This weeks lecture was looking at the economic revolutions of the time when Dickens and Cobbett were writing. So, to start, a historio-social summary.
England did well out of the French Revolution, despite the fact that the Napoleonic war was very expensive. The British public, in particular the aristocracy, were very interested in what was going on in France as they feared that it could spread to England and cause them great difficulties in controlling the discontented people. This worry was worsened by the creation of Income Tax in 1799 to pay for the war effort.
British naval power was absolute and when French trade was destroyed by blockades of their ports, Britain experienced an exports boom, supplying even the French army's clothing. While other European armies were occupied, Britain took the opportunity to expand its trading empire and creating a monopoly. The Transatlantic Trade Triangle was exeedingly profitable, with 1 million slaves transported in the 16th Century, 3 million in the next and 7 million in the next, before the Abolition of Slavery Act in 1833. This formed a part of the textiles trade which made up 60% of exports. As well as this great success, coal output doubled between 1750 and 1800 and Manchester's population grew from 17,000 in 1760 to 180,000 in 1830. This is a growth never before seen and led the city to be viewed as revolutionary, a city of the future. Marx and Engles thought it to be where a workers revolution is likely to break out because the discontent caused by overcrowding, long hours, gruelling work and low wages was growing with the population. In fact, it is often thought that the ideas that drove the Russian revolution were born here.
The cotton trade was key to the Industrial Revolution, using the raw material from slave plantations in the American South, and Lancashire to produce the finished article. It was mainly for export and inventions such as the gaslight meant longer hours and an even more efficient process.
However, the end of the war meant the end of the boom, there was widespread unemployment, so the Corn Laws were drawn up to protect farming by putting a tarrif on imported grain, making the price of bread shoot up and the working poor even poorer. As people were driven from the country side to find work, the conditions in towns and cities grew dire. People were living in slums, with the sewage of the rich, being pushed onto the poor because it had nowhere else to go, the infastructure could not keep up with the growing population, sanitation was terrible and diseases and illnesses such as cholera were rife. This all led to major discontent among the people.
The goverment responded with a policy of brutal repression of any form of dissent and strict penal penalties. Exportation of "criminals" to the colonies began. In 1819 in Manchester, the Peterloo Massacre of a group of 60,000 campaigning for parliamentary change against a corrupt and unrepresentative government that was dominated by the rich aristocracy, led to 11 deaths and showed the extent to which the government were afraid of dissent.
However, there were still many protests across the country, demanding that growing industrial towns should have the right to elect MPs. At the time, less than 2% of the population had the vote and there was a big problem with "rotten boroughs", for example Old Sarum which had 11 voters and 2 MPs. The reform Act of 1832, brought on by the pressure on the government, lead to a less corrupt and slightly more representative system. The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 mean that bread became cheaper, however this was used to argue that wages could be lowered because workers could now survive on less. This was NOT the desired result.
Farming:
Enclosures had mean that the idea of the landholding peasantry was no more, and there was nothing to stop the non-industrial labour moving to industrial. Up until the 18th century, the population had been rising only slowly, staying at a steady 5 million between the end of the 17th century and the middle of the 18th. However, after 1770, it started to rise dramatically (an idea that Cobbett disputed). Around this time, the Swing riots occured. Rural labourers opposed to new technology, such as threshing machines, staged riots across the south in 1830. These people were known as "rural ludites" and were completely opposed to new technology and change, fearing that their traditional way of life was in jeapardy.
The Poor:
The poor were looked after by the Speenhanland System which was devised as a means to alleviate distress caused by high grain prices. It was means tested and a sort of top-up for wages, dependent on children, price of bread etc. It had an immediate impact on landowners who had to pay it and these problems led to the New Poor Law of 1834. This said that no able-bodied person could receive money or help, except in a workhouse. They developed these workhouses to be a deterrent to being poor, like a prison, it was sectioned into men, women and children, and they worked it out so that they were given only enough food to keep them alive from day to day, but an amount which would slowy kill them. This effectively criminalised the poor, as their only options were workhouse or deportation. It was influenced by Bentham's utilitarian ideas that people did what was pleasant and wouldn't do what was unpleasant, so if poverty was made as unpleasant as possible, people would not be poor. This created the idea of "stigmatising relief", making relief an"object of wholesome horror".
