society. Although he was well educated, he wrote in much more straight forward language than many around at the time, so that less educated people could also read it and to ensure that the ideas and debate spread throughout society. He was clearly not writing for intellectuals alone, as they would not exactly have been keen on his satire. Granted, some intellectuals and members of the reading population would have sympathised with his viewpoint, but there would also have been people who would have seen it as sarcastic and petty and not of great importance.
This very fact reflects what he was writing about; a very structured society in which the ordinary people, and the Irish in general, did not have a voice or any say in what happened to the country. At the time, all the power was in the hands of the English, especially those that owned land in Ireland but did not even live there for most of the year. In "A Modest Proposal" Swift tackled this problem with the social structure through his satire, wit and irony. The extended metaphor poked fun at those in power, especially political economists such as Adam Smith. Swift also used paradoxes, such as in the title, and blunt language to add shock factor. The style of the piece also enhances this as it says that poor babies should be eaten in such a matter-of-fact tone of voice, even though this is a truly shocking suggestion. Using this shock method, Swift is trying to stir the waters and force some kind of reform in Ireland. He is pointing out that the reasons for their conflict and struggle are ridiculous and this conflict should not even be happening. He is very much commiserating with the Irish lower class, and telling the politicians that something must be done.
Adam Smith's ideas were mocked by Swift, however one or two of his propositions did make some sense. For example, the idea that the town and the country rely on each other to build wealth does appear to be true, and it is obvious from today's economy that free trade does in fact promote economic expansion and therefore creates wealth, not just for the individual, but for society in general. However, Smith's matter-of-fact, purely analytical point of view is imbalanced: morality must have a place in both politics and economy.
Tuesday 24 November 2009
Lecture on Adam Smith
In this lecture we went through the basic timeline surrounding the publishing of Adam Smith's"Thoery of Moral Sentiments" and "The Wealth of Nations" as well as Jonathon Swifts's "A Model Proposal" which is a satire on the common beliefs of the time, especially those of economists such as Smith.
Smith's thoughts can be summarised as being empiricist and materialist, purely analysing without feeling or sentimentality. He thought that morality was a matter of vanity and self-regard, rather than simple doing good to help others, he saw all acts of kindness as being done in order to either feel better about yourself or have others see you in a better light. Because of this, Smith said, laws that try to restrict people from seeking self interest will fail or create the opposite effect. This theory is known as "the law of unintended consequences", meaning that an action will create unpredictable knock on effects so there is no point in economic planning. Smith said that to be economically succesful (and therefore have a successful society), people must be left to their own devices as they will naturally look for a niche in the market from which to make money.
Along these same lines is Smith's idea that in the natural order of things, there is no such thing as unemployment because the natural instinct of people is to find something to do so that they can make a living. Smith thought that trends towards economic growth and increasing wealth were part of "natural law" and should not be meddled in by the government. He saw society as a machine which naturally evolves into the creation of wealth and the "hidden hand" will naturally encourage this in society. As part of the "hidden hand" theory, Smith saw trade as an innate pleasure and a defining characteristic of humans. This means that by laws of nature, humans want to trade so that they can make a living and a profit, this backs up the idea that organised economies are no good and the government should not try to control them. Smith also says that trade "promotes peace, civility, moderation, toleration, innovation, science and - generally - concern for others" (Chris Horrie) thereby bringing out many positive traits and it is therefore very beneficial.
Unlike a lot of the poeple at the time, Smith recognised slavery as innefficient as the slave can only earn his subsistence and so has no incentive to work hard. However, he saw this as a matter of conformity to universal human nature rather than morality. Despite this, he thought that efficiency could be increased by a division of labour, like a production line, where people work together to make up the parts of the whole and put them together, rather than just one person making all the parts and putting them together.
Smith also said that governments and states are not beneficial to society and in fact often do more harm than good because it holds back economic, and therefore social, progress. He thought that the state's job should be to maintain "peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice" and let the "hidden hand" take care of the economy and social gains needed.
As we will go on to discuss in next week's seminar, Jonathon Swift wrote a satire on economists like Smith which shows, in an understated, moderate and sarcastic way, a very intellectual approach, logically trying to sort out the problem of too many poor children, and going through all the logical reasons why they should and shouldn't become a comodity in the form of meat and leather goods, to the point of absurdity. It shows economists such as Smith as "soulless calculating machines" (Chris Horrie) and is very effective in pointing out the ridiculous nature that Smith's strict empiricism could develop.
Smith's thoughts can be summarised as being empiricist and materialist, purely analysing without feeling or sentimentality. He thought that morality was a matter of vanity and self-regard, rather than simple doing good to help others, he saw all acts of kindness as being done in order to either feel better about yourself or have others see you in a better light. Because of this, Smith said, laws that try to restrict people from seeking self interest will fail or create the opposite effect. This theory is known as "the law of unintended consequences", meaning that an action will create unpredictable knock on effects so there is no point in economic planning. Smith said that to be economically succesful (and therefore have a successful society), people must be left to their own devices as they will naturally look for a niche in the market from which to make money.
Along these same lines is Smith's idea that in the natural order of things, there is no such thing as unemployment because the natural instinct of people is to find something to do so that they can make a living. Smith thought that trends towards economic growth and increasing wealth were part of "natural law" and should not be meddled in by the government. He saw society as a machine which naturally evolves into the creation of wealth and the "hidden hand" will naturally encourage this in society. As part of the "hidden hand" theory, Smith saw trade as an innate pleasure and a defining characteristic of humans. This means that by laws of nature, humans want to trade so that they can make a living and a profit, this backs up the idea that organised economies are no good and the government should not try to control them. Smith also says that trade "promotes peace, civility, moderation, toleration, innovation, science and - generally - concern for others" (Chris Horrie) thereby bringing out many positive traits and it is therefore very beneficial.
Unlike a lot of the poeple at the time, Smith recognised slavery as innefficient as the slave can only earn his subsistence and so has no incentive to work hard. However, he saw this as a matter of conformity to universal human nature rather than morality. Despite this, he thought that efficiency could be increased by a division of labour, like a production line, where people work together to make up the parts of the whole and put them together, rather than just one person making all the parts and putting them together.
Smith also said that governments and states are not beneficial to society and in fact often do more harm than good because it holds back economic, and therefore social, progress. He thought that the state's job should be to maintain "peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice" and let the "hidden hand" take care of the economy and social gains needed.
As we will go on to discuss in next week's seminar, Jonathon Swift wrote a satire on economists like Smith which shows, in an understated, moderate and sarcastic way, a very intellectual approach, logically trying to sort out the problem of too many poor children, and going through all the logical reasons why they should and shouldn't become a comodity in the form of meat and leather goods, to the point of absurdity. It shows economists such as Smith as "soulless calculating machines" (Chris Horrie) and is very effective in pointing out the ridiculous nature that Smith's strict empiricism could develop.
