Phenomenology and Existentialism

'Existence precedes essence' - This phrase was coined by Sartre, and is central to the existentialist outlook. Rather than believing we have some sort of preconceived human nature within each of us, existentialism believes that all that matters is our existence, and we are free to create meaning for ourselves, to create our own essence. As I've written before, existentialism is all about making your own choices, and the freedom you have to do so. 

The approach of cartesian dualism is rejected and reconfigured, believing that rather than 'I think, therefore I am', 'I am therefore I think' is better, which then reduces to 'I think', which further reduces to 'there are thoughts'. 

In his 'Critique of pure reason', Kant argued that consciousness 'just is', it is not in itself proof of existence. You cannot stand outside of consciousness. Kant examined both noumena and phenomena, however existentialism focuses solely on phenomena, hence 'phenomenology'. The noumena, or external world, is not disregarded, it is simply of no concern to philosophers, according to existentialists. 

Phenomenology originates from Husserl, who drew a line between psychology and epistemology. Husserl argued that consciousness could be divided into two types, physical phenomena such as colours and smells, and mental phenomena, thoughts and their content. This is an approach taken from the work of Brentano.

This mental phenomena is characterised by its 'intentionality', that they are directed towards objects outside of the mind. Husserl concerned himself only with the texture of thoughts, rather than their origins. It mattered not whether the thought was a dream or our 'reality', the thoughts still formed a part of our consciousness, and he determined that all that exists is the present tense of our consciousness. Husserl claimed that we must categorise these thoughts and experiences, whilst not concerning ourselves with their origin. 'Bracketing' was the way to gain information about our consciousness. Whether you deem the thought to be 'real' or not does not matter, all that matters is your experience of it, as we can not truly know what is 'real'. This is the basis of the 'phenomenological reduction'. If I see a dog with two heads, my intentionality towards it is the same, despite the fact I may not believe that two headed dogs exist. 

For Husserl, thought must have two things; content and a possessor. 

Heidegger concerned himself with the question of 'being'. He argued that thinking is just one way of engaging with the world, and that acting upon it is equally important. Dasein, or being in the world, was key to Heidegger's approach. Dasein is not about thinking, but about acting on those thoughts, about caring rather than considering, and is relative to the individual. Heidegger believed that through Dasein, one could reach complete absorption, which gives complete freedom and authenticity, as true dasein ignores the past and future, focussing only on that moment. 

The future is more important in defining oneself than the past, as we do not dictate our own facticity, we cannot choose where we were born for example, or how we were raised. This is our facticity, and we cannot change it, however we have the power to dictate our own future. This school of thought defines existentialism, that the future is more important than the past, and that the most important thing is our next choice. 

Sartre's central argument is that human existence is defined by the capability of choice, as summed up in his quote 'existence precedes essence'. We are condemned to be free, and must make our own choices, not fall into a preconceived role, for that is bad faith.

Logic and Mathematics

Natural numbers are simply words used to count things, and counting is nothing more than an activity in which objects are categorised dependent on plurality. All that is required for creating these categories is a language of number words and a logical syntax for their combination.
There are three fundamental approaches to numbers.
1) They are natural and can be empirically observed (Mill)
2) They are intuitions of a perfect and harmonic platonic world (Pythagoras and Descartes)
3) They are abstract logical objects, constructed purely from syntax (Frege, early Russell)

1- Numerical Naturalism
Basic plurality approach, as observed in stone age tribes. And monkeys.
They could observe:
0 - absence of a banana.
1- a single banana.
2+- more than one banana/many bananas/an abundance of  bananas.

This is simple plurality, and in many situations is all that is needed - 'one thing', 'more than one thing' and 'many things'. For example, if I see one car in a car park, I do not need to count it, I can immediately categorise it as one. If there is more than one (anywhere between 2 & 6), I know how many are there without counting. Beyond 6 or 7, I would need to count specifically to know exactly how many were there, but I would simply categorise it as many cars. I would also be able to say the car park was empty (zero, the null class). These classes are the 'natural numbers'. A number such as 22793 is simply basic symbols arranged to create a more complex one, according to known syntax. But if there were that many cars in a car park, I would not bother counting. I'm confident if I said there were many cars, you would get the picture. That's also a rather large car park.

2- Pythagoreanism/Platonism]

Prime numbers are pre-existing, supernatural forms and are necessary for consciousness. All other numbers are simply rational combinations of prime numbers. This contradicts Kant's claim that "existence is not a predicate", for Platonism, existence is a predicate of numbers and other forms. Prime numbers exist along with the perfect form, outside of the human dimension, and are eternally true.
3, the first plural prime, has significant religious connotations (unfortunately de la soul were not the first to observe three as the magic number, though arguably they did it more enjoyably than most). There is the holy trinity, Jesus rose again on the third day, the trimurti in hinduism etc. It is also hugely significant in secular society, with art containing the rule of thirds, the three chord triad in music and the three acts in most dramas. There are other primes with historical and religious significance, but none to the extent of three.
Pythagoras, and all the Greeks, only regarded plurals as natural numbers, and so counting commenced from two. 'One' and 'not one' were different logical categories.
Nothing and Zero - The concept of Zero arrived much later, and turned out to be something of a nuisance. Zero is nothing, but nothing is something, and therefore zero is something? It's a toughie.
This problem of the law of contradiction was solved by Leibniz, stating that an object can contain its own negation, so that cleared that up. Modern mathematicians have asserted that zero is in fact a natural number, which makes everything a little easier. But only a little, as 0+1=1, but 0x1=0, which caused the problem of how to define the instruction '+1'.

3- Numbers as logical objects
Fortunately, Frege turned up to clear up the zero problem. 1000 years later. Still, better late than never.
Frege linked logic and arithmetic in an overall philosophy of language. Frege's approach refuted both Mill and Platonism before him.
Axiom - All things that are identical to themselves are equal. It then follows that all pairs of things are equal to all other pairs, regardless what they are pairs of.
Pairs therefore get their own symbol (2), and from here it is established that all things that are not related to other things have their own symbol (1). Zero then is the class of all things which are not equal to themselves, and no such objects exist. Therefore zero is logically defined.

