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

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.

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.

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!

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"

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. :)