Tuesday 10 November 2009
Rousseau and the Romantics
Rousseau
A brief biography:
He was born in 1712 in Geneva and lived most of his life on the breadline, travelling from plave to place. He had many associations with elderly female aristocrats but was as good as married to a servant who was not generally considered attractive and was illiterate with no education to speak of. She has been described as adulterous and ugly and no-one could understand why Rousseau stayed with her. They had 5 children together, but Rousseau took each of them to an orphanage. One of his first pieces of writing was on how children should be educated (seems rather ironic). Rousseau was by no means rational, rather he was led by his emotions and was very passionate, believing in sentiment rather than practicality or rationality. He dissagreed with Hobbes and Locke on many subjects and had several arguements with Voltaire, especially when he moved to the same city. Rousseau's ideas were extremely influential in the French revolution (as will be shown later). He himself was very influenced by the Greeks and in particular their idea of the "citizen". As the story of Socrates, told by Plato, shows, we are all part of a society and if we take and accept the benefits we therefore have to accept the pitfalls ie, as Socrates was sentenced to death by his society, he must accept it as he had benefitted from the same society.
Basic Principles:
Before looking at the Social Contract, for which Rousseau is most famous, his basic principles must be touched on. Rousseau, like Hobbes and Locke, spoke about a "state of nature", however his view of this was very different to either Hobbes' chaos or Locke's natural laws. Rousseau saw the "state of nature" as going further back, to when we were born free and animalistic, before any kind of society or government came along to distort us and limit our freedom. However, he recognised that society is a necessary evil. Rousseau said that at some point, before society, we entered a contract which meant that government and society arose.
A quick summary of Hobbes' state of nature for comparison:
The natural state is animalistic, destructive and chaotic, so the people came together to put a stop to it by electing a leader with god-like power who had 2 things that he must do and as long as he did these two things, he could do anything else he wanted. These to things were to 1) protect the individuals and 2) protect the country. The most able person was chosen by the people to carry this out, with nothing to do with God. The people handed over all of their rights by entering the contract. Hobbes also said that we are rational beings and through our brains we discover natural rights that are within us and cannot be either given away or taken from us.
A quick summary of Locke's state of nature for comparison:
The natural state is one of goodness, however problems inevitably occur and so an overall power is needed to defend the rights and property of the individual. Locke's primary concern was therefore with property of the individual rather than the collective. This view was very influential in the US constitution.
Rousseau also dissagreed with Locke on the focus of society. Locke saw the focus as the individual and their rights and possessions, with the view that to own things was your right, however Rousseau argued that "the earth belongs to us all. The earth belongs to no-one". This means that the community owns things, not the individual. He beleived that although those on the breadline in, for example, england, were better off in material comforts than, say North American Indians who were seen as savages, the savages were closer to the state of nature and therefore more highly valued.
Rousseau saw society as the problem because it brought with it self-seteem, meaning that we started to see ourselves from the point of view of others which is detrimental to our wellbeing. He saw this as the cause of most inequality. Therefore, the progress of civilisation is responsible for all of our miseries, but Rousseau accepts that we cannot returen to a state of nature. He said "taking men as they are and laws as they might be" which is a clear attack on Hobbes and Locke and very reminiscent of Machiavelli's Prince. He is saying that we have to be realistic and look at how men are in reality, including all their failings, fears and drawbacks.
Therefore, the problem that Rousseau outlined was to: "find a form of association, which defends and protects with all common force, the person and goods of each associate and by means of which each one while uniting with all obeys only himself and remains as free as before". This is combining the approaches of Hobbes, Locke and himself and as a result sounds great, but is very unpractical! The solution that he came up with is the Social Contract. At this point it needs to be remembered that Rousseau was writing from France where Loius the 14th was ruling and the divine right of the unrelenting Catholic Church was smothering the views and lives of the ordinary people and they therefore had no voice and no power. Therefore Rousseau's alternative seems fantastic and is therefore very persuasive.
The Social Contract
Rousseau's idea of the General Will meant that he thought that there must be a direct democracy rather than a representational democracy. All the associates in the contract contribute to shaping the general will and are basically obeying themselves and their natural will, but everyone does this together. Rousseau wanted everyone to be active citizens and said that "For it to be driven by appetite alone is slavery and obedience to the law one as prescribed for oneself is freedom". Therefore our state of nature is naturally compassionate, so we do not want to see others in bad situations or discomfort, therefore we all come to a general agreement as we all have common ideas. This general agreement would become law. (This is vaguely reminiscent of Leibnitz's philosophy that we are all separate entities that do not interact but follow similar but unique paths.) Rousseau believed that there would be no conflict of ideas (in contrast to Hobbes) and that the general will would become law. He said that we should keep the power to ourselves rather than giving it to third parties. This vision also contrasted greatly with the liberals such as Locke, who thought that there should be a clear division between the public life of adhering to laws and the private life in which we are free to do anything we want. In response to this idea, Rousseau said that you are always free as you agreed on the general will and therefore there is no difference between the public and private lives.
However, this kind of thinking brought about a lot of danger in the form of the possibility of a new kind of dictatorship because the law becomes so fundamentally important to society. The danger is that it could become a tyranny as Rousseau said that if anyone refused to obey the general will, they would be forced to do so and therefore "forced to be free" (which would competely defeat the point). Another problem with this is that it would have to be decided by the majority of associates, or citizens, as there will never be complete agreement. Therefore freedom exists only in service; our freedom starts where the law begins.
The French Revolution
At the time of the French Revolution, Rousseau was no longer alive, however his ideas lived on and were very influential on the revolution. This can especially be seen on the piece of legislation introduced, "The declaration of the rights of men":
"Men are born and remain free and equal in life"
"The principle of all sovereignty resides essentiall in the nation" (the sovereignty comes directly from the people).
The similarity can be found in Rousseau's statement that "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains"
The basic idea of this legislation and Rousseau's thought is that the law is the expression of the general will and every citizen has the right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. Therefore the law is an expression of the people's concencus.
He also very much influenced the views of the time on civil religion and its emergence as one religion for the whole nation. This was based on the idea that God created the world and then left us to get on with things and was therefore not influential in everyday life. This approach saw God as a "supreme being" but not as generally active in the world. The idea of this "civil church" was to get away from all the different factions of religion and to take the power from established religion such as the Catholic church so that it was more equal.
The French revolution was based on Rousseau's encouragement of freedom and a wild and chaotic abandonment of the senses. This was reinforced by the guillotine which brought the classes together in punishment and turned the revolution into a massacre, known as the "great terror". This was a direct result of Rousseau as he had encouraged them to let their passions run free. This lead to the beheading of the King of France and it is important to know that one of Rousseau's disciples was head of "the committee for public safety" which dealt with the guiollotine.
Another important viewpoint of Rousseau was that he was against science and "enlightenment", arguing that it distorts us and alienates us from our true self and the "state of nature". Therefore he thought that focus on the mind was wrong .
Romanticism
Rousseau is seen as the founding father of romanticism which celebrates the idea of the uniqueness of the individual and the goodness of the primitive man or "noble savage". Also celebrated is the rural over the urban and the aesthetic over the utilitarian standards. For example, comedies of manners were popular during the romantic period as they showed the need to give in to animal emotions and be "true" and "natural". Therefore manners were not a true representation of what it is to be human. The Romantic movement was a reaction against enlightenment (again showing Rousseau's influence) and believed in the supremacy of emotions. Therefore, Romantics were often as far removed from society as possible so that it would not corrupt them. Another example of Romanticism is the gothic style, and the story of Fankenstein. Pathetic phallacy also shows romantic ideas as nature and emotions are irrevocably linked and the primitive passions of emotions are shown to be easily transferable.