The New Industrial State and Economics

The Great Depression of the American 30's made one thing clear, a new approach to economics was needed. Into this gap stepped Keynes, whose work made him an economic god in 50s & 60s, a time of great prosperity. The basis of the theory was that a state of equilibrium needed to be achieved between goods and money. Where one was more common than the other, the economy struggled. Keynes acknowledged that the economy must rise and fall, and believed that in times of recession, it was both right and necessary for the government to step in.

Keynes believed that government spending was capable of stimulating economies in recession, by creating more jobs, getting more money into people's pockets, that they can then spend, and so the economy grows. He also believed that in times of austerity, the interest rate should drop, which of course again puts more money into pockets and therefore back into the economy. 

The government spending needs to be carefully considered however, so as not to negatively impact existing businesses. This is why military spending is such a constructive approach in the Keynes model. If a government can find an excuse to go to war (say the threat of WMD's in Iraq), then they can spend an enormous amount of taxpayers money funding that war, and create thousands of jobs along the way. Manufacturing weaponry, military intelligence projects, and the soldiers themselves, there are a lot of positions to fill when the country is at war. This instant job creation lowers unemployment, and the greater proportion of the population in paid work, then the greater the proportion of the population spending money frivolously on coca-cola and marlboro lights, boosting the economy. And as the army isn't an private sector business, such as a soft drink manufacturer, there is no risk of crushing another business, you simply create business. And jobs. So everyone's a winner. Unless of course you live in the middle-eastern country being invaded as an elaborate act of economy-boosting. There is also the additional benefit that many goods and services that are researched and development for an act of war can transfer into civilian society, such as the internet, aircraft, and 4x4s, a long term boost to the economy.  

In Galbraith's key work, 'The New Industrial State', he investigates the growing dichotomy between a free market and an oligarchic market. The old model of supply and demand is no longer relevant for the large corporations, who are capable of dictating the demand for their goods and services to match the supply, through advertising and marketing. Many of these companies also utilize vertical integration, meaning that they own every step of the production process, from the raw materials through to the product itself. This strength places such corporations outside classic economic constraints. These corporations are controlled by a technostructure (lawyers, scientists, and various experts) , which acts not to increase profit (an activity that involves risk), but rather to maintain and expand the corporation. With this diminished risk approach and the power of such corporations, free market possibility is greatly reduced, as smaller companies cannot compete, and thus 'perfect competition' is removed. This creates an oligarchic market, where the few dominate the market, and shape it to benefit themselves, and open competition is near impossible. The technostructure therefore can essentially dictate the wants and needs of an economy. The experts contained within this technostructure are the same experts turning up as advisers to political parties, newspapers etc, meaning that a very small minority have a great deal of power. This technocratic system is ultimately aimless and nihilistic, an economy dictated by the few, strengthened by military spending, and existing to some extent to create meaning for the public. Rather than handing out boxes of £20 notes to everyone, creating jobs to give us all something to do. 

The New Journalism

US journalism started out with the penny papers, partisan papers that were often owned by politicians and merchants, essentially used as vehicles for propaganda. While these papers did not carry 'news', they awakened the concept of written news for the working classes.

In the mid 19th Century, with the creation of wire services, objectivity became crucial to the associated press to make a profit, and changed the nature of the press. Later in the 19th Century, the yellow press was developed, with a tabloid attitude towards the press. The yellow press made news more shocking, sensationalising stories, content increasingly about sin, sex and violence. 

The yellow press set the format for tabloid journalism, human interest stories, with the appearance of 'frozen tv', heavy on colour and pictures, lighter on words, seeking to make the reader care, rather than think. 

The great social and political upheaval of the USA in the 1960s and 70s saw journalists recording events in a formulaic, predictable fashion. Enter the New Journalism, an attempt to allow the nature of the events being reported to bleed into the copy, replacing formula with feeling. 

The social and cultural landscape of the 60s and 70s was a stark contrast to that which came before. The Vietnam war saw the US embroiled in an expensive and ultimately failed military exercise, with conscription seeing many men shipped out to the war against their will. The black power movement was gaining momentum. Their were issues in the US worth fighting for, and into this landscape stepped a powerful youth movement. The baby boomer generation were in their teens, and were rebelling against their parents generation. the drug and sexual revolution of the time created a counter culture in the youth, and the idea of free love contrasted sharply with the foreign wars of their government. Students began to protest, and underground sub cultures created by the prohibition of LSD created a public profile of the youth as deviants.
As a result, the youth came to see themselves as outsiders, and began to attack the norm of society, through their behaviour, and through their music. Artists like Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, the Velvet Underground and Gil Scott Heron created rebellious, and often drug induced, music, which sound tracked the youthful revolution (see Heron's 'the revolution will not be televised' and Dylan's 'subterranean homesick blues').

This counter-culture movement was informed greatly by existentialism, and the concept of freedom of choice. Malcolm X embodied Fanon's concept of violence as the extreme expression of choice. The approach of the counter culture came to be summed up by the phrase "there is a policeman inside your head, he must be destroyed", and this attitude began to seep into the journalism of the time.
Journalists began to question their existing approach, creating stories from press releases and other such practices were not objective, and as such could be seen as an act of bad faith. This questioning of the established norm affected the way journalists approached their writing. They came to be increasingly determined to truly represent what was happening, with a greater focus on plot, setting, sounds and feelings, as well as the facts themselves. Truman Capote and Tom Wolfe are great exponents of this style. Hunter S Thompson also took a similar approach, but applied it to his own, drug induced adventures, rather than specific news stories, such as in his 'Kentucky Derby' piece.
This indicated a shift in form from telling to seeing. This new school of journalism shifted the focus from objectivity in favour of subjectivity. The new journalism approach adapted techniques of Zola and Dickens to create this new style, which has come to define features writing, with Thompson particularly pioneering the Gonzo journalism style (Dr Gonzo was a character in Thompson's 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas).

