ECONOMICS - HCJ YEAR TWO SEMESTER ONE

So the catch up continues... Economics!


The first real economic text was Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations'. In this, Smith claimed that too much state intervention caused Nations to become poorer, and claimed "the hidden hand of the market will make everybody richer". Smith believed that free trade and free individuals boost the economy.

David Ricardo - claimed that natural resources or objects have no intrinsic value, but that value arises when humans apply conscious effort towards an object. For example, a diamond attracts far more value than a matchstick, as it requires significantly greater human endeavour to create a diamond than a matchstick.

Thomas Malthus - The iron law of population - claimed that humans will always starve to death, and that civilised society is permanently on the brink of starvation. Claimed that marriage and chastity were solutions to this problem.

Karl Marx - Marx believed that the only source of value was labour, and that wages would decrease as the population increased, as a higher population leads to a higher demand for each job. This leads to the iron law of wages, which states that as this happens, workers wages will become lower than the price of the item they create. For example, if a 'widget' is sold for £10, then £5 will be taken as profit by the factory owner, and £5 will be given to the worker as wages. The worker then cannot afford to purchase the 'widget', and if the price is reduced, the wages must also be reduced to account for profit. If this is allowed to continue on a grand scale, it can result in over production and under consumption.

Keynes - Keynes' solution to Marx problem of the iron law of wages was to simply print more money. Doing so allows greater investment, and companies to pay higher wages. This of course meant moving away from the gold standard, the system by which the amount of money in the economy was directly proportionate to the amount of gold the country possessed.
However, printing more money is not a risk-free solution. It can lead to inflation and stagflation, as well as an increased role of the state, which by Smith's theory would cause the nation to become poorer.

Of course if everyone just keeps spending, no-one has a problem...

ETHICS AND AESTHETICS - HCJ YEAR TWO SEMESTER ONE

Now, this particular topic was my seminar paper. It was also slightly baffling. So here is my attempt to make sense of it all, hold on tight.

ETHICS

"The greatest happiness of the greatest number"

BENTHAM

Happiness is commonly seen as the key motive behind human behaviour, and an incredibly important concept in moral philosophy, from Plato and Aristotle onwards. Bentham considered pleasure to be the most important motive.

Bentham aligned pleasure with happiness, whereas Aristotle had drawn a distinction between them. Bentham regarded pleasure as simply a sensation, that could be accessed in a number of ways, and believed the relationship between an action and pleasure was one of cause and effect. 

From a Utilitarian point of view, quantity of pleasure/pain must be considered before any actions or decisions are taken. 

Bentham was aware that quantification was not easy, and made suggestions of how to quantify pleasure, relating to duration, certainty and immediacy, to decide what makes one pleasure greater than another.

When making personal decisions we must consider whether the decision will trigger further occurrences of pleasure or pain. When deciding public policy, it must be considered how widely the pleasure or pain will be spread.  This is the principle of greatest happiness of greatest number.

This is a very ambiguous phrase however, not specifying what is meant by the greatest number.

It is likely that Bentham mean the greatest number of PEOPLE, however others have extended it to sentient beings, as they are also capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.

This also raised further questions, such as should we try and increase the population so a greater number may benefit? When measuring happiness, do we consider the total or average happiness.

Bentham is a  consequentialist, believing that morality is based on consequence and that no action cannot be justified. This is the opposite of the absolutist view, where some actions are completely unjustifiable.

MILL

Mill was also a consequentialist, but he somewhat toned down Bentham's work.

Mill distinguishes between pleasure not only in quantity but in quality also.

He claims that universal happiness is the ultimate moral standard, but need not be the motive force behind each and every action. Also acknowledges that all moral systems leave room to justify evildoing to some extent, no moral system is completely flawless. 

SCHOPENHAUER

Schopenhauers ethics are tied to his metaphysics, that the true reality is the universal will, and that human nature is dictated by necessity, that motives arise out of individual character through necessity. Believes if the character and motives of a person are completely known, his decisions can be calculated and predicted, as it is character and motive that influences all a man does. 

Schopenhauer suggests that no person can ever be truly content, as the will is never satisfied, and can never be truly overcome. This is because the only way to overcome the will is through complete renunciation, however renunciation is a gesture of will.

Schopenhauer's ideal is an ascetic perspective; “he compels himself to refrain from doing all that he would like to do, and to do all that he would like not to do”.

NIETZSCHE

Nietzsche believed that the values of Christianity needed to be overturned, essentially believing in a sort of philosophical survival of the fittest, where the weakest are brushed aside.

He believed that we are progressing towards the highest form of life, the Superman (not the comic book hero). To reach this we must have a will and desire for power. He claimed “humanity must be surpassed, it is a bridge not a goal”

Condemns traditional virtues believing they hinder rather than help progress towards the superman, which must come through seeking increased power, not promoting the weak.

AESTHETICS

Baumgarten is seen by many as the father of aesthetics. He believed that beauty exists to give pleasure, and that the highest form of beauty is nature, therefore art aims to replicate nature.

Burke suggested that achieving the sublime can also be the aim of art, as well as achieving beauty.

Hume claimed that beauty is interpreted by each individual, it is what satisfies our souls, dependent on our mood, nature and social conventions. Essentially, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, here 'satisfaction' is a term that needs some clarification. 

Kant describes two kinds of satisfaction – sensual delight as gratification, and enjoyment of beauty as pleasure. Sensual delight is personal, whereas beauty is considered universal by Kant.

Kant went on to describe two kinds of beauty, free beauty and derivative beauty. Free beauty is beauty without purpose, it may not have a function but is still beautiful, derivative beauty is based on its purpose, it cannot be beautiful without fulfilling its purpose.