However, there was a troubling side in the form of Romantic nationalism. Romanticism was characterised by a revival of ancient myths and countries by artists to distinguish indigenous cultures, looking into the past to try to bring diverse countries together. This creates national feeling using the national past, which is shown as having a purpose and driving towards something. This is dangerous as it can easily be distorted to things such as racism and can be seen as what led to the first World War. These ideas can be found reflected in much German thought, which Rousseau was highly influential in, such as Hegel who said that we can only be free when we give ourselves over to the general will. Also important about the Romanticism era is that women and their role in society start to be thought about, if only a little, whereas previously, no-one had considered this.
Popular Culture references for romanticism include:
music: dark, emotional, flowing and unstructured
literature: Frankenstein (satire on Locke as the monster is completely defined by others and is not natural so is destroyed)
John Lennon's "imagine"
"easy rider" film
"born to be wild" film
"mad mas ace of spades" film (shows a Hobbesian view)
time = a social agreement rather than a natural state
A brief biography:
He was born in 1712 in Geneva and lived most of his life on the breadline, travelling from plave to place. He had many associations with elderly female aristocrats but was as good as married to a servant who was not generally considered attractive and was illiterate with no education to speak of. She has been described as adulterous and ugly and no-one could understand why Rousseau stayed with her. They had 5 children together, but Rousseau took each of them to an orphanage. One of his first pieces of writing was on how children should be educated (seems rather ironic). Rousseau was by no means rational, rather he was led by his emotions and was very passionate, believing in sentiment rather than practicality or rationality. He dissagreed with Hobbes and Locke on many subjects and had several arguements with Voltaire, especially when he moved to the same city. Rousseau's ideas were extremely influential in the French revolution (as will be shown later). He himself was very influenced by the Greeks and in particular their idea of the "citizen". As the story of Socrates, told by Plato, shows, we are all part of a society and if we take and accept the benefits we therefore have to accept the pitfalls ie, as Socrates was sentenced to death by his society, he must accept it as he had benefitted from the same society.
Basic Principles:
Before looking at the Social Contract, for which Rousseau is most famous, his basic principles must be touched on. Rousseau, like Hobbes and Locke, spoke about a "state of nature", however his view of this was very different to either Hobbes' chaos or Locke's natural laws. Rousseau saw the "state of nature" as going further back, to when we were born free and animalistic, before any kind of society or government came along to distort us and limit our freedom. However, he recognised that society is a necessary evil. Rousseau said that at some point, before society, we entered a contract which meant that government and society arose.
A quick summary of Hobbes' state of nature for comparison:
The natural state is animalistic, destructive and chaotic, so the people came together to put a stop to it by electing a leader with god-like power who had 2 things that he must do and as long as he did these two things, he could do anything else he wanted. These to things were to 1) protect the individuals and 2) protect the country. The most able person was chosen by the people to carry this out, with nothing to do with God. The people handed over all of their rights by entering the contract. Hobbes also said that we are rational beings and through our brains we discover natural rights that are within us and cannot be either given away or taken from us.
A quick summary of Locke's state of nature for comparison:
The natural state is one of goodness, however problems inevitably occur and so an overall power is needed to defend the rights and property of the individual. Locke's primary concern was therefore with property of the individual rather than the collective. This view was very influential in the US constitution.
Rousseau also dissagreed with Locke on the focus of society. Locke saw the focus as the individual and their rights and possessions, with the view that to own things was your right, however Rousseau argued that "the earth belongs to us all. The earth belongs to no-one". This means that the community owns things, not the individual. He beleived that although those on the breadline in, for example, england, were better off in material comforts than, say North American Indians who were seen as savages, the savages were closer to the state of nature and therefore more highly valued.
Rousseau saw society as the problem because it brought with it self-seteem, meaning that we started to see ourselves from the point of view of others which is detrimental to our wellbeing. He saw this as the cause of most inequality. Therefore, the progress of civilisation is responsible for all of our miseries, but Rousseau accepts that we cannot returen to a state of nature. He said "taking men as they are and laws as they might be" which is a clear attack on Hobbes and Locke and very reminiscent of Machiavelli's Prince. He is saying that we have to be realistic and look at how men are in reality, including all their failings, fears and drawbacks.
Therefore, the problem that Rousseau outlined was to: "find a form of association, which defends and protects with all common force, the person and goods of each associate and by means of which each one while uniting with all obeys only himself and remains as free as before". This is combining the approaches of Hobbes, Locke and himself and as a result sounds great, but is very unpractical! The solution that he came up with is the Social Contract. At this point it needs to be remembered that Rousseau was writing from France where Loius the 14th was ruling and the divine right of the unrelenting Catholic Church was smothering the views and lives of the ordinary people and they therefore had no voice and no power. Therefore Rousseau's alternative seems fantastic and is therefore very persuasive.
The Social Contract
Rousseau's idea of the General Will meant that he thought that there must be a direct democracy rather than a representational democracy. All the associates in the contract contribute to shaping the general will and are basically obeying themselves and their natural will, but everyone does this together. Rousseau wanted everyone to be active citizens and said that "For it to be driven by appetite alone is slavery and obedience to the law one as prescribed for oneself is freedom". Therefore our state of nature is naturally compassionate, so we do not want to see others in bad situations or discomfort, therefore we all come to a general agreement as we all have common ideas. This general agreement would become law. (This is vaguely reminiscent of Leibnitz's philosophy that we are all separate entities that do not interact but follow similar but unique paths.) Rousseau believed that there would be no conflict of ideas (in contrast to Hobbes) and that the general will would become law. He said that we should keep the power to ourselves rather than giving it to third parties. This vision also contrasted greatly with the liberals such as Locke, who thought that there should be a clear division between the public life of adhering to laws and the private life in which we are free to do anything we want. In response to this idea, Rousseau said that you are always free as you agreed on the general will and therefore there is no difference between the public and private lives.
However, this kind of thinking brought about a lot of danger in the form of the possibility of a new kind of dictatorship because the law becomes so fundamentally important to society. The danger is that it could become a tyranny as Rousseau said that if anyone refused to obey the general will, they would be forced to do so and therefore "forced to be free" (which would competely defeat the point). Another problem with this is that it would have to be decided by the majority of associates, or citizens, as there will never be complete agreement. Therefore freedom exists only in service; our freedom starts where the law begins.
The French Revolution
At the time of the French Revolution, Rousseau was no longer alive, however his ideas lived on and were very influential on the revolution. This can especially be seen on the piece of legislation introduced, "The declaration of the rights of men":
"Men are born and remain free and equal in life"
"The principle of all sovereignty resides essentiall in the nation" (the sovereignty comes directly from the people).
The similarity can be found in Rousseau's statement that "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains"
The basic idea of this legislation and Rousseau's thought is that the law is the expression of the general will and every citizen has the right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. Therefore the law is an expression of the people's concencus.