Ireland:
At this time, Ireland was wild, poverty stricken and desperate. There was much discontent, and seen as a dangerous back door for the French, especially as both countries were Catholic. Due to this threat, the Duke of Wellington passed the Catholic Emancipation in 1829; parliament was trying to bring the Irish under control. MPs were elected to sit in Westminster, including Daniel O'Connell in 1828, however, because this was before the Catholic Emancipation, he was debarred from taking his seat. He was a pacifist and saw the act of union as dangerous because Ireland was not properly represented; only the Protestant aristocracy could take a seat. He campaigned for a repeal and began a radical political movement, holding peaceful rallies and meetings such as the 1843 meeting in Tara which is estimated to draw 1 million people. He planned another at Clontarf where he wanted to get more than a million people, however an MP banned the meeting and sent troops and a cannon. O'Connell had to make a decision whether to hold the meeting and have hundreds of people die, or to give up. He backed down and this caused the idea of peaceful revolution in Ireland to be given up on completely.
The famine of 1845-1850, where more than a million died and two million emigrated on "coffin ships", was seen as very badly handled by Britain. It is reported that during this famine, food and livestock were actually exported to England, even though Ireland needed it most. Therefore, someone said that "The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the famine".
We then went on to talk about Cobbet and Dickens and their respective views, which i will be publishing as part of my seminar paper next week, as this post is already stupidly long!
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Seminar 2: Kant and Hegel
We started off talking about other opinions of Kant’s philosophy and the reactions to it, such as the fact that it has been seen as an attack on epistemology (the theory of knowledge). He challenges the existence of God throughout his work. The most important ideas that he discussed were phenomenal and nuomenal worlds, moral laws (which he thinks should be seen as universal - don’t do anything that you would not want everyone else to do). He is a rationalist, meaning that he believes in a mixture of the ideas that the mind knows everything a priori and that the mind is a blank slate and everything is learnt from experience. It is logical that our knowledge is the result of a mix of innate instincts, learning from experience and our environment. I personally believe that our knowledge is also effected by the way that people react to us.
We talked about how Hegel influenced Marx, who we will be looking at in a couple of weeks. He was a staunch nationalist and much of his philosophy was based on the Greek system of triads. This is especially clear in his theory on theses, antitheses and syntheses. We also talked about his Dialectical theory that everything is always becoming and changing. This brought about discussion about what causes change; the universe, nature or a God? I believe that nature drives change, but i have no idea what drives nature.
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Lecture 2: German Idealism
This lecture was all about Kant and Hegel; the basics of Philosophical/German Idealism.
We started off with a summary of what was going on in the world at the time. The French Revolution is the main influence and began with an almost religion-like attack on the monarchy, similar to Freemasonry, which tried to change things like the calendar to have 10 months in a year and 10 weeks in a month. This soon collapsed into the Terror which was then ended by Napoleon who set up a military dictatorship, with a "levee en masse" meaning that the entire nation was an army, people were referred to as "citizen" rather than "sir" or "madam" in order to prevent social hierachy. Napoleon was a Jacobean and fought for democracy and human rights. Wordsworth was a supporter of the revolution, referring to it as "bliss", until The Terror emerged and showed the dark side of true equality. At this point, Wordsworth became religious, mystic and conservative. Because of the Terror, many people changed their views and liberals had to re-evaluate what exactly it was that they wanted. This was also the era of people such as Addison, Newton and Smith, and the ideas of science and economic freedom were very popular.
It is also important to remember that Romanticism was a reaction to the Enlightenment.
Kant
Kant is often seen as the founder of German Idealism. He was a liberal and a supporter of the French Revolution. In one of his most influential books, "A Critique of Pure Reason", he outlines his main ideas. To start with, he says that everything percieved has two natures; Nuomenal and Phenomenal. These are separate worlds in which objects exist both in our perception and out of it. This idea addresses the problem of causality in empiricism which is present both in Hume's philosophy, in which there is no causality in nature and everything is purely in our minds (this is a humanist perspective, saying that we work on the habit of mind), and Berkley's philosophy which argues the provisionality of existence of percieved phenomena (this means that things flash in and out of existance as they go in and out of our perception and is put down to the action of God). Kant argues that the nuomenal world is perceived by "intuition", especially shown in the aesthetic reaction to art and beauty. For example, Keats wrote that "Beauty is Truth. Truth is Beauty.", saying that this is all we can and need to know. The idea is that objects are "things in themselves", even when they are not perceived, they are still there, but they are not the same. When you perceive an object it passes into the phenomenal world. As evidence, Kant puts forward the idea that intuition is an objective force and that subjective feelings are our connection to the nuomenal world, therefore our aesthetic response is proof that objects do not go out of existence when they are not perceived. This philosophy of Plato. Therefore Kanteans believe that abstract art is the result of trying to paint the object in it's nuominal, or natural, form.