Totalitarianism.

Our lecture on Totalitarianism was split into three parts, and therefore so will this blog post.
Part 1 - How could it happen? (Origins)
The origins of totalitarianism section focused on the 20th Century.
Between the end of Napoleon's reign and the beginning of World War One there were roughly 100 years of relative peace in Europe. It was widely believed that the human race was more sophisticated now, that the horrors of the past would not be repeated, a sense of optimism prevaled.
This coincided with the 'German Century', a period from the mid 1800's to the mid 1900's where the most influential thinkers, writers, artists and scientists all emerged from Germany.

The earliest thought of a Totalitarian regime was Plato's republic. Even the darkest interpretations of human nature and political theories realised that there must be some limit on the power of the state. Even Hobbes, who had essentially no faith in the general populace.

The way was paved for Totalitarianism by the aggressive Imperial policies of the 19th Century, as the expansion of European superpowers spawned a racist outlook in European countries that allowed for the atrocities of Totalitarianism. Actions taken under these Imperial governments also served as inspiration for Nazi Germany, as the Concentration Camps used by General Kitchener during the Boer War became a blueprint for Nazi camps during World War Two.

Hannah Arendt claims that totalitarianism "demonstrates a horrible originality", a political school of thought unlike anything that came before it.

Totalitarianism is all about control, removing individuality and personal liberty from the public, to destroy independence and therefore the state retains total control; in the words of Mussolini "outside the state there can be neither individuals or groups". This centralises all power in a few people, and also strives to prevent any form of rebellion.
"To destroy this individuality two methods are used - State Terror and Ideology" according to Arendt.
Terror is not simply about killing people, it is a weapon used to destroy faith in one's own humanity, to make people afraid even to think. It makes an example of those who dare to think or act differently, and conditions the behaviour of the majority.
Ideology compliments State Terror, it is used to justify the regime and the actions taken. An Ideology is a specialist knowledge, it is only fully understood by a few. It is a reassuring tool, providing a "total explanation of the past, total knowledge of the present and a reliable prediction of the future."
Totalitarianism exposed the fragility of civilization, destabilising the current society to rebuild it in their own way.
The first move of the Nazi's in the holocaust was to deny Jews citizenship, removing from them a sense of belonging, denying them a nation of their own. It also affected German non-Jews, to view Jews as non-Germans, immigrants. This undermined the humanity of German Jews and made them easier to target.

Part 2 - Control Language, Control Thought
This was a short section with a simple idea. As thought occurs in purely linguistic terms, if you can manipulate language then you can manipulate the way people think. If you could remove the word "hate" from the vocabulary of a nation, they could not think in such terms, and could not express hatred. It is a simple, but effective idea, which was exploited by Totalitarian regimes.

Part 3 - What is my personal responsibility?
This was a look at the Eichmann trial in 1960. Eichmann, a Nazi Bureaucrat was captured in Argentina in 1960 and stood trial in Jerusalem for his involvement in the "final solution".
The question that this trial raised was that of responsibility. Eichmann was not known to have personally killed anyone, nor made the decision to kill anyone. He was responsible for ensuring the trains travelling to concentration camps ran smoothly. The transport minister of the Holocaust you could say. What was his burden of responsibility, knowing as he did, where those trains headed and the fate awaiting the passengers.
Hannah Arendt suggested the trial served three purposes:
-To try Eichmann
-To educate the rest of the world on the horror of the holocaust
-and To legitimise the Jewish State

Arendt was shocked at the ordinary appearance of Eichmann, and concluded it was not necessary to possess great evil to do great evil, coining the phrase "the banality of evil".
Arendt took an existential view on the Eichmann trial, believing that his greatest crime was that of not thinking, not making a choice, simply following orders without question (bad faith for Sartre).
Eichmann, in his defence, claimed he was following Kant's categorical imperative and acting out of duty, however Arendt described this excuse as outrageous, as Kant's moral philosophy explicitly rules out blind obedience. Arendt concluded that sometimes disobedience is exactly our responsibility. An interesting thought.

You have a choice to read this entry... Therefore choose.

Seminar Paper – Existentialism, The Stranger etc

The existentialist approach is an attempt to find value and meaning in the face of an absurd world. Our existence is defined by our choices; we have the power to shape our own lives.

Nietzsche’s proclamation that ‘God is dead’ gives us complete freedom. The lack of a higher power means a lack of instruction or certainty, leaving us to become our own God, dictating the course of our own lives. As Nietzsche did not believe in a universal human nature this allows for each man to find his own morality, and make his own choices. Choice is a crucial concept in Existentialism.

In Being and Time, Heidegger introduced the concept of ‘Dasein’. Dasein is the root of each of us, and refers to our engagement with the world. This is Heidegger’s response to the approach of Cartesian Dualism, which he found absurd, believing we cannot come to understand ourselves if we draw a divide between the mind and body. Dasein must exist in the world, and so the Cartesian approach cannot be taken, as it separates the mind from the physical world. Our Dasein is our root selves as it is our engagement with the world, and it is that which defines us.

Heidegger did not believe that we are defined by characteristics that we are born with, rather that our personalities can constantly develop and change. In this way, it can be suggested that our Dasein, our engagement with the world, can alter over time.

Despite this, Heidegger does claim that there are elements of our being which we cannot choose, that cannot change. He calls this our ‘Facticity’. For example, we cannot choose where or when we were born, we are thrown into the world, and it is from this position that we must then move forward.

Heidegger claimed that when we talk of ourselves, we rarely discuss our ‘authentic’ selves, we present an ‘inauthentic’ self, one which is affected by outside influences. Heidegger calls this ‘das man self’, a social construct of ourselves, not consistent with our true selves. In order to live a truly authentic life, we must overcome our facticity.  

From an existential viewpoint, the most important choice you will ever make is the next one. It is the future that is crucial, not your past, as it cannot be changed. Hakuna Matata, you might say.