He also very much influenced the views of the time on civil religion and its emergence as one religion for the whole nation. This was based on the idea that God created the world and then left us to get on with things and was therefore not influential in everyday life. This approach saw God as a "supreme being" but not as generally active in the world. The idea of this "civil church" was to get away from all the different factions of religion and to take the power from established religion such as the Catholic church so that it was more equal.
The French revolution was based on Rousseau's encouragement of freedom and a wild and chaotic abandonment of the senses. This was reinforced by the guillotine which brought the classes together in punishment and turned the revolution into a massacre, known as the "great terror". This was a direct result of Rousseau as he had encouraged them to let their passions run free. This lead to the beheading of the King of France and it is important to know that one of Rousseau's disciples was head of "the committee for public safety" which dealt with the guiollotine.
Another important viewpoint of Rousseau was that he was against science and "enlightenment", arguing that it distorts us and alienates us from our true self and the "state of nature". Therefore he thought that focus on the mind was wrong .
Romanticism
Rousseau is seen as the founding father of romanticism which celebrates the idea of the uniqueness of the individual and the goodness of the primitive man or "noble savage". Also celebrated is the rural over the urban and the aesthetic over the utilitarian standards. For example, comedies of manners were popular during the romantic period as they showed the need to give in to animal emotions and be "true" and "natural". Therefore manners were not a true representation of what it is to be human. The Romantic movement was a reaction against enlightenment (again showing Rousseau's influence) and believed in the supremacy of emotions. Therefore, Romantics were often as far removed from society as possible so that it would not corrupt them. Another example of Romanticism is the gothic style, and the story of Fankenstein. Pathetic phallacy also shows romantic ideas as nature and emotions are irrevocably linked and the primitive passions of emotions are shown to be easily transferable.
However, there was a troubling side in the form of Romantic nationalism. Romanticism was characterised by a revival of ancient myths and countries by artists to distinguish indigenous cultures, looking into the past to try to bring diverse countries together. This creates national feeling using the national past, which is shown as having a purpose and driving towards something. This is dangerous as it can easily be distorted to things such as racism and can be seen as what led to the first World War. These ideas can be found reflected in much German thought, which Rousseau was highly influential in, such as Hegel who said that we can only be free when we give ourselves over to the general will. Also important about the Romanticism era is that women and their role in society start to be thought about, if only a little, whereas previously, no-one had considered this.
Popular Culture references for romanticism include:
music: dark, emotional, flowing and unstructured
literature: Frankenstein (satire on Locke as the monster is completely defined by others and is not natural so is destroyed)
John Lennon's "imagine"
"easy rider" film
"born to be wild" film
"mad mas ace of spades" film (shows a Hobbesian view)
time = a social agreement rather than a natural state
Tuesday 3 November 2009
Joseph Addison Seminar
This week, i did my seminar paper on Joseph Addison. Here are a few points that i picked out from the session and from hearing the other seminar paper that was given today.
At this time, journalism was only beginning to appear, as Addison discussed in "on the essay form". In this essay we see that he is an advocate of sharing knowledge with the public, which is supported by the fact that he was co-founder of several newspapers.
Addison understood that writers have a great impact on society, and as journalists we need to acknowledge this also. For example, many social rules and agreements, such as manners, are cultivated and upheld by the press, and using humour etc in writing gives the message that happiness is acheivable despite hardships in life and journalism can work to make this seem more natural.
Addison also points out that method and structure not only benefits the writer, for example when they are trying to express their thoughts, but also the reader, who is better able to understand if writing is clear and uncluttered. Therefore, Addison's writing is eloquent but understandable, showing that he has put thought into his readership and is trying to make sure that everyone can understand and share the knowledge, so that it is not confined to the intellectuals and "educated" classes. However, this emphasises the fact that only around 30% of the population at the time of Addison's writing could actually read, so even though he is targetting as wide an audience as possible, it would not have reached the lower classes. Despite this, his writing is much more accessible than most of the writing around at the time, which is why Addison was encouraging others to write for ordinary people in order to expand their knowledge. He thought that it was best to put "pearls in heaps before the reader" as it would be more enjoyable for them to aquire knowledge without, after reading, having to spend time deciphering the article and extracting the meaning. He laid the information straight out for the reader so they did not have to translate and he used structure so that it was not challenging to read. In this way he was very concious of his style and his audience, which is something that as journalists we must also be aware of.
Addison places great importance on written text over discussion and conversation. One advantage of it is that there is more time to think about the arguments and form them into something intelligible, it is also more direct and tangible and it is more likely to be believed than something heard on the grapevine. Conversation can be lost in time, whereas writing is much more permanent. All of these concepts apply to our time as well as Addisons, showing a universality in his contributions to journalism. It is important to remember when writing and reporting to research the subject and take into acount all sides of the argument and other points of view, this is something that Addison does continually, always putting both sides to the argument and playing devils advocate. One very clear example of this is in "Laughter".
The restoration period, in which Addison was writing, was very important in the spreading of knowledge and ideas and broadening of common knowledge. In this way, Addison was influential in introducing the use of humour as a method of appealing to the common man and grabbing the interest of the audience. This is an important technique as often after reading something, the humour is more memorable than the content of the article itself. Addison can often be seen to be mocking those who couldn't understand his humour which the more educated readers would have found exceedingly funny.
Addison's ambition to reach the common man and spread knowledge can be linked with Hobbes' social contract which says that we all have rights and responsibilities within society. Addison would argue that everyone should have common knowledge and be on a similar level of understanding in order to improve society. Locke's ideas on the spread of knowledge is also relevant here as he did not like the simple regurgitating of knowledge and opinions but wanted everyone to have their own view and express it, therefore if everyone had education and knowledge, everyone could express their own opinions.
Despite this similar thread in their writing, Locke and Addison were very different in not only their style but also their intended audience. Locke was writing for his close friends and so his style was converstational and often confusing, however Addison was writing to publish his work and aiming it at a certain audience, meaning that his style was much more formal and about more general subjects (if it was even about a subject and not just a humorous piece that seemed to be about nothing much in particular, which he often did).
I think the main point that I took out of the reading and this weeks' seminar is that Addison was an advocate, as co-founder of several newspapers, for the fact that society should make use of the press as a tool to transmit knowledge and views. One interesting observation from the other person taking the seminar was that "philosophers of the past would have made much better use of the press", however we have to remember that their writing would probably alienate much of the readership as they would not understand the concepts and would be put off by the serious nature of the writing. Also, if the philosphers of the past had had such a means of spreading knowledge, the world and discoveries would have turned out very differently than they did.
At this time, journalism was only beginning to appear, as Addison discussed in "on the essay form". In this essay we see that he is an advocate of sharing knowledge with the public, which is supported by the fact that he was co-founder of several newspapers.
Addison understood that writers have a great impact on society, and as journalists we need to acknowledge this also. For example, many social rules and agreements, such as manners, are cultivated and upheld by the press, and using humour etc in writing gives the message that happiness is acheivable despite hardships in life and journalism can work to make this seem more natural.
