Preparation Lecture

So this week in the lecture we did a run through of 5 possible questions that mayyyyy or may not come up in the scary scary test next week. These are the notes I took in the hope that I can develop the ideal answer!

1. Outline the verification principle as part of the school of thought known as logical positivism, How might this principle be applied to the day-to-day work of a journalist?The verification Principle is based on the idea of truth claims, used frequently in philosophy as a way of categorising statements as to their validity. If they can be proven true or false then they can be used in a meaningful way, but if it cannot be verified either way than the claim or statement must be meaningless. This is an idea carried by the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers who agreed with the logical positivism set forth in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Philosophicus, however the verification principle was popularised by Freddie Ayer. Philosophers who follow this school of thought will argue that the truth of any statement is in its method of verification; if a truth claim cannot be verified, then it is meaningless, this is mirrored by the Falsification Principle which Popper put forward, and together this formed a new way to analyse statements popular among the Anglo-Saxon traditions of philosophy. In his Tractatus, Wittgenstein said that “of that which we cannot speak we must remain silent”, reiterating that if a statement is non-verifiable then it is not a pathway to finding the truth and therefore is of no importance and we should not waste time thinking about it. Logical positivism of this kind was rejected by religious people and ontological thinkers, especially those from the Cartesian point of view who believe that there is objective truth regardless of the verifiability. This principle is important to the work of journalists because we must be able to verify everything that we print, and we must check all of our sources for reliability. If we cannot prove whether it is true or a lie, we should not be writing about it.

2. What is phenomology? Can there be such a thing as subjective reality, or subjective truth? What sort of standards ought a journalist apply?Phenomology is a branch of philosophy established in the 1920s that deals with subjective experience (a person’s personal reactions to something and why they react this way). The origin of Phenomena comes from Emmanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason which says that all objects have a dual nature; when it is nuomenal, a thing in itself, it has a different form to when it is phenomenal, a creation of the mind. The idea is that an unperceived object will be in its perfect, or ‘ideal’ form, but when it is perceived and the mind acts on it, it will only be an approximation of its ‘ideal’ form. f This is the territory of ‘naïve realists’, such as Wittgenstein, who believe that the object is still there when it is not perceived. Similarly, the Empiricists such as Locke and Hume say that the object is still there, but is different from how it is perceived. These ideas have been confirmed by experimental science such as quantum mechanics, who found that the act of perceiving changes the physical nature of something that they were studying. Another key question that phenomology addresses is that of how does our perception of objects arise? The first person to tackle this question was Husserl who said that it is the intention behind perception that creates the image that you see; if you want to see something, you will. This has been demonstrated by optical illusions based on context such as the face in the cliff, and even in mythology which suggests that rock faces with unusual patterns of formation and vegetation are the product of a giant pushing the mountain (an example from the Philippines). Husserl said that we will the world into existence by intention, and that a picture of your self is a structure of your intentions and decisions. For example, when you walk into a room, you are creating that room by thinking that you are walking into it. Heidegger also backed this theory. In the 1940s and 50s, Existentialism was established as a moral code that deals with phenomenology. This looks at the intentions which we have that made the world and the consequences of these and our choices of what to believe. As Existentialist Albert Camus said, the future is unwritten, the past is beyond our control, so we only have the now which we can control and change. These schools of thought relate to Solipsism, supporters of which believe that the world is simply a projection of your own being and that the only existence you can be sure of is your own mind.

Phenomenology is important to Journalism in establishing the truth of a statement. It creates problems such as if truth can only be subjective then the reporting of public affairs cannot be objective. Therefore journalists must be careful to put forward a well-rounded view rather than just their own personal preference. However, there is a general cultural trend towards subjectivity and the private consciousness is very important in our culture, so as a journalist it is important to be aware that your readers will have their own viewpoint and you should not try to thrust your own view onto them.