Sartre’s central concept was that ‘existence precedes essence’. We create our own purpose. Again, this links to the idea of choice, we shape our own purpose through our choices. Sartre claimed that the need to choose is inescapable; it is the only certainty is that we must make choices. Sartre saw the world as absurd and without purpose, and it is for this reason that our choices create our purpose. Through these choices we are able to recreate ourselves; however, some will find themselves in fear of this freedom and try to avoid it. This, Sartre calls ‘bad faith’. For Sartre, bad faith is a metaphysical mistake, allowing our role or status to confine us, denying that we are ‘radically free’ and instead believing that our past defines our future.

Sartre’s approach to humanity comprises of three aspects:

Abandonment – God is dead. Therefore we are alone, without rules outside of ourselves.

Anguish – We are “condemned to be free”. We cannot alter our facticity, but we alone are responsible for our choices, and they will define us.

Despair – Whilst we make our own choices, we cannot control how the world will react to our choices, and we may be prevented from getting what we want.

Sartre also famously claimed “hell is other people”, an observation from his play ‘No Exit’, in which three people are condemned to spend eternity in one room with each other. This statement brings into focus one of the central difficulties of existentialism. We are defined by our choices, and responsible for our own purpose, however we are forced to compromise by the expectations of others, and the realities of engaging with a world which has its own expectations of us, ‘Despair’ in his model. This conundrum is the theme of ‘The Outsider’ by Albert Camus.

Throughout the novel, Meursault appears devoid of emotion or sentimentality, making his own choices with little consideration for the opinions of others. The death of his mother provokes little in the way of emotional response from him.

“I felt like having a smoke. But I hesitated, because I didn’t know if I could do it with maman right there. I thought about it; it didn’t matter.”

Even in the few moments where Meursault shows a consideration of others, he still does not allow it to affect his decision. Choices such as this eventually contribute to his sentencing, however he shows no regret.

“She asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so.”

Meursault’s constant belief that things ‘don’t matter’ or ‘don’t mean anything’ reflect an existential perspective. He appears to view existence as pointless, and his reaction to this knowledge is to make his own choices, and largely ignore the desires or opinions of others.

Eventually he is condemned to death for showing no despair at his mothers passing, and he refuses to act as though he was saddened at her death, even though this would be the only way for his name to be cleared. Meursault refuses to be influenced by others and instead continues to make his own choices. If existence is pointless, why should he lie simply in order to prolong his own existence?

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.

Philosophical Idealism: Kant and Hegel

Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer emerged from the German Idealist movement. This school of Philosophy was partly influenced by post-revolution French Romanticism, and partly a reaction to British Empiricism, which they despised, believing it had damaged Metaphysics as a worthwhile pursuit.

KANT

Wrote 'A Critique of Pure Reason', in which he discussed how humans acquire knowledge. He argued that knowledge comes both from logical reasoning and also ideas with no foundation in logic, but all knowledge comes from experience.
Logical knowledge comes in two forms - 'synthetic' and 'analytic'.
Synthetic knowledge is that which we only know to be true by experience, which can be stated without evidence other than experience. Analytic knowledge is that which is known to be true based on the concept of contradiction, for example "an equilateral triangle is a triangle" is true, as to say it was not true would be self-contradictory.
Kant then divided synthetic knowledge, into that which we know 'empirically', and that which we know 'a priori'.
Empirical knowledge is that which relies upon sensory data, whether our own or that of another. History, Geography and the laws of Science all are examples of such knowledge, as they have been experienced through senses and recorded. A priori knowledge however may be first understood through sensory perception, however need not be every time, knowledge which can be learnt through the senses but has a certainty which surpasses the need for assurance. Mathematics is an example, as 2 + 2 = 4 is true, regardless of whether there is a physical example of it.
Here we return, as we always seem to in HCJ, to issues of causality.
Kant accepted Hume's proof that the law of causality is not analytic, and as such its truth could not be guaranteed. Kant accepted it to be synthetic, but also believed it was a priori, and so set about trying to prove that something could be both synthetic and a priori. It took him 12 years, but he cracked it.
Basically, it is the world itself which causes sensation, but we interpret it through our mental apparatus. It is our eyes and our minds which interpret what we experience and order them into space and time, concepts which we understand. The things which themselves cause our sensation cannot be truly known, as they are not in space and time, it is our interpretation which places them there. The example Russell uses is that if you always wore blue glasses, everything would appear blue, however the objects themselves would not necessarilly be blue, that would simply be ones interpretation and perspective. Kant says that space and time are not concepts, they are forms of intuition. There are also a priori concepts, which comprise Kant's 12 'categories'. Theses categories are divided into four sets of three
1 - of quantity: unity, plurality, totality.
2 - of quality: reality, negation, limitation.
3 - of relation: substance-and-accident, cause-and-effect, reciprocity.
4 - of modality: possibility, existence, necessity.
Kant maintains that, if we attempt to apply space and time, or the categories, to things that have not been experienced, we are troubled by 'antinomies' - mutually contradictory propositions, each of which can apparently be proved.
Kant gives four examples, each of which consists of a thesis and an antithesis.
1 - Thesis - 'the world has a beginning in time, and is also limited as regards space'
      Antithesis - 'the world has no beginnings in time and no limit in space; it is infinite as regards both time and space'
2 - proves that every composite substance both is, and is not, made up of simple parts.
3 - Thesis - there are two kinds of causality, one according to the laws of nature, the other of freedom.
Antithesis - there is only one causality according to the laws of nature.
4 - proves that there is, and is not, an aboslutely necessary Being.

This is the part of the Critique that greatly influenced...