Addison also points out that method and structure not only benefits the writer, for example when they are trying to express their thoughts, but also the reader, who is better able to understand if writing is clear and uncluttered. Therefore, Addison's writing is eloquent but understandable, showing that he has put thought into his readership and is trying to make sure that everyone can understand and share the knowledge, so that it is not confined to the intellectuals and "educated" classes. However, this emphasises the fact that only around 30% of the population at the time of Addison's writing could actually read, so even though he is targetting as wide an audience as possible, it would not have reached the lower classes. Despite this, his writing is much more accessible than most of the writing around at the time, which is why Addison was encouraging others to write for ordinary people in order to expand their knowledge. He thought that it was best to put "pearls in heaps before the reader" as it would be more enjoyable for them to aquire knowledge without, after reading, having to spend time deciphering the article and extracting the meaning. He laid the information straight out for the reader so they did not have to translate and he used structure so that it was not challenging to read. In this way he was very concious of his style and his audience, which is something that as journalists we must also be aware of.
Addison places great importance on written text over discussion and conversation. One advantage of it is that there is more time to think about the arguments and form them into something intelligible, it is also more direct and tangible and it is more likely to be believed than something heard on the grapevine. Conversation can be lost in time, whereas writing is much more permanent. All of these concepts apply to our time as well as Addisons, showing a universality in his contributions to journalism. It is important to remember when writing and reporting to research the subject and take into acount all sides of the argument and other points of view, this is something that Addison does continually, always putting both sides to the argument and playing devils advocate. One very clear example of this is in "Laughter".
The restoration period, in which Addison was writing, was very important in the spreading of knowledge and ideas and broadening of common knowledge. In this way, Addison was influential in introducing the use of humour as a method of appealing to the common man and grabbing the interest of the audience. This is an important technique as often after reading something, the humour is more memorable than the content of the article itself. Addison can often be seen to be mocking those who couldn't understand his humour which the more educated readers would have found exceedingly funny.
Addison's ambition to reach the common man and spread knowledge can be linked with Hobbes' social contract which says that we all have rights and responsibilities within society. Addison would argue that everyone should have common knowledge and be on a similar level of understanding in order to improve society. Locke's ideas on the spread of knowledge is also relevant here as he did not like the simple regurgitating of knowledge and opinions but wanted everyone to have their own view and express it, therefore if everyone had education and knowledge, everyone could express their own opinions.
Despite this similar thread in their writing, Locke and Addison were very different in not only their style but also their intended audience. Locke was writing for his close friends and so his style was converstational and often confusing, however Addison was writing to publish his work and aiming it at a certain audience, meaning that his style was much more formal and about more general subjects (if it was even about a subject and not just a humorous piece that seemed to be about nothing much in particular, which he often did).
I think the main point that I took out of the reading and this weeks' seminar is that Addison was an advocate, as co-founder of several newspapers, for the fact that society should make use of the press as a tool to transmit knowledge and views. One interesting observation from the other person taking the seminar was that "philosophers of the past would have made much better use of the press", however we have to remember that their writing would probably alienate much of the readership as they would not understand the concepts and would be put off by the serious nature of the writing. Also, if the philosphers of the past had had such a means of spreading knowledge, the world and discoveries would have turned out very differently than they did.
Thursday 29 October 2009
Lecture 3: Joseph Addison
Joseph Addison is seen as the first journalist of the western world, in a period known as the "restoration" ( starting in 1660). His tone was satirical and dry, and he used many elaborate insults to create humour at a time of superficial politeness which he often used in his writing. He was xenophobic and so many of his articles were targeting foreigners, and he often comes across as having an heir of superiority as he was very nationalistic. He often mocked the style of the empiricists from which economists developed, therefore he often satirised the nature of trade, such as in "The Adventures of a Shilling" and "The Royal Exchange". He also criticises intellectuals and "Authors" for being "hindered... from communicating their thoughts" saying that writings should be straight forward and to the point. He can be quite spiteful in his papers, such as in "On the Essay Form" where he alludes to "Vermin" who he intends to "make a string of them, in order to hang them up in one of my papers". This is a very no-nonsense approach and suggests that he is not afraid of alienating readers.
Early Journalism: Reformation, Printing, Civil War, Defoe, Addison and Hogarth
"Journalism is the business of turning information into money" - Chris Horrie
However, this requires the ability to print and distribute the information, which was made possible by Guttenburg's invention of the printing press in the 1440s. This was, according to Einstein, the most important invention ever, as without the ability to print and distribute information, discoveries such as the telescope or the laws of relativity would be discovered over and over again, but the public would never get to know about it. From this invention onwards, there were massive advances in technology, because the information was able to be distributed and therefore added to by many people.
Therefore, journalists are there to empower and spread knowledge and this was enabled by the printing press. Before this, monks sat in monasteries for their whole life times copying the bible out over and over again so that it wasn't lost. The chinese pictographic language became more and more complex and was near enough impossible to print or write in any way economically. The egyptian hieroglyphics were not much better than this. The Summarian cuneform script made up of dashes, know as the oldest modern language, was also difficult to distribute widely, however it marked a turning point moving from pictographic descriptions of the objects to more abstract symbols. Therefore, as late as the dark ages, distribution of knowledge was pretty much impossible. Even in the dark ages, around the ti me of the Lindesfarne Gospel, books had to be constantly copied because the ink faded and the pages fell apart. This made it difficult to write anything down, and this lack of information led to the term "dark ages" because we have very little information about this time period.
Looking at the "early modern period" / "Restoration:
6,000 BC – Chinese pictographic script
4,000 BC –Egyptian hieroglyphic writing
3,800 BC – Summarian cuneform Script
740 – Lindesfarne Gospel
1440s - Guttenburg’s printing press (Caxton 1420s)
1460s - Lorenzo Medici, Florence, The Renaissance
1517 - Martin Luther, 95 theses (reformation)
1540 - Henry VIIIth - Tudor wars of religion
1563 – Foxe’s Book of Martyrs - Pulpit as news media
1588 - Spanish Armada – Elizabeth Tudor
1620 - The Mayflower – American colonies / Stuarts
1641-1651 – The English Civil War
1660 – Restoration of Stuart monarchy Charles II / Restoration literature
1667 – John Locke – Essay on Human Understanding
1688 – The Glorious Revolution/ Act of Settlement /William of Orange
1690 – Battle of the Boyne (James II – attempted Jacobite restoration).
1700 – Issac Newton
1702 – The Daily Courant
1703 – Daniel Defoe – pilloried for his pamphleteering
1707 – Act of Union with Scotland (Battle of Culloden 1745)
1709 – The Spectator / The Tatler / Joseph Addison – Whig ascendancy
1731 – Hogarth – Gin Alley (‘photojournalism)
1775 – Samuel Johnson’s dictionary
1776 - American revolution
1789 – French revolution
1815 – Waterloo
Looking at the "early modern period" / "Restoration:
6,000 BC – Chinese pictographic script
4,000 BC –Egyptian hieroglyphic writing
3,800 BC – Summarian cuneform Script
740 – Lindesfarne Gospel
1440s - Guttenburg’s printing press (Caxton 1420s)
1460s - Lorenzo Medici, Florence, The Renaissance
1517 - Martin Luther, 95 theses (reformation)
1540 - Henry VIIIth - Tudor wars of religion
1563 – Foxe’s Book of Martyrs - Pulpit as news media
1588 - Spanish Armada – Elizabeth Tudor
1620 - The Mayflower – American colonies / Stuarts
1641-1651 – The English Civil War
1660 – Restoration of Stuart monarchy Charles II / Restoration literature
1667 – John Locke – Essay on Human Understanding
1688 – The Glorious Revolution/ Act of Settlement /William of Orange
1690 – Battle of the Boyne (James II – attempted Jacobite restoration).