3. Describe in broad terms J.M. Keynes’ ideas on monetary policy, with an indication of how the Keynesian Revolution came about. Does ‘Keynesianism’ inevitably lead to social regression, moral failure and serfdom, as Hayek asserts?In contrast to the first two questions, economics tries to approach the world in a non-phenomenological way, but rather many economists believe in naïve realism, that objects are as they appear to be. Adam Smith, a key influent in economics, was a naïve materialist and as such a ‘machine’ from the enlightenment way of thinking. The Keynesian Revolution started in the war but really took off in the 1950s and 60s. It came about because of the Great Depression, also known as the ‘hungry 30s’ when poverty, mass unemployment, malnutrition and political instability were rampant in the Western world where economies had been crushed by the strain of the second World War. Keynesian economics brought about a prosperous ‘great’ society. The basic idea was that the government would print lots of money so that things could still be bought and paid for throughout the war, however one down side of this strategy is that because of inflation, the money became worthless. Keynes, however, felt that this was a side-effect that was offset by the benefits of the system. He therefore accepted these problems in return for full employment. He created jobs which were not really needed, just so that people were employed, so that they could earn money and spend money and therefore the whole economy would benefit. This is known as the ‘multiplier’ effect and was only enabled because Keynes believed that the banks did not need to back all the money that they printed with gold reserves; he said go ahead and print more money, whether we have the gold in the banks or not. He argued that it was better to have useless jobs than unemployment. Hayek said that money is a transparent medium and has no effect on the world, which is the opposite view to Keynes.

Critiques of this approach include the inflation that it causes. Galbraith has also hammered the theory because it involves massive state intervention, as the whole process of creating jobs has to be regulated to ensure that it has the maximum effect on the economy. The intervention is so great that even the private sector gets a lot of its business from the public sector, which basically serves to keep the economy going. This therefore involves supply and demand regulation, going against Adam Smith’s theory of the ‘free hand in the market’. Also, to implement Keynesian economics, the government has to gather vast amounts of data, regulate wages and quantify everything. Therefore, in an ontological sense, it means nothing, but in a Keynesian sense everything; it is therefore often said to be completely meaningless (such as by Hayek). It has also been argued that it boils down to everyone working for the government, which equates to serfdom; a step back in history to a pre-capitalist world before the enlightenment. It has therefore also been associated with a loss of freedom, such as Arendt and Orwell discuss.
However, whether we disagree with this system or not, our world is now enmeshed in bureaucracy and Keynesianism, for example the labour party is based on Keynesian ideals, and the economy is based on this system of creating jobs for jobs sakes.

4. “Facts in logical space are the world” – Wittgenstein, Tractatus. Do you agree?This question is based on the first chapter of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Philosophicus which forms the premise for his picture theory of language, and the idea that language allows us to express the world and how we experience it. This question also needs to touch on Kant’s Phenomenology and the fact that naïve materialism and metaphysics are both rejected. Therefore, there are none of Plato’s ideal forms (that there is another universe made up of perfect forms, and everything that we see and experience is simply an approximation of these perfect forms), no nuomena and no concrete physical objects. Wittgenstein is therefore saying that the world is just facts within our minds that can be independently verified, for example by someone else agreeing that there is, in fact, a computer in front of me. This means that there is no such thing as private language as we need someone else to verify and so share language. Logic is therefore a precise way of describing the relation between one object and another, and truth is established in relation to the different parts of an argument. The world is therefore a network of propositions linked by logic.

5. Looking back at the HCJ course as a whole, choose one thinker we have discussed or one movement in thought that you believe to be particularly significant in terms of journalistic practice. Explain why.I will need some time to pinpoint what part of the course that I am going to base my answer for this one on, as there are so many possibilities that it is boggling my head right now!

Seminar 5 - Wittgenstein and Language

After giving my seminar paper and hearing Sammy’s (which was very useful for me as it explained about the 7 main statements of the book, which I couldn’t make out because of the confusing structure of the book), we discussed at length the relationship between language and reality. This was an idea key to Wittgenstein’s philosophy in that he was exploring this relationship in an attempt to distinguish the limits of science. He argued that philosophy arises from a lack of knowledge and people trying to fill this gap. Wittgenstein’s work was therefore a completely new approach to philosophy, which makes it especially interesting. He looked acutely at language, but the question that is more interesting to me, is what is this based on? How did language start?

He also emphasises that signs and symbols can also be used to build propositions, in fact, language is really just a set of symbols that we have assigned meanings to. As a group, we thought the nature of language very interesting in that it evolves and changes over time, and it is impossible to know the true beginnings of it, was it originally perfectly logical? If it was, then this was quickly changed and forgotten, most likely due to cultural idiosyncrasies in the way that language is learnt and passed on and affected by way of life and the way it is used.