Kant had 12 categories of perception and believed in a Copernican Revolution, that the mind actively shapes the universe. This is the opposite to empiricism. Kant argued that the mind impresses itself on nuominal objects and brings them into the phenomenal world. Therefore, the universe looks the way it does because of the perceptive apparatus of the mind; it is NOT like that in nature. This means that reality is conditioned by the mind, and this is the key to German Idealism.
Kant's Morality
Kant argued for the Categorical Imperative, which he said comes in several forms. It is based on the idea of universalisation, that you should act on the premise that any decision you make will become a universal rule that everyone will abide by. Therefore your decisions must be moraly "right" rather than "good" for you. It is based on the idea of innate ideas of right and wrong, that everyone knows the difference even if their actions are not always right. (This goes directly agains empiricists which argue that there are NO innate ideas). Kant saw morality as "the moral law within"; the intuition that tells us what is right and what is wrong. This is based on the idea that it is the intentions that are either good or bad, regardless of the outcomes or consequences. The empiricist view is utilitarianist, seeing acheivement of aims as good, regardless of how it is done. This is the opposite of the Kantean system. Kant believed that it is better to destroy the whole world than to tell a lie or do a wrong. Therefore Kant completely rejects utilitarianism. He says that all people are equal and we all know the difference between right and wrong.
Hegel
Hegel was an idealist, like Kant, and was writing after the revolution, mostly during the Napoleonic wars. He is known as a philosopher on European supremacy, and was a devout Christian. He argued that any possible idea contains its own negation. This is based on a Grecian system of triads, and is very much influenced by Aristotle. Basically, each idea contains it's opposite; for example, the antithesis for the thesis of "existence" would be "non-existence" and the synthesis would be "history" or "becoming" because he believed that everything is constantly changing. This is therefore a theory of dialectical change, from Aristotle's syllogistic logic. The proof of existence is therefore in the concept of non-existence and this clash produces the synthesis, which then becomes a new thesis.
Hegel was a teleological thinker, which means that he believed that these processes have a purpose, and that purpose is a steady progress towards paradise where we will be re-united with God and live happily ever after. Therefore he saw history as having a purpose, and said that no change is ever random. This is the basis of the Christian religion.
For more in depth information and analysis, Chris has posted several youtube videos on Hegel, Kant, Byron and Romanticism.
We started off with a summary of what was going on in the world at the time. The French Revolution is the main influence and began with an almost religion-like attack on the monarchy, similar to Freemasonry, which tried to change things like the calendar to have 10 months in a year and 10 weeks in a month. This soon collapsed into the Terror which was then ended by Napoleon who set up a military dictatorship, with a "levee en masse" meaning that the entire nation was an army, people were referred to as "citizen" rather than "sir" or "madam" in order to prevent social hierachy. Napoleon was a Jacobean and fought for democracy and human rights. Wordsworth was a supporter of the revolution, referring to it as "bliss", until The Terror emerged and showed the dark side of true equality. At this point, Wordsworth became religious, mystic and conservative. Because of the Terror, many people changed their views and liberals had to re-evaluate what exactly it was that they wanted. This was also the era of people such as Addison, Newton and Smith, and the ideas of science and economic freedom were very popular.
It is also important to remember that Romanticism was a reaction to the Enlightenment.