1700 – Issac Newton
1702 – The Daily Courant
1703 – Daniel Defoe – pilloried for his pamphleteering
1707 – Act of Union with Scotland (Battle of Culloden 1745)
1709 – The Spectator / The Tatler / Joseph Addison – Whig ascendancy
1731 – Hogarth – Gin Alley (‘photojournalism)
1775 – Samuel Johnson’s dictionary
1776 - American revolution
1789 – French revolution
1815 – Waterloo
Monday 26 October 2009
John Locke Seminar
John Locke's essay was published in 1960, after the revolution which can be seen as being directly related to a lot of his ideas. It was written among friends as therefore would have been discussed at length. His purpose for publishing this essay was not that everyone understand, but just that his ideas be out there and known and discussed; however he also says "I desire it should be understood by whoever takes the pains to read it". He emphasises in the "Epistle to the reader" that he is not trying to force his ideas on others; he wants people to have their own view on the subject, but not judge, which can be seen as quite hypocritical and confusing. Despite these contradictions in some of his "Epistle to the reader", he has used clear, easy language which makes it more accessible to a greater number of people. This suggests he was more worried about reaching a wider audience than impressing the intellectuals. However, it could be said that it is too dumbed down and repetitive of the ideas.
The fact that he spent time clarifying meanings and interpretations shows that he is aiming the essay at the "common man" in an attempt to make sure that everyone understands and that his ideas are out there. The time he spent discussing what he meant by certain terms such as "clear and distinct" ideas shows that he knows that everyone has their own individual views and interpretations and that often it can be difficult to account for the differences between our own views and the views of others. He described a "determinate idea" as there and perceived to be. It is clear that he is not looking for perfection, despite the fact that these ideas could give him a lot of political power. He also understands that scientists are beginning to lead the way, so philosophers are beginning to fall by the wayside.
His main ideas included "tabula rata"; that everyone was born with a blank state and acquired knowledge through experience and in this way he acknowledges that no-one can ever be completely unbiased and impartial because we are all shaped by our experiences and the environment around us. This can be strongly linked to Darwin's nature/nurture debate and brought some of my previous knowledge from A-level psychology into mind.
Tuesday 13 October 2009
Lecture 2: John Locke
Today we looked at John Locke, who was influential both as the first "empiricist" and in his ideas about society and politics. He was clearly very much shaped in his views by the events that he experienced, such as the Civil War, the tyranic rule of Cromwell, the restoration of Charles the Second and the entrance of James the Second, a catholic, and his changes to society, and finally the "Glorious revolution" in which William of Orange came to the throne. Locke's family tie to the civil war would also have influenced his view on society.
Locke's view on the "social contract", which was developed by Hobbes, was very different to the original. Instead of viewing human nature as aggressive and leading to war, he saw human nature in a more positive way. The most shocking thing (to the people at the time) would have been Locke's attack on the concept of the Divine right of kings; saying that the people should be given the chioce and that they have 3 basic rights;
1) the right to life
2) the right to property
3) the right to revolution.
This suggests that even though the monarch was put there by God, the poeple could go against this and elect their own ruler,. Locke's idea was that people need to be governed, but this should be done by majority consent and the governement should be limited by law so that its main purpose is to protect property, rather than dictate the lives of the people. If the government was not sticking to this, the people had the right to rebel. This was a very dangerous and provocative idea, which many have argued gave precedent and acted as a manual for revolution, therefore having much to do with the French revolution. However, much of this idea was also used directly in American constitution and has not done so much harm there.
Locke also had clear ideas on the concept of the "state of nature" which was very different to Hobbes' view of it. Locke said that everyone enjoys natural freedom and equality but obey natural laws which are discovered through the ability to reason which was given by God. Therefore, these laws are not innate but discovered; "interwoven in the constitution of the human mind".THis is ery contradictory to many other thought patterns at the time which said that we have "innate ideas".
Locke's views on human understanding are also very interesting; according to Locke we are born with a blank slate with nothing in our minds, but we are given, by God, the capacity to understand and build up knowledge and ideas. This is contraty to many other popular theories such as Plato's "perfect forms" in which the soul is aware of the forms before birth and therefore only remembers rather than learns. Descartes' view is also contraditory to Locke's as he said that we have innate ideas that are imprinted by God. Locke, however argued that "Truly before they are known, there is nothing of them in the mind but a capacity to know them", therefore our understanding comes from experiences that are worked on by our powers of reason to produce "real knowledge". Locke's idea of reason consists of 2 parts: 1) an inquiry as to what we know with certainty, and 2) an investigation into things which we accept but only because of probability rather than certainty. For matters of faith beyond reason and experience, Locke urges us to turn to "revelation" which should, again be checked against reason.
Locke was religious, but beleived in religious tolerance rather than persecution of other faiths and ideas. He was intent on separating religion from the state, in order to avoid war and conflict.
Despite the obvious impact Locke had on not only his contemporaries but also on philosophy today, he merely saw himself as a "humble under-labourer clearing the ground" for scientists such as Newton. This, i beleive, is an underestimation of his influence.
The lecture then looked at Newton and his importance. He is seen as the beginning of "enlightened science" because of his breakthroughs in physics such as the law of gravityand the 3 laws of motion and infinitismal calculus, affecting not only science, but also the way that people think of God. The fact that the Cartesians saw him as not explaining why illustrates the fact that Newton saw the universe as demonstrating God's freedom and omnipotence, therefore he believed it is not for humans to understand the why, only that it is there. This is important in confirming the faith of many people. Newton was an amazingly influential man, with his compatriots such as Pope saying things like "Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night: God said "let Newton be!" and there was light". This shows just how important Newton's mere 2 years of work was on the basis of science and also of philosophy.
I found this lecture very interesting, more so than last week because the concepts, for me were easier to grasp, and look forward to discussing Locke's ideas more in the seminar next week.
Locke's view on the "social contract", which was developed by Hobbes, was very different to the original. Instead of viewing human nature as aggressive and leading to war, he saw human nature in a more positive way. The most shocking thing (to the people at the time) would have been Locke's attack on the concept of the Divine right of kings; saying that the people should be given the chioce and that they have 3 basic rights;
1) the right to life
2) the right to property
3) the right to revolution.
This suggests that even though the monarch was put there by God, the poeple could go against this and elect their own ruler,. Locke's idea was that people need to be governed, but this should be done by majority consent and the governement should be limited by law so that its main purpose is to protect property, rather than dictate the lives of the people. If the government was not sticking to this, the people had the right to rebel. This was a very dangerous and provocative idea, which many have argued gave precedent and acted as a manual for revolution, therefore having much to do with the French revolution. However, much of this idea was also used directly in American constitution and has not done so much harm there.