There are many influences on language and the way that it develops. One theory is that the environment that we are brought up in determines our language; another approach is that of Chomsky who argued that all humans are born with the basics of language; that it is innate, and the slight variations come from our environment. He thought that this was the same across the world which suggests that all languages would have the same basis. However, Wittgenstein backed the approach that you environment creates your language and therefore your understanding of the world.
One thing that Stefano pointed out, which gave me an ‘oh yeah’ light bulb moment, is that most philosophical books seem to exist purely to pick holes in other philosophical work, and yet Wittgenstein can be seen to be somewhat inward- looking and annoyingly presumptuous. This can be seen in the way that he addresses the reader as if he is speaking absolute truth, in a way which makes you afraid to challenge his ideas because he has made them so definite and confident. The way that he develops his logical argument adds to this feeling.

Another discussion point was the way that language is used in the media and in advertising. It is used to evoke emotion and specific thoughts, with the aim of spurring action. This is therefore manipulating people through the use of language. This lead to a discussion of Orwell and mind control.

The final part of the seminar was spent debating the way that symbols and meaning can be taught by culture, the example we were using was that of pain. Do we actually feel pain, or is it simply a trained response to something that we think would cause pain? For example when a child gets an ‘owie’ do they actually feel pain or are they simply crying because they have been taught that this is the normal reaction? This brought up many stories, including one of Shira’s from visiting different tribes in Africa. There is one such tribe (at least) which relishes pain or things that you would think would inflict pain, even sees it as an honour. There are also tribes in which to be seen as a ‘man’, males must inflict pain upon themselves. The question that I ask is; are these people still experiencing pain and simply enjoying this fact, or are they actually feeling pleasure? The difficulty is that these kinds of things are totally subjective, and we can never really know what is going on inside people’s minds. Another difficulty is that everyone has different meanings for each word or symbol; this is also one of the main difficulties of language and meaning.

Seminar Paper on Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Ludwig Wittgenstein has been dubbed a ‘charismatic enigma’ because though he was largely respected and admired, he lived much of his life in seclusion. His life seems to have been dominated by striving for moral and philosophical perfection, as the detail of his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, published in English in 1922 suggests. Wittgenstein is of Jewish descent, although he often would not admit the extent of this, and his family was large and wealthy. His father, Karl Wittgenstein, was a leader in the Austro-Hungarian iron and steel industries and was a very successful businessman. This meant that throughout his childhood, many people of culture visited the Wittgenstein’s house, including Johannes Brahms who instilled in Ludwig a love of music. The family was followed by tragedy though, as 3 of Ludwig’s 4 brothers committed suicide. He also had 3 sisters.

Ludwig began his career studying mechanical engineering in Berlin before moving to Manchester to research aeronautics in 1908. He soon became interested in mathematics and philosophical theories as to the foundations of mathematics, which then turned into work on philosophical logic when friend, philosopher and mathematician Frege recommended that Ludwig study in Cambridge with G.E. Moore and Bertrand Russell, who later helped Ludwig to publish the Tractatus in English. In 1913, Ludwig inherited his father’s fortune but soon gave it away and enlisted in the Austrian Army when war broke out in 1914. During his time serving, he was awarded several medals for bravery, before continuing his philosophical work and publishing the Tractatus. Having thus felt he had solved the problems of philosophy, he became a school teacher in Austria. In 1929 he realised that his work in philosophy was not done and went to Trinity College, Cambridge to teach and became professor of philosophy at Cambridge in 1939, before working as a hospital porter in London during World War 2 and then as a research technician in Newcastle. After the war he returned to Cambridge, although he resigned his professorship in 1947 so that he could concentrate on writing, which he did mostly in Ireland and by 1949 he had compiled what would be published posthumously as Philosophical Investigations. The last two years of his life he spent between Vienna, Cambridge and Oxford and worked on the material which would be published, again posthumously, as On Certainty. He died in 1951 in Cambridge of prostate cancer.

Considered by many to be his most profound work, and by some to be nonsense, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is a pondering on the reasons that philosophers try to solve problems and propositions. Wittgenstein is arguing that instead of solving these problems, we should be trying to dissolve them through analysis. Instead of thinking “we don’t know this, we must work it out” we should be thinking “we don’t know this”. By doing this he can definitely be seen to rock the boat of philosophy, and much of his work angered philosophers; however it was important in developing Logical positivism and making language a focus for philosophical thought.

Wittgenstein’s logical positivism was based on the Verification Principle, that if a proposition cannot be verified, it is meaningless. This was therefore saying that instead of trying endless theories to solve a problem caused by an unverifiable proposition, we should just let it go. However, this created a logical problem of its own in that this proposition itself could not be verified, and therefore must be meaningless. This was supplemented by Karl Popper with the Falsification Principle, leading to today’s system where propositions must be analysed as to both the verification and falsification principles before it can be accepted as true.

