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"