Locke also had clear ideas on the concept of the "state of nature" which was very different to Hobbes' view of it. Locke said that everyone enjoys natural freedom and equality but obey natural laws which are discovered through the ability to reason which was given by God. Therefore, these laws are not innate but discovered; "interwoven in the constitution of the human mind".THis is ery contradictory to many other thought patterns at the time which said that we have "innate ideas".
Locke's views on human understanding are also very interesting; according to Locke we are born with a blank slate with nothing in our minds, but we are given, by God, the capacity to understand and build up knowledge and ideas. This is contraty to many other popular theories such as Plato's "perfect forms" in which the soul is aware of the forms before birth and therefore only remembers rather than learns. Descartes' view is also contraditory to Locke's as he said that we have innate ideas that are imprinted by God. Locke, however argued that "Truly before they are known, there is nothing of them in the mind but a capacity to know them", therefore our understanding comes from experiences that are worked on by our powers of reason to produce "real knowledge". Locke's idea of reason consists of 2 parts: 1) an inquiry as to what we know with certainty, and 2) an investigation into things which we accept but only because of probability rather than certainty. For matters of faith beyond reason and experience, Locke urges us to turn to "revelation" which should, again be checked against reason.
Locke was religious, but beleived in religious tolerance rather than persecution of other faiths and ideas. He was intent on separating religion from the state, in order to avoid war and conflict.
Despite the obvious impact Locke had on not only his contemporaries but also on philosophy today, he merely saw himself as a "humble under-labourer clearing the ground" for scientists such as Newton. This, i beleive, is an underestimation of his influence.
The lecture then looked at Newton and his importance. He is seen as the beginning of "enlightened science" because of his breakthroughs in physics such as the law of gravityand the 3 laws of motion and infinitismal calculus, affecting not only science, but also the way that people think of God. The fact that the Cartesians saw him as not explaining why illustrates the fact that Newton saw the universe as demonstrating God's freedom and omnipotence, therefore he believed it is not for humans to understand the why, only that it is there. This is important in confirming the faith of many people. Newton was an amazingly influential man, with his compatriots such as Pope saying things like "Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night: God said "let Newton be!" and there was light". This shows just how important Newton's mere 2 years of work was on the basis of science and also of philosophy.
I found this lecture very interesting, more so than last week because the concepts, for me were easier to grasp, and look forward to discussing Locke's ideas more in the seminar next week.
Friday 9 October 2009
Seminar on the Renaissance and Bertrand Russell Book 3 chapters 1-9
This seminar was very daunting and eye-opening for me. Before this I hadnot quite grasped any of the ideas that i had read about, however coming away panicking (majorly) has made me focus more on ingesting the ideas rather than just reading them. Hopefully this way i will actually understand what we are talking about next time! And, shock horror! maybe even contribute!
From this seminar i became very interested in the ideas of logic and the search for truth, a topic which seemed to become very popular during the Italian renaissance. The Church's loss of power seemingly meant that thought could become less rigid and more original, allowing more enjoyment in debate which had previously been incompatable with orthodoxy. This incompatability stems from the fact that religion is very set in its ways (dogmatic) with a set hierachy meaning that debate and thought were not exactly celebrated. The discussion of this interested me because i have often thought of religion as almost dictatorial, but not really been able to define it as concisely as the word "dogma" does.
Therefore the emergence of philosophy as open minded and free, looking for understanding rather than rules, is novel and clearly a major part of the renaissance period. In this way, philosophical thought is detatched from religion and acheives as a result a sense of progression and acheivement, while religion remains static and inflexible, stamping out free thought and intellectual growth.
This all just about makes sense to me, however i am stumped by the concept of "truth". Surely there can be no such thing, given that all thought, debate, "facts" etc is all just ideas? It is THOUGHT and how can this ever be difinitive?? This idea is especially strong in Russell book 3 chapter 3 when it is revealed that in fact, Gods ideas may or may not be corrupt, therefore everything that people have been investing and beleiving in for years has been thrown into doubt. I find this confusion and uncertainty very hard to get around, as how can we ever be certain of anything?
Linking this to the science-religion debate, there can never be absolute evidence of religion or thought, and scientific ideas are constantly being revised and overthrown, leaving no certainty. Science is constantly contradicting itself, and one of the major problems with religion is that there are no solid hypotheses to test and no reliable way to test them if there were. For someone like me, with an overly scientific outlook, this makes religion very hard to trust and interpret. For instance, there is the debate over "original sin" and even sin in general; is it simply a controlling device, invented to create stability in humanity? Or is it, as philosphers have challenged, indefinite and not really there (which suggests that we can do anything, creating problems of social stability and shaking the foundations of our governments and lives). All of this different, contradicting and downright confusing arguments boggle my mind. Hoefully in the next couple of weeks i will understand more!
From this seminar i became very interested in the ideas of logic and the search for truth, a topic which seemed to become very popular during the Italian renaissance. The Church's loss of power seemingly meant that thought could become less rigid and more original, allowing more enjoyment in debate which had previously been incompatable with orthodoxy. This incompatability stems from the fact that religion is very set in its ways (dogmatic) with a set hierachy meaning that debate and thought were not exactly celebrated. The discussion of this interested me because i have often thought of religion as almost dictatorial, but not really been able to define it as concisely as the word "dogma" does.
Therefore the emergence of philosophy as open minded and free, looking for understanding rather than rules, is novel and clearly a major part of the renaissance period. In this way, philosophical thought is detatched from religion and acheives as a result a sense of progression and acheivement, while religion remains static and inflexible, stamping out free thought and intellectual growth.
This all just about makes sense to me, however i am stumped by the concept of "truth". Surely there can be no such thing, given that all thought, debate, "facts" etc is all just ideas? It is THOUGHT and how can this ever be difinitive?? This idea is especially strong in Russell book 3 chapter 3 when it is revealed that in fact, Gods ideas may or may not be corrupt, therefore everything that people have been investing and beleiving in for years has been thrown into doubt. I find this confusion and uncertainty very hard to get around, as how can we ever be certain of anything?
Linking this to the science-religion debate, there can never be absolute evidence of religion or thought, and scientific ideas are constantly being revised and overthrown, leaving no certainty. Science is constantly contradicting itself, and one of the major problems with religion is that there are no solid hypotheses to test and no reliable way to test them if there were. For someone like me, with an overly scientific outlook, this makes religion very hard to trust and interpret. For instance, there is the debate over "original sin" and even sin in general; is it simply a controlling device, invented to create stability in humanity? Or is it, as philosphers have challenged, indefinite and not really there (which suggests that we can do anything, creating problems of social stability and shaking the foundations of our governments and lives). All of this different, contradicting and downright confusing arguments boggle my mind. Hoefully in the next couple of weeks i will understand more!
Lecture 1 of History and Context of Journalism
Brian Thornton started by introducing us to the Renaissance period of thought and philosphy, describing it as a period of rebirth with a fusion between the ancient and medeival world. In this period, independant thought began to develop and move away from Christianity, which i see as a very important step in developing ideas about the world, rather than just mindlessly following what a book (the Bible) has said. In this way i think it is better to be geared more towards science where you can formulate your own ideas and develop those of others. The start of this change, if it can even be pinpointed, i believe was very important as the release of ancient texts and literature, brought about by the fall of constantinople, meant that thought was less rigid because of the influx of ideas from ancient Greece. This was very important in expanding thought and the base ideas about the world so that debate could be opened up.