Wittgenstein’s work also raises questions as to our use of language and the role that it plays in philosophical thought. The Tractatus illustrates the fact that detail must be paid to the language and meanings that we use, and that our world is created by the language available to us. We cannot think or describe without the use of language and therefore if the language available were to be reduced, the scope of our mental and verbal lives would be limited. You need to have language to express ideas, and therefore language is everything. The Tractatus also contains a picture theory of language that 1) the world consists of facts and 2) a fact is a picture of the state of affairs. We therefore create the world around us using language and facts. If a proposition does not depict a picture of a state of affairs, then it is devoid of meaning. However, given that the entire Tractatus is a series of propositions, Wittgenstein is pulling the framework of his own work apart.

This theory of language in particular has been picked up by many a philosopher as well as culturally significant writers. George Orwell is the best example of this, as his novel 1984 demonstrates Wittgenstein’s theory of language by creating a world in which one political party controls the minds of the country by limiting the language available to them. He demonstrates that if you can control the ‘facts’, you can control the world and manipulate, even manufacture, reality through the use of language and facts. This is perfectly illustrated in the ‘weeding out’ of articles that go against the current state of affairs to make it seem as if what was said before, for instance about being at war with Eurasia, was never true. In this way the party manipulates history and allegiances. They also control language by creating NewSpeak, the dictionary of shortened language which becomes smaller and smaller and eventually ends up consisting of “I love big brother”. This corruption of language to suit political means frightened both Orwell and Wittgenstein, which is why Ludwig felt it so important that we understand the meaning of what we say. The language that features in 1984 is formed of jargon, cliché, metaphor and slogan, all types of language that are designed to prevent thought and inhibit freedom of thought and expression, as can be seen in the creation of the Thought Police. Not only do these go against human rights, but, Ludwig argued, they create a society in which no-one, except the leader, can reach their full potential, which I find terrifying. Similar ideas of controlling language for political means have been used in the USSR when the communists began a programme of linguistic reform where certain words and letters were taken out of the dictionaries and alphabets and banned from use. In this way, they created a Utopian politically correct language, trying to remove social discrimination by removing the means to be discriminating. This reflects Wittgenstein’s idea that language is plastic and controls thought.

Back to the Tractatus; it is made up of a series of propositions and comments on these propositions. Wittgenstein emphasised that these were not ‘profound statements’ trying to impart wisdom in the reader, he is simply trying to show that what we think are important philosophical problems, are not really problems at all, just things that we have to live with. He is therefore not rejecting philosophy, just trying to untie some of the knots in it that cause confusion.

Another part of the Tractatus that I found particularly interesting is Wittgenstein’s comments in the preface. He says that the purpose of the book will be achieved “if it gave pleasure to one person who read and understood it”. This, to me, sums up the whole reason that we have books and that we read; to understand, learn from them and enjoy them. However, it seems to me that the way that we look at learning is not so much with eagerness or with pleasure, but with dread. What causes this dread, I cannot say, only that it may be to do with the fact that education is forced upon us from an early age, and the necessity to be able to master these skills has put so much pressure on us that we no longer look forward to it, because we know that our jobs and our lives are always going to be challenging. This takes away the pleasure that can be felt when you understand a new theory or learn something that you never knew before. Books have become just another part of our hum-drum lives, and this is a saddening thought.

Wittgenstein also says “If this work has any value, it consists in two things: the first is that thoughts are expressed in it, and on this score the better the thoughts are expressed… the greater will be its value”. This seems to me to go without saying. Wittgenstein’s focus on language throughout the book is especially prominent here as he is pointing out the precise nature of his ponderings (because, really, that’s all this book is), and identifying the effect that this will have on his readers. He is therefore a very clever man, maybe even a genius, but he does not fit this bill in the simple fact that he thinks of the understanding of others, instead of talking down to them. This is extremely important in philosophy and makes a refreshing change from the dictator-like style of Karl Marx and more heavy-handed philosophers like Rousseau.

He describes philosophy as aiming at the “logical clarification of thoughts” and I think that this is very important. Too often, we take meanings and words for granted, without being careful or specific, and this emphasis on thinking through what we are saying is important, as my mother says ‘think before you speak’, so you should think before you preach in philosophy. This also makes the end of Wittgenstein’s preface particularly powerful; “the second thing in which the value of this work consists is that it shows how little is achieved when these problems are solved”.