HEGEL

Hegel is in many ways a bridge between Kant and Marx, two of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century. This is not to say that Hegel was not himself important.
Hegel believed that we were not viewing the world in its truest sense as it must be viewed as a whole.
Hegel's system relies on two forms of logic:
- that which is not self-contradictory.
- that which fits in the dialectic triad.
The dialectic triad was used by Hegel to discover the true nature of reality, and was composed of three elements: the thesis, the antithesis and the synthesis of the two.
In this case, the thesis was that the whole is a "pure being" because it has no purpose other than containing all that is within it.
The anithesis is that the absolute cannot exist without properties, so the absolute is nothing.
The synthesis is that, as the whole is both 'pure being' and 'nothing', it is 'becoming'.
In Hegel's view this makes the whole of nature "becoming", and lead to him saying "change is the only constant".
Scientifically speaking, Hegel was bang on, as our cells are constantly dying and being replaced. Despite the constant change though, everything retains its "geist", the soul or being of an object. As an example, if you took an existing ship and replaced every single plank on the ship, it would remain the ship, even though all constituent parts had been replaced. Similarly, the Universe must have a geist, despite its constant change. According to Hegel, the purpose of the geist is to know itself.

Right, that seems to be the important bits covered.

HCJ Semester Two - Playing Catch Up

As anyone reading this blog will have noticed, it's been all quiet on this particular front for far too long. A mixture of being busy and a lack of motivation means that i've been radio silent for about 3 months. This is despicable behaviour for which I apologise, and I intend not to let this happen again.
So now to the real business of blogging my notes and observations from a month of HCJ lectures this term.
It's been interesting stuff, and we started off with William Cobbett, Charles Dickens, and a tale of two Revolutions.

The two revolutions in question are the French Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution, two major turning points in the formation of the modern world. The French Revolution changed the face of European politics, with a variety of political systems implented in a short period. The Industrial Revolution meanwhile completely changed methods of production and distribution of goods, beginning a culture of mass production.
These two revolutions allowed the British Empire to flourish into the great power of the world, however the British Empire almost failed to exist at all, as Scotland attempted Central American colonisation in the late 1600's.
The attempted Scottish colonisation of Darien - New Caledonia was a disaster, with one fifth of Scottish wealth invested in a malarial swamp, where the settlers suffered from starvation and fever, and soon fled. This failure led to a bankrupt Scotland surrendering their sovereignty to England in the 1707 Act of the Union, the first step towards a powerful British Empire.
An attempted uprising at Culloden in 1746 was the final straw for Scotland, defeat by the English resigning them to English rule.

The French Revolution
The French Revolution arrived at the end of the 18th Century, and the UK was incredibly successful throughout, their aboslute naval power allowing blockades of French ports, leading to a boom in British exports as French trade was destroyed. The British even manufactured the uniforms of the French army, such was their industrial dominance. With Europe in turmoil and the armies of other major European powers occupied, Britain set about constructing a worldwide empire, claiming the territories of India, South Africa, Singapore and Sri Lanka, and building a trade monopoly which continued to boost the UK economy. The Transatlantic Triangular Trade was also established, a hugely profitable trade route moving goods and slaves across the world, further compouding Britain's global dominance.
With the end of the war came the end of the boom, the Corn Law was introduced in 1815, placing a tariff on imported grain to protect the UK economy. These laws were widely unpopular, as combined with high unemployment and low wages it made basic food unaffordable for the working classes. The Law was repealed in 1846.

The Industrial Revolution
As unbelievable as it may seem now, in the mid 1800's Manchester was the most important place on earth. It had become the centre of the Industrial Revolution, its population soaring from 17,000 in 1760 to 180,000 in 1830. It became the 'workshop of the world', as Industry thrived and factories appeared in great numbers. Despite the importance of the city it was essentially hell on earth, the quality of life was incredibly poor, with overcrowding, low wages and awful pollution, many fell ill, with cholera common. Such conditions are described often in the work of Charles Dickens, particularly in Bleak House.
Cotton was the key to the revolution, harvested by slaves in the American South, and brought to the UK by the transatlantic triangular trade, it was the raw material used in the mass production factories.
The horrible conditions, combined with a flawed political system caused uprisings and protests, as the people of these newly established great industrial cities sought political representation. Violent repression was utilised by the state to quash such protests, as seen in the Peterloo Massacre and the Tolpuddle martyrs. These tactics were effective in the short term, however the growing dissatisfaction lead to the Reform Act of 1832.

Farming
The idea of landholding peasantry disappeared with the introduction of enclosures. This meant that all farmers became essentially labourers that could be easily transferred from the country to the city, to join the industrial workforce. As the industrial revolution brought advanced technology to farming, workers rioted in the 1830's. With the repeal of the corn laws came cheaper food, however the lower price of bread meant lower wages, as the cost of living decreased.

The Poor
Workhouses were introduced as part of the 1834 Poor Law, which stated no able bodied person was to receive any support from the poor commission outside of a workhouse. These workhouses were developed with a Utalitarian view by Bentham. He believed that as people sought pleasure and avoided pain, the best way to keep the poor from entering workhouses was by making them as repulsive and horrific places to live.

Cobbett - The Rural Rides
Cobbett was an anti-radical who became radical, believing that rapid industrialization was destroying traditional ways of life, observing the plight of 19th Century farmers.
Claimed "When farmers became gentlemen, labourers became slaves."
Opposed the government, the army (whom he had served with) and the Church, as he resented their greed.
Wrote the Political Register, which was read by the working class and had a circulation of around 40,000.
He was imprisoned for sedition and fled to America to avoid further prosecution. On his return he was accused of libel three times.

HCJ Seminar Paper - Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz

This week focused on three key philosophers - Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. All three were concerned with the 'Substances' that make up the Universe and the existence of God.