As Brian pointed out, this made discussion free-er from the dominant Christian depictions and led to a more artistic, celebratory view of human nature and the human form. However, many people at the time found this disconcerting and tried to incorporate this new thinking into Christianity, meaning that philosphy was still pretty rigid, in a world dominated by God.
Raphael's painting (was it "Alfresco" or "School of Athens"?) showing the poeple around Rapheal at the time was fascinating, as it shows the variety of thought which was emerging at the time. The presence of such different minds as Plato and Aristotle, with their completely different views on "ideas" versus "observation" as well as people such as Pythagoras, Euclid, Ptolemy and Socrates, show the growth in philosophical thought throughout the Renaissance period and the importance that these "founding fathers" had on modern debates. This is especially obvious in the case of Socrates, whose influences touched many other great philosophers and filtered down into current arguments.
The different views on society discussed in this lecture also interested me, with the mention of tiers of society such as the "ordinary poeple - soldiers - learned men" hierachy. The very different views on this such as Moore's Utopia and Hobbes' Leviathon are a fascinating sample of the debates at the time and really encourage thought about issues such as Plato's idea that God is separate from good and evil and deeds of men, and that following God's instructions can lead to very varied outcomes. This made me think that , perhapse, God is simply a philosopher encouraging debate and free thinking - surely the opposite of what religions teach?
Bertrand Russell
Moving on to Chris Horrie's lecture about the rise of science in philosophical debate, it is important first to establish Russell's point of view. He is a liberal logician, an advocate of free love (though never talking specifically about this), a pacifist and one of the main voices to undermine Christianity in the 1920s. This can seem contradictory, but overall his views have been highly influential in modern thought (hence studying his work at degree level!) with a heavy hand in the views and rise of Littgenstein as a philospher.
Russel thought that logic is a "tool" for learning (whereas Littgenstein said it was of no use in understanding human thought). He splits this into propositional logic and syllogistic logic. From this came Littgenstein's view that an idea that cannot be expressed in words is not an idea and that language is a psychological game, rather than the popular view that it is to enlighten. This was a huge blow to the basics of Western thought since Aristotle!
A brief background on a few philosophers:
Plato: A devoted follower and student of Socrates. There is an ideal world full of ideal forms.
Galileo: Invented a telescope which led to many advances in science and therefore the undermining of key philosophical ideas. Leads to wondering how we can be sure of absolute truth as there is always something else to discover.
Newton: Enabled the industrial revolution and therefore even more undermining of the basics of thought and debate through his "fundamental law of nature"
Aristotle: has been thoroughly attacked and contradicted by later schools of thought, however began the debates and led to much adjustment and better overall knowledge and progress in philosophy.
Descarts: Saw Euclidian geometry as absolutely true. (agreed that mathematics is a PURE form). Originated the well known "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think therefore I am). After Descarts, philosophy becomes split between Idealism/non-materialism and Empiricism.
Some key definitions:
a priori = known before the event
Solipsism = the view that other people do not exist but are part of our minds
Ontological argument = because we have the idea, it must exist. (however, that means there MUST be a God - which cannot be proven either way and I find difficult to agree with and get my head around)
Idealism/non-materialism = the "real world" and the mind cannot be separated; the ultimate nature of reality is based in our minds and ideas.
Empiricism = Matter exists before ideas. View of how we know "things". Emphasises experience and evidence in forming ideas and dissagrees with the view that we have "innate ideas"
As Brian pointed out, this made discussion free-er from the dominant Christian depictions and led to a more artistic, celebratory view of human nature and the human form. However, many people at the time found this disconcerting and tried to incorporate this new thinking into Christianity, meaning that philosphy was still pretty rigid, in a world dominated by God.
Raphael's painting (was it "Alfresco" or "School of Athens"?) showing the poeple around Rapheal at the time was fascinating, as it shows the variety of thought which was emerging at the time. The presence of such different minds as Plato and Aristotle, with their completely different views on "ideas" versus "observation" as well as people such as Pythagoras, Euclid, Ptolemy and Socrates, show the growth in philosophical thought throughout the Renaissance period and the importance that these "founding fathers" had on modern debates. This is especially obvious in the case of Socrates, whose influences touched many other great philosophers and filtered down into current arguments.
The different views on society discussed in this lecture also interested me, with the mention of tiers of society such as the "ordinary poeple - soldiers - learned men" hierachy. The very different views on this such as Moore's Utopia and Hobbes' Leviathon are a fascinating sample of the debates at the time and really encourage thought about issues such as Plato's idea that God is separate from good and evil and deeds of men, and that following God's instructions can lead to very varied outcomes. This made me think that , perhapse, God is simply a philosopher encouraging debate and free thinking - surely the opposite of what religions teach?
Bertrand Russell
Moving on to Chris Horrie's lecture about the rise of science in philosophical debate, it is important first to establish Russell's point of view. He is a liberal logician, an advocate of free love (though never talking specifically about this), a pacifist and one of the main voices to undermine Christianity in the 1920s. This can seem contradictory, but overall his views have been highly influential in modern thought (hence studying his work at degree level!) with a heavy hand in the views and rise of Littgenstein as a philospher.
Russel thought that logic is a "tool" for learning (whereas Littgenstein said it was of no use in understanding human thought). He splits this into propositional logic and syllogistic logic. From this came Littgenstein's view that an idea that cannot be expressed in words is not an idea and that language is a psychological game, rather than the popular view that it is to enlighten. This was a huge blow to the basics of Western thought since Aristotle!
A brief background on a few philosophers:
Plato: A devoted follower and student of Socrates. There is an ideal world full of ideal forms.
Galileo: Invented a telescope which led to many advances in science and therefore the undermining of key philosophical ideas. Leads to wondering how we can be sure of absolute truth as there is always something else to discover.
Newton: Enabled the industrial revolution and therefore even more undermining of the basics of thought and debate through his "fundamental law of nature"
Aristotle: has been thoroughly attacked and contradicted by later schools of thought, however began the debates and led to much adjustment and better overall knowledge and progress in philosophy.
Descarts: Saw Euclidian geometry as absolutely true. (agreed that mathematics is a PURE form). Originated the well known "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think therefore I am). After Descarts, philosophy becomes split between Idealism/non-materialism and Empiricism.
Some key definitions:
a priori = known before the event
Solipsism = the view that other people do not exist but are part of our minds
Ontological argument = because we have the idea, it must exist. (however, that means there MUST be a God - which cannot be proven either way and I find difficult to agree with and get my head around)
Idealism/non-materialism = the "real world" and the mind cannot be separated; the ultimate nature of reality is based in our minds and ideas.
Empiricism = Matter exists before ideas. View of how we know "things". Emphasises experience and evidence in forming ideas and dissagrees with the view that we have "innate ideas"
Monday 5 October 2009
First blog post!
Hi, my name is Bryony and i am studying creative writing with journalism at winchester university. Anything more anyone wants to know, just ask. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