Kant
Kant is often seen as the founder of German Idealism. He was a liberal and a supporter of the French Revolution. In one of his most influential books, "A Critique of Pure Reason", he outlines his main ideas. To start with, he says that everything percieved has two natures; Nuomenal and Phenomenal. These are separate worlds in which objects exist both in our perception and out of it. This idea addresses the problem of causality in empiricism which is present both in Hume's philosophy, in which there is no causality in nature and everything is purely in our minds (this is a humanist perspective, saying that we work on the habit of mind), and Berkley's philosophy which argues the provisionality of existence of percieved phenomena (this means that things flash in and out of existance as they go in and out of our perception and is put down to the action of God). Kant argues that the nuomenal world is perceived by "intuition", especially shown in the aesthetic reaction to art and beauty. For example, Keats wrote that "Beauty is Truth. Truth is Beauty.", saying that this is all we can and need to know. The idea is that objects are "things in themselves", even when they are not perceived, they are still there, but they are not the same. When you perceive an object it passes into the phenomenal world. As evidence, Kant puts forward the idea that intuition is an objective force and that subjective feelings are our connection to the nuomenal world, therefore our aesthetic response is proof that objects do not go out of existence when they are not perceived. This philosophy of Plato. Therefore Kanteans believe that abstract art is the result of trying to paint the object in it's nuominal, or natural, form.
Kant had 12 categories of perception and believed in a Copernican Revolution, that the mind actively shapes the universe. This is the opposite to empiricism. Kant argued that the mind impresses itself on nuominal objects and brings them into the phenomenal world. Therefore, the universe looks the way it does because of the perceptive apparatus of the mind; it is NOT like that in nature. This means that reality is conditioned by the mind, and this is the key to German Idealism.
Kant's Morality
Kant argued for the Categorical Imperative, which he said comes in several forms. It is based on the idea of universalisation, that you should act on the premise that any decision you make will become a universal rule that everyone will abide by. Therefore your decisions must be moraly "right" rather than "good" for you. It is based on the idea of innate ideas of right and wrong, that everyone knows the difference even if their actions are not always right. (This goes directly agains empiricists which argue that there are NO innate ideas). Kant saw morality as "the moral law within"; the intuition that tells us what is right and what is wrong. This is based on the idea that it is the intentions that are either good or bad, regardless of the outcomes or consequences. The empiricist view is utilitarianist, seeing acheivement of aims as good, regardless of how it is done. This is the opposite of the Kantean system. Kant believed that it is better to destroy the whole world than to tell a lie or do a wrong. Therefore Kant completely rejects utilitarianism. He says that all people are equal and we all know the difference between right and wrong.
Hegel
Hegel was an idealist, like Kant, and was writing after the revolution, mostly during the Napoleonic wars. He is known as a philosopher on European supremacy, and was a devout Christian. He argued that any possible idea contains its own negation. This is based on a Grecian system of triads, and is very much influenced by Aristotle. Basically, each idea contains it's opposite; for example, the antithesis for the thesis of "existence" would be "non-existence" and the synthesis would be "history" or "becoming" because he believed that everything is constantly changing. This is therefore a theory of dialectical change, from Aristotle's syllogistic logic. The proof of existence is therefore in the concept of non-existence and this clash produces the synthesis, which then becomes a new thesis.
Hegel was a teleological thinker, which means that he believed that these processes have a purpose, and that purpose is a steady progress towards paradise where we will be re-united with God and live happily ever after. Therefore he saw history as having a purpose, and said that no change is ever random. This is the basis of the Christian religion.
For more in depth information and analysis, Chris has posted several youtube videos on Hegel, Kant, Byron and Romanticism.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Seminar 1: Mary Wollstencraft and John Stuart Mill
We started the Seminar by discussing the government's decision to cap universities and the financial role that they play in education as a whole, in relation to the current economic climate. This brought us on to what the Conservatives will most likely do if they win the next election; the fact that they are free marketers and reflect a lot of Adam Smith's political and economic philosophy. This is very fitting with today's discussion of Wollstencraft and Mill because their philosophies are intertwined with education and the structure of society, especially the way that this shapes us.
Mary Wollstencraft had lots of responsibility from a young age, and in many respects can be seen as a casualty of her time. She preached that women should get the same education and opportunities as men and that the role that society has forced on women is constricting and smothering, taking away any possible independence. She was not educated to be free, and so she fell into the same traps that she was advising against. She was often called a hypocrite because she said that women should not cowtail to men and their fleeting fancies, and yet she was several times a mistress and became so embroiled in such emotional turmoil that she attempted suicide over a man. This goes completely against her beliefs and so many think that her work has been degraded as a result of her personal life. It makes it very difficult to respect her, however, in my opinion she was simply an example of what was wrong with society and therefore proved her own point, adding further strength to her arguments. She also gained support from some of Rousseau's arguments, however they did not see eye to eye on everything.