DESCARTES - 1596 - 1650
Descartes is seen as the founder of modern philosophy. He also made important progress in mathematics, with the invention of co-ordinate geometry.
As with the majority of philosophers of his time, he was profoundly influenced by religion, at times arguably to the detriment of his work. As a practicing catholic, Descartes chose not to publish his book 'Le Monde', as it contained two heretical doctrines.
Descartes' most famed and crucial contribution to philosophy was the Cogito. In seeking to prove the existence of the Universe itself, he chose to deconstruct it, doubting everything around him that he could not prove to be fundamentally true, a method known as cartesian doubt. Descartes found that everything could be doubted, as even something as precise as mathematics could be no more than an illusion, or the intentional deceit of an evil demon. He found that the only thing he could not doubt was his own mind, as doubt itself is an operation of the mind. This lead to the statement "Cogito Ergo Sum", 'I think, therefore I am', one of the most widely known philosophical propositions ever.
Descartes was not the first to make a statement of this kind, St Augustine had previously made a similar observation, however Descartes' attributed great value to this statement, something St Augustine had not done. This theory encouraged Descartes' belief that the mind and the body are separate, and furthered his conviction that there were three substances that the Universe was comprised of, God, Mind and Matter.
From the cogito, Descartes went on to believe only those things that are clear and distinct, not based on perception or interpretation.
The religious influence on Descartes then came into play, as he sought to prove the existence of objects around him. First, he had to prove God, which he did by the ontological argument, which basically states that it is possible for a perfect being to exist, and one of the perfections that would comprise such a being would be existence, therefore God must exist. This is an incredibly weak argument, and is used as the basis for Descartes' proof of all other things, therefore devaluing the rest of his work on this theory, being so strongly based on a fundamentally flawed argument.
Descartes stated that as God exists, and God is good, all objects around him must exist as a good God would not deceive him.
While his proof of God was flawed, and thus the rest of his argument was also, the cogito and the method of Cartesian doubt were incredibly important contributions to philosophy.

SPINOZA - 1632-1677
Unlike Descartes' belief that there were three substances, Spinoza believed in only one substance in the Universe, God, and all other things were simply an aspect of the divine being.
Again, Spinoza's philosophy was dominated by God, however despite this, he was despised by Jews and Christians alike. This was partly down to his belief that the Church sould be entirely suborinate to the state.
Spinoza's key work, 'Ethics', was published posthumously, the central argument of which is that everything is dictated by logical necessity. Everything is pre-determined, and as such any incident wich occurs, even if it appears to be negative, is only perceived that way by an individual, as a result of limited perspective. All negative events are necessary to overall good, and we must seek to see the entire Universe as a whole, as God does. Spinoza argued 'passions' obscure our perception of the Universe, preventing us seeing it as a whole and rather focusing on the individual events. A wise man, argued Spinoza, is one who overcomes these passions and self-preservation instinct, and realises that "what is real and possitive in us is what unites us to the whole".
As everything is pre-determined, Spinoza opposed the idea of hope or fear, as we can not influence our future and so must accept those things that happen to us. Once we see the Universe as God does, we see that there is in fact no evil, as evil is a result of external forces, and there is nothing external of the Universe, therefore evil cannot exist, and all things we perceive as bad are simply present to facilitate greater good things.
Once we share God's perception, and become wise, we will have a heightened intellectual love of God, argued Spinoza. God himself is not subject to the 'passions'; love and hate etc, as he is a perfect being, he has only an infinite love for himself, which is comprise of the intellectual love of humans for God.

LEIBNIZ - 1646-1716
Again greatly focused on God and the Universe, however Leibniz had two philosophical perspectives, one which he presented to the public, and another which was restricted to his communication with other philosophers, undiscovered until many years after his death.
Like Descartes, Leibniz also made a substantial contribution to mathematics, conceiving the infinitesimal calculus simultaneously, but in ignorance of, Newton.
Leibniz's philosophy was also based on substances, however where Descartes believe in three and Spinoza in one, Leibniz believed there were an infinite number of substances, called "monads", and that they made up everything around us, a similar concept to that of the atom. Leibniz saw each inividual monad as a soul, each carrying some physical property of the object which it made up.
Leibniz followed the doctrine of some followers of Descartes, believing that substances could not interact, arguing that where monads appeared to interact, it was merely deception. He suggested there was a pre existing harmony between changes in monads, which created the illusion of interaction.
Leibniz also stated that in humans, the soul of a man was the dominant monad inside him.
Leibniz contrasted greatly with Spinoza on the idea of free will. Whereas in Spinoza's system free will was impossible, as everything was pre-determined, Leibniz's perspective was that all things happened for a reason, all men had motives for their actions, but these actions are not the result of logical necessity. He also applied a similar freedom to the actions of God, claiming that he was unable to act contrary to logic, however could do anything withing the realms of logical possibility, giving the divine being a broad choice of actions. This lead on to one of Leibniz's central points, that the world we inhabit is the best of all possible worlds. He argued that God being good, he would have created the best world possible, and thus sin is required, as it exists in this best of worlds. Leibniz argued that some sin is logically bound to good things, for example free will. Free will could not exist if there was not a variety of choices available to make in any given scenario, some of which are negative.
As Descartes before him, Leibniz supported the ontological argument for the existence of God. He also furthered three other arguments for God's existence:
- The Cosmological argument - The basic thrust of this was that the Universe must logically have a reason for existing, and so must have a creator, God.
- The Eternal Truths - Statements relating to essence if true are eternally true, and an eternal truth must exist in an eternal mind.
- Pre-established Harmony - There must be a single outside cause regulating the harmony of things in the universe, such as clocks, which keep in time with one another without interaction. This leads on to the argument of design, which states that some things in the Universe cannot be plausibly explained by natural forces, and must have been designed by some higher power.
The above contains the published work of Leibniz, however, some of his most profound work he left unpublished. Among this unpublished work was the idea of mathematical logic, which, had he published it, would have become known some 150 years earlier.
In his unpublished philosophy, Leibniz suggested that while substances cannot act on one another, they could interact through all mirroring the Universe from their perspective; "because all that happens to each subject is part of its own notion and eternally determined if that substance exists." This statement clearly bears great resemblance to the deterministic view of Spinoza. This was left unpublished as it appeared to contradict the Christian views of free will and sin.
Leibniz also argued that those things which exist do so because they are compatible with the most other things. He said that everything that does not exist struggles to do so, all things cannot exist as they are not all 'compossible', the group of the largest compossibles is that which 'wins' an exists, those things that do not exist cannot because they cannot successfully coexist with as many other objects. This theory is completely separated from God, and comes from a strictly logical approach.

