Any Questions?

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.

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.