She boosted her writing in many ways, such as the passionate approach she had, with exclamations and personal feelings being expressed. This shows that she was very strong minded and gives the audience more confidence in her. She is often sarcastic, making women question their role and wether they need protection etc. She often reaches out to women as well, especially on the points of; unfaithful husbands, unequal treatment (for example the inheritance laws of the time) and the fact that they can be independent and look after themselves. There is also one paragraph written as if she were talking to God, which would have appealed to many at the time. Her writing gives women a voice, which was greatly needed at the time, taking away from the power that men held over women and, but she is equally critical of men for controlling and women for being controlled. She argued vehemently that women have reason and potential on a par with men, but that the role that society had given them meant that this could never be achieved. Therefore, women are not inferior, only unfairly treated and made weak by society. The fact that women were obliged to look to men for everything meant that they were constantly submissive and their thoughts never turned to anything but whiling away their time, meaning that they only ever thought of themselves, encouraging vanity and idleness, further taking away from their potential.
John Stuart Mill focused more on what society can and should control and how much control the government and other organisations should have over the individual. He thought that everyone should be equal and not controlled, with equal opportunities. He was utilitarian and believed in freedom of speech, having individual space and a limit on the power and influence of the government. He was Utilitarian, meaning that he wanted the greatest good for the greatest number and to maximise good and pleasure and minimise pain. He devised a hierachy of pleasures, however many people have a problem with this part of his philosophy because happiness is very subjective and completely dependant on the individual's situation. His focus was on inner conciousness and thought, however he did acknowledge that every action has a consequence and that these should be monitored to so that no harm was done to society in general. Mill saw no difference between men and women, which is advantageous in political matters as they can be treated exactly the same and only one set of rules and expectations is needed. However, Wollstencraft saw women and men as different privately and only publically the same. Mill was writing a century later than Wollstencraft, and this can be seen in the increased equality in his view and arguments.
On the whole, both were very influential, but Wollstencraft's work was greatly damaged by her personal life and, in my opinion, Mill was more valid because his arguments could be acted upon; there is very little that can be done about the restrictive role of society.
Mary Wollstencraft had lots of responsibility from a young age, and in many respects can be seen as a casualty of her time. She preached that women should get the same education and opportunities as men and that the role that society has forced on women is constricting and smothering, taking away any possible independence. She was not educated to be free, and so she fell into the same traps that she was advising against. She was often called a hypocrite because she said that women should not cowtail to men and their fleeting fancies, and yet she was several times a mistress and became so embroiled in such emotional turmoil that she attempted suicide over a man. This goes completely against her beliefs and so many think that her work has been degraded as a result of her personal life. It makes it very difficult to respect her, however, in my opinion she was simply an example of what was wrong with society and therefore proved her own point, adding further strength to her arguments. She also gained support from some of Rousseau's arguments, however they did not see eye to eye on everything.
She boosted her writing in many ways, such as the passionate approach she had, with exclamations and personal feelings being expressed. This shows that she was very strong minded and gives the audience more confidence in her. She is often sarcastic, making women question their role and wether they need protection etc. She often reaches out to women as well, especially on the points of; unfaithful husbands, unequal treatment (for example the inheritance laws of the time) and the fact that they can be independent and look after themselves. There is also one paragraph written as if she were talking to God, which would have appealed to many at the time. Her writing gives women a voice, which was greatly needed at the time, taking away from the power that men held over women and, but she is equally critical of men for controlling and women for being controlled. She argued vehemently that women have reason and potential on a par with men, but that the role that society had given them meant that this could never be achieved. Therefore, women are not inferior, only unfairly treated and made weak by society. The fact that women were obliged to look to men for everything meant that they were constantly submissive and their thoughts never turned to anything but whiling away their time, meaning that they only ever thought of themselves, encouraging vanity and idleness, further taking away from their potential.