The Clockwork Universe - HCJ Week Five

This lecture covered a couple of hundred years and some of the most significant scientific developments in the field of astronomy, ever. So I guess what I'm saying is, I fear, this may not be a brief blog.

First off, FRANCIS BACON.
Put forward a direct challenge to the centuries old and widely accepted Aristotelian school of thought. Believed that all this previous accepted knowledge on astronomy was wrong, and that it needed to be scrapped and others start again developing these ideas. This point of view was put forward in his work, The New Organon. Bacon is credited with creating the scientific method, he was a great believer in experiment and claimed that no theory could be proved correct without repeated testing. This is now fundamental in all areas of science. Bacon also thought that there should be a clear separation of science and religion, rather than the two being intertwined, as it was at the time. Set the ball rolling on scientific development in the area of astronomy.

LOCKE (again)
Consistent with Bacon, saw the need for scientific experiment. Did not agree with the concept of 'innate ideas', felt that when born the mind was a blank slate, and is filled in through life with knowledge acquired through deduction, reasoning and experience. As religion goes beyond reasoning and experience, it cannot be dictated, it must develop through private revelation.

Despite these proposals from two great minds, science was still very under developed, with a lot of theories taken for granted as true that were fundamentally incorrect, including the belief that everything revolved around earth. Until...

THE HELIOCENTRIC MODEL
This is the model that states that the earth in fact rotates around the sun, as does everything else.

COPERNICUS - Through his attempts to reform the calendar in the 16th Century, came to the conclusion that it must be the Sun that is at the center of the Universe, not Earth. This idea did not make much headway until...

JOHANNES KEPLER - Also a believer in Bacon's scientific method, Kepler attempted to prove Copernicus' unproven theory. After gathering centuries worth of data together, he was able to make a case for the hypothesis based on evidence, however it was still not proven.

GALILEO - His life bridges the gap between the Renaissance and the Age of Science, being born the year Michelangelo died and dying the year Newton was born. Galileo was the first to look upon the heavens accurately, using a telescope he had acquired from Holland, and made personal improvements to, allowing him to see the universe in greater detail than anyone before him. Challenged the two major authorities of his day, Aristotle and the Bible. Galileo believed in provable facts, which emanated from nature, not from men. Claimed mathematics was the language of nature, and without the knowledge of mathematics, the human mind could not comprehend nature. Made the distinction between primary and secondary qualities in objects, primary being measurable assets of an object, and secondary depending on human interpretation.

NEWTON - Wrote 'Principia', a mathematical demonstration of the Copernican hypothesis on the Heliocentric model. Convinced people in general that the Universe was ordered and knowable. Newton began the enlightenment period, his work finally ending the reign of Aristotle, Newton's work fundamentally undermining and discrediting Aristotle's in the area of Physics.

Further Political Philosophy - HCJ Week Four

So week four was seminar time, and having missed the first seminar for this module due to illness in week 2, it was an interesting experience. The students take it in turns to lead the sessions, further discussing the previous weeks reading and lectures.
In my previous blog on this topic I discussed at length the work of Plato, Hobbes and Locke. In the seminar we largely focused on Hobbes and Locke, and the as yet unmentioned Macchiavelli, so I'm going to focus on summarising Macchiavelli.

MACCHIAVELLI

Macchiavelli's work was more or less practical observations on how best to achieve and retain power. His two major works were 'The Prince' and 'The Discourse'. To get a complete picture of his philosophy, it is necessary to read both, as reading either alone will give you a pretty narrow view of what he was all about.
Macchiavelli's views were somewhat controversial, but in many ways he made a lot of sense. His basic argument in The Prince is that a leader must do whatever is necessary to maintain power, forget about what is good and bad, right and wrong, and do what is required to keep power. So for a leader, the number one priority and focus must be the retention of power. This sounds extreme, however it could be argued that many or even all leaders follow this theory to some extent, whether its establishing a military dictatorship or making empty promises in election manifestos, most all leaders will do what they deem necessarry to retain their position of power.
Macchiavelli suggested that the best way to lead was by the generation of fear, as: "love is fickle, but fear is constant". However he also made it clear that you must avoid being hated, as that is bound to lose you power. So the overall picture is do whatever is necessarry to retain power, let people fear you, but don't let them hate you.

I'm gonna leave it at that for this post, keep 'em wanting more and all that. Plus this has the added bonus of finally achieving a reasonably concise blog post. Expect two or three more before the end of today though, I've got some catching up to do...

Why should I obey the law? History and Context of Journalism, Week Three

So the HCJ side of the course is moving quiiiiiiiiiiickly, and having been ill in week two, there was some catching up to do. Here I'm going to try and summarise Week Three's learnings in a more concise post than my others, bearing in mind that we've been trying to be more economic with words in our Precision English lectures. Though four lines for an introductory paragraph doesn't bode particularly well. Here we go...

So week three was political philosophy, and there's a few bright thinkers involved. Plato, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau are the individuals we focused on.

PLATO - Couple of major points, The Crito and The Cave (not the mumford and sons track, though you could link the two). The Cave will come back at the end of the blog, first off:
Crito - a Dialogue written by Plato. It takes place between two people, Socrates (merely a character) and Crito. Socrates is imprisoned and Crito offers to help him escape. Socrates' argument for refusing this generous offer is the philosophical point in question, and an interesting one. Socrates says that by living in the city of Athens, he is bound by its laws, his dwelling there can be seen as him voluntarily entering into a contract with the city to obey its laws. If he were to attempt escape, he would be destroying the entire city, as if one man disobeys the laws then he is setting an example to others, like a domino, it could lead to the crumbling of an entire city, all on the basis of one man breaking one law. Anyone who switched on the news in August saw the result of such an event in the London Riots, many people jumping on the violent, looting bandwagon, for no sensible reason.
This then, was the first occasion on which any philosopher touched on the idea of the Social Contract. This idea was picked up by...