SCHOPENHAUER

Schopenhauer believed that beauty must be admired without desire influencing our opinion. A desire to possess the beautiful object or letting others convince us of its beauty corrupts our opinion. 

He considered art to be representations of beauty, attempts to recreate beauty, to capture something perfect, and holds poetry and drama as highest form of art, because it comes the closest to perfectly representing beauty. 

Got that?

HCJ YEAR TWO, SEMESTER ONE - FREUD

I am well aware that this blog has been cruelly neglected. Now is the time for that to end.
ALL of this years HCJ lecture notes will be along shortly, working in reverse order (apologies) from my most recent and well remembered lecture, all the way to the first week of the year, way back in September. Wish me luck.


SIGMUND FREUD

Brian chose not to hold a banana for the whole of this lecture. I found that marginally disappointing. On the plus side, I was reminded just how good a film 'A Dangerous Method' is, and will be watching it again once this blog is fully updated.

Freud attempted to create an all encompassing theory, based on his observation of the misery of the human condition. Freud sought to understand why people are essentially miserable beings, and the method he devised to answer this question was psychoanalysis.
Through psychoanalysis, Freud believed he had uncovered the archaeology of the mind.
Freud claimed that the reason behind our misery is that we are at war with ourselves, that our mind is divided into three different parts. This theory draws some slight parallels with Plato and Marx, both of whom had stated that the mind consists of three parts, however, Freud's remarkably pessimistic view is very different from either of their views.
Freud believed the three parts of the mind were as follows:
- The Id
- The Ego
- The Super Ego

Id
Freud described the Id as "a cauldron of seething excitations". A wonderful phrase, but what does that mean?
Well in essence, Freud considered the Id to be the our core, where all our desires lie. According to Freud, these desires revolve largely around Sex and Violence, a point more recently supported by well respected East London rapper, Dizzee Rascal.
The Id can be compared to a spoiled brat, an irrational toddler who knows only what it wants, and is likely to lash out if it does not get its way. The key word there is 'irrational', the Id is unreasonable and passionate.

The Ego
The Ego is the voice of reason, the part of our mind that engages with reality. The part of your mind that stops you pushing that pregnant lady in front of the train, a sentiment echoed by a young comedian by the name of Eric Lampaert.
The Ego, while the voice of reason within our minds, is also the weakest by Freud's reckoning. He described the Ego as constantly "embattled and beseiged", almost as though the Ego is the perennial victim of the school bully.

The Super Ego
While the prior two elements of the human psyche are ever-present, the Super Ego develops after birth, it is nurtured by its surroundings.
The Super Ego is the internalised rules of your parents, teachers, law enforcement and society at large. The rules, laws and social conventions that you absorb as you develop. The Super Ego is an irrational aspect of your mind, it seeks perfection, and punishes you with guilt, not unlike Religion.


This vision of a three part mind draws sharp contrast with Plato's tripartite self, where reason is the strongest in the eyes of Plato, but clearly considered the weakest by Freud.
Freud's views are far more similar to those held by Hobbes and Machiavelli, we are violent beings, ruled by desire.

Freud observed that society is full of pain, that we are a decaying species that is constantly suffering. He believed that the greatest pain was other people, that others are the greatest root of suffering for an individual. Freud's answer to all of this was psychoanalysis, a solution that he openly admitted was not for everyone, as it was incredibly pricey. With the benefit of hindsight we can also safely say it lacked any scientific merit. Not a bad get rich quick scheme though I suppose, when you're a cocaine addicted celebrity psychoanalyst, but that is an aside.

For those not blessed with the required riches to indulge in psychoanalysis, Freud outlined a number of other, temporary solutions, to help control your Id.
Intoxication - Obviously not a permanent solution, and also relatively costly depending on your tolerance to alcohol/other substances.
Isolation - Again, only temporary, staying isolated for extended periods of time can do far more harm than good.
Religion - Essentially for Freud this is a mass delusion, but one that may help in calming your Id.
Sublimation - By which Freud meant socially acceptable ways of releasing the pent up aggression of your Id, such as sport and work.

If you could afford psychoanalysis however, Freud believed it was a means to deal directly with the Id. Freud did this a variety of ways, including hypnosis, dream analysis and free association. Free association is essentially the patient talking continually in a stream of consciousness, until they eventually reveal their inner desires.

Freud also stated that Civilisation is a collective Super Ego, imposing moral limits and expectations on the masses. Freud considered such phrases as "Love your neighbour" and "Love your enemy" as completely unrealistic expectations, claiming "man is a wolf to man".

Freud's theories contrasted greatly with a number of other philosophers, particularly Karl Marx.
Marx believed in humanities ability to progress and develop, and that eventually a change in system would change society and humanity. Freud had no faith in the ability of humankind to develop and progress, believing the Id is far too strong for us to overcome. Freud believed that regardless of changes in society and structure, we will always be ourselves, we cannot escape our own minds, a belief supported by Russell Brand in his stand up show 'Doing Life'.

In the end of course, Freud's theories have been largely discredited, with no evidence or scientific suggestion that psychoanalysis works, and proof that Freud did not, as he claimed, discover the unconscious mind, a concept which had actually been discussed in academic circles far before Freud. This aside, however, Freud's impact on modern society and thought cannot be denied, as illustrated by the occasional comparisons to modern day entertainers. Even Dizzee Rascal has a little Freud in him.

OH NO!

I have abandoned this blog like some despised offspring! Shortly, very shortly, there will be many, many updates. Time to get to work.