John Stuart Mill focused more on what society can and should control and how much control the government and other organisations should have over the individual. He thought that everyone should be equal and not controlled, with equal opportunities. He was utilitarian and believed in freedom of speech, having individual space and a limit on the power and influence of the government. He was Utilitarian, meaning that he wanted the greatest good for the greatest number and to maximise good and pleasure and minimise pain. He devised a hierachy of pleasures, however many people have a problem with this part of his philosophy because happiness is very subjective and completely dependant on the individual's situation. His focus was on inner conciousness and thought, however he did acknowledge that every action has a consequence and that these should be monitored to so that no harm was done to society in general. Mill saw no difference between men and women, which is advantageous in political matters as they can be treated exactly the same and only one set of rules and expectations is needed. However, Wollstencraft saw women and men as different privately and only publically the same. Mill was writing a century later than Wollstencraft, and this can be seen in the increased equality in his view and arguments.
On the whole, both were very influential, but Wollstencraft's work was greatly damaged by her personal life and, in my opinion, Mill was more valid because his arguments could be acted upon; there is very little that can be done about the restrictive role of society.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Term 2 Lecture 1 - Liberty and Utilitarianism in the 18th and 19th Centuries
This is the first lecture back and raises some very interesting questions, such as how do we know what others experience, how do we measure pleasure or pain or harm, and how much control do we really have over our own lives, considering that individuals cannot get their say in the governing of the country and we all have to follow the same rules? Here are my notes:
John Wilkes - 18th century journalist - interest in freedom of press
- He was unattractive but charming - claimed he could talk away his face in twenty minutes. Had numerous affairs.
- An advocate of civil liberties.
- His “Essay on Women” has been described as the “dirtiest poem in the English language”.
- Notorious politician, MP and one time Mayor of London who was exiled several times and jailed a number of times.
- He was a member of the Hellfire Club who did whatever they wanted such as drugs, orgies, drinking etc.
- Established laws such as the right to report on parliament
- A vocal critic of the corrupt aristocracy and people in power. This meant that he was very popular with the lower classes and the Americans as he fought for their voice and civil liberties.
- Put forward the first bill proposing universal male suffrage in 1775
- Anonymously set up a scandalous newspaper called “The North Briton” (in attack of the Prime Minister’s propaganda newspaper “The Briton”. The paper was written from the point of view of Scottish, in a condescending tone towards the corrupt London society and government. Criticised public figures such as calling the secretary of state “weak, passionate and insolent”. It was very popular and sold twenty times as many papers as the original “Briton” leading the prime minister to stand down. The king was outraged at the lack of respect for people in power so he attacked the paper with prosecutions, lawsuits, bribes and assassination attempts however they could not prove who the author was. Wilkes kept pushing, with Issue 45 becoming notorious because the King was called a liar in the most vicious attack yet. A General Warrant was issued (only the crime named, not the criminal) and Wilkes and 49 others were arrested. Wilkes sued the government for invasion of privacy and false arrest, setting precedent by stopping the General Warrant and establishing a right to full legal procedure.
- However, he was then expelled from the house of commons so he fled to france but was arrested on his return. He campaigned and re-won his seat in the House of Commons from prison however the house voted him incapable of being elected. Soon after he was elected Alderman and Mayor of London by City officers.
- Wilkes reported on Parliament, which was unheard of, in the City of London, against Westminster. City of Westminster Police tried to arrest the printers, but they were arrested by City of London police. This established that Parliament could and should be reported on and judged by the people.
Mary Wollstonecraft - early feminist - interest in freedom of women
- Wollstonecraft had a difficult early life, born into the middle class but with a father obsessed with social standing, they slowly slipped into poverty as he turned drunk, violent and promiscuous. Mary was forced to work as a governess in a wealthy family in Ireland where she became obsessed by education and read everything that she could.
- In 1787 when she was in her early 20s, she published her first work “Thoughts on the education of daughters” where she put forward her ideas that education for women was superficial and did not equip them for independent though or judgement. This is underpinned by Locke’s idea that the mind is a tabula rata and that therefore if you educate people properly, they can be rational, responsible citizens.
- Returned to London and set up a school.
- Becomes a rational dissenter (applied rationality to religion) and Unitarian (did not believe in the trinity).
- Fascinated by Rousseau who she found inspirational and aggravating. In response to his ideas in “Emile”, she published “Mary”. She liked his ideas on anti-elitism, egalitarianism and his attack on modern manners. However, his ideas about women were opposite to her own, saying that they ought to be “passive and weak”.
- A child of the Enlightenment.
- Fascinated by the French Revolution, seeing it as world-changing in reference to equality. Edmund Burke criticised it because he saw society as being built on tradition and thought that ripping it up would be a disaster. In response to this, Wollstonecraft published “Vindication on the rights of men” in which she criticised the ideas of aristocracy and hereditary power.
- Her next work, “Vindication on the rights of women” was not concerned with the technicalities of what changes and rights she wants to see but is based on pointing out the problems in women’s society, targeting the middle classes (have accepted a submissive role given to them by society, acquire a false sense of themselves, need to be educated properly).
- Tried to isolate gender differences and unite men and women as human beings.
- Her later life was scandalous, with several failed affairs, especially one in Paris in 1792 (at the beginning of the Terror - guillotines) with Imlay who abandoned her, leading her to suicide attempts. She later married Goodwin and had a daughter called Shelley (she also had an illegitimate child). Goodwin wrote a very frank and damning biography of her which threw her out of favour until the end of the 19th century.
Wollstonecraft’s view on liberty:
- Attempt to limit powers of government through bills of rights and the extension of the franchise - trying to put authority into the individual. (Hobbes, Locke)
- Laissez faire attitude to economics, favouring free trade (Adam Smith) and equality of opportunity (education - Wollstonecraft) over egalitarian. However, socialists argue that this is nonsense and that it would be like the Ritz being open to everyone.
- Separation of church and state because religion and morality are private (Locke’s private revelation)
John Stuart Mill - 19th Century - liberty as a political ideal - important politically - utilitarianism
- Jailed at 17 for distributing information on contraception.
- First bill to give women the vote.
- Had a bizarre education. He was the son of a philosopher and god son of Bentham (founder of utilitarianism). John acted as an experiment for them and by 3 years old was reading Greek, from which he learned English and was fluent in both these and Latin by 9 years. They only taught him what they thought was useful, things like languages and politics, and gave him no time for things like the arts or sports. By 16 he was a genius but at just 20 he had a nervous breakdown. Poetry like Wordsworth revived him and he later brought this into his philosophy.
In his work “On Liberty”
- he spoke about freedom of speech being absolute, saying that opinion should never be silenced and can be freely held as long as it does not incite violence.
- Socrates and Christ’s views meant that he saw them as dissenters and used this as an example to prove that the majority may be wrong, and everyone should be allowed to speak up. He pointed out that we can never be absolutely certain of things, such as Andrew Wakefeild who spoke up about the MMR vaccine and triggered much testing and double testing of the drug. Therefore alternative thought is productive and useful and should not be silenced.
- He saw “experiments in living” as showing people exercising their personal freedom and said that this should be allowed, as long as it does not harm anybody.
- He was therefore dead-set against uniformity; “genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom”. This points out the fact that great thinkers and genius’ do not fit into society (more often than not) and yet provide for society and enable progress.
- He spoke of self regarding actions, saying that you are free to harm yourself as long as it doesn’t harm others.
Utilitarianism
- Avoids the problems of religion or morals and therefore the tricky ideas of right and wrong.
- Bentham saw ethics as a science, with rationality and enlightenment in practical scales and with happiness being measurable.
- Everyone’s happiness matters as much as everyone else’s.
- “Greatest good for the greatest number”
- Mill came up with a hierarchy of pleasures and was committed to producing the best outcomes, often described as a “cold logic machine”.
- Bentham’s happiness was seen by some to be “that of a contented pig”. Mill said that it is “better to be a discontented Socrates than a contented fool”
- This is a consequential theory, meaning there are three ways to look at it; 1) Acts - think about the right and wrong of it by looking at the consequences, 2) moral rules - society’s rules and acting against pain, 3) disposition - the character or trait that the action exemplifies.
- However, there is a problem with this theory in that it is very similar to Hedonism. Also, how do we class pleasure, pain, or harm? We are unable to understand the sensations and decisions that others experience, therefore it is more like desire satisfaction that pleasure.
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