THOMAS HOBBES - Much further down the line, in 1651, he published his 'Leviathan', examining the idea of the Social Contract.
The Leviathan is a biblical creature, a big monstrous thing, originally a sea monster referred to extensively in the book of Job. Hobbes' Leviathan does not refer to this biblical sea monster, but a commonwealth.
Hobbes' view on social contract is shaped by his context, written during the English Civil War, and so his thoughts are influenced by the violence that surrounded him. As such, Hobbes believed that human nature was essentially aggressive, and in the 'state of nature' (a time before any form of social contract, without law or government) the world would regress to a war of all against all. As such, Hobbes' suggested that mankind required a central, ruling figure, to avoid this situation. In the book, the Leviathan sets out a contact between himself and his subjects, trading all power in return for his protection. This book sets out a limited democracy, with the people able to nominate their initial leader, however from there, the succession of power is determined by the sovereign. It strongly supports the concept of a monarchy and is firmly against the separation of powers, Hobbes arguing that the Civil War took place as a result of the division of power between Kings, Lords and Commons. However, there was some limitation to the Leviathan's power, as he stated that if he failed to fulfil his side of the contract then he could be removed, as well as each subject having the fundamental right to self preservation, entitled to resist the monarchy in self defence. Basically, Hobbes believed in a monarchy as government, with the divine right of kings, and desired a submissive public.

LOCKE - Also discussed social contract, but coming from a completely different angle than Hobbes. His thoughts on the matter are contained within his two 'Treatises on Government'.
Locke had a far more optimistic view of human nature than Hobbes, believing that all humans followed natural laws that were intuitive, "interwoven in the constitution of the human mind". Therefore Locke's view of the state of nature was of a peaceful place, in vast contrast to Hobbes'. Despite these natural laws, Locke acknowledged the need for a governing state, as he was aware that disputes could arise over property, and as such a judge like figure was required. Locke believed in the necessity of government, however thought that the people should only be governed consentually, and that laws should be in place to restrict governmental power, not civil liberties. He also argued that taxes could not be levied without public consent, a principle that became a cornerstone of the manifesto used in the American revolution, and his thinking went on to provide a backbone to the US constitution. Overview - Locke believed in the necessity of a government, but in a far more democratic style, and viewed human nature as basically positive.

ROUSSEAU - Some similar views to Locke.
Believed that the state of nature was a utopian paradise, argued that civilisation makes humans unhappy. Saw some sort of fundamental conscience in humans, and thought that the public must be part of the creation of legislature, as they are the ones who must live by the laws. Believed law should not be restrictive as there is a general will and acceptance of what is right amongst uhmans, therefore the general will of the people should become law.

PLATO - The Cave
Plato had a theory named The Republic, or The Cave theory, which examines the way humans think, and the general make up of the populus.
Plato suggested that all people are in a cave, and that our reality is merely shadow puppets on the wall of this cave, it is not in fact reality. The theory states that this 'cave' existence is a poor replica of the real, perfect world, which humans could see if only we could leave the cave. Plato argued that only philosophers could leave the cave and access the perfect world, and it is from here that Plato discovered "the forms". The Forms are essentially three parts which combine to make the human soul. These forms are Reason, Spirit and Desire. Plato suggests that all people have some awareness of the forms, but cannot understand them fully, as demonstrated by the fact that no man can imagine perfection. Which of these 'forms' dominates our personality dictates our understanding of them, and our being.
- Reason - If reason dominates, we can understand the forms and the perfect reality, hence the view that philosophers can access this perfect world.
- Spirit - If spirit dictates, we seek honour and pride, and are aggressive people.
- Desire - If desire dominates, we are distracted by the obsession with material gain.
Plato went on to say that one day the Philosophers, who have accessed the perfect world, will return to the cave and educate those watching shadows.

Next blog will analyse Locke and Hobbes further, compared with Machiavelli.
That one is likely to be even less concise.

Are You Enthused?

Bertrand Russel was undoubtedly a great man. The mere fact he can produce a book the length of 'History of Western Philosophy' (744 pages, small type) impresses me greatly. That it is also interesting, intelligent and well written is nothing short of a wonderful achievement as far as I'm concerned, considering 2000 word A level essays were, for me, taxing. This book is required reading for my course, and the further I get, the more relieved I am. Looking at it sitting on a shelf can be daunting, however once I pick it up I find it easy to get lost in the words. It's not the historical element that I've found fascinating, more his examination of it. It is one statement of his in the early chapters that has prodded me to write, as I found myself re-reading it at this unholy hour of the morning.
"Prudence may easily involve the loss of some of the best things in life".
Boom. That got to me.
I may have now read the paragraph containing that sentence about ten times. I should really be reading the chapters required for this weeks lecture, but I find myself reluctant to pass this part just yet.
Russel's point is an interesting one, he expands further and suggests that prudence can drain joy and enthusiasm from life, by distracting one with trivial, monotonous, everyday preoccupations. After a day where I have seriously lacked joy and enthusiasm, I found it something of a revelation.
Now I'm not suggesting that prudence is the reason I have not been particularly enthused today. I woke up at 4pm and have done little else but eat and watch 'How I Met Your Mother' online. The enemy of enthusiasm today was laziness. But at other times, when I find myself bored, languid and unhappy, it is often because I am endlessly focusing on practical issues. Now this is in no way a bad thing, but it leads me to feeling joyless on occasion, as I haven't made time to do anything else (it probably doesn't help that I think of all the things that need doing, rather than doing them, but that's another issue). It seems to me that prudence really can be preventative, at times it overrides passion and adventure, which are crucial to deriving excitement and happiness from life.
Now prudence in itself is an admirable quality. As someone who could do with a little more, I am impressed by those who have that level of forethought, who are careful, who plan for the future. It is also incredibly important, it is key to feeling secure. Despite the argument that it can "easily involve the loss of some of the best things in life", it can also lead to great things.
So I find myself on the fence. I spend far more of my time looking for joy than I do planning for a rainy day, and yet on the rare occasions I attempt to be more organised I find myself listless (unintentional irony). And yet, often when I look for joy I can't seem to find it, it tends to arrive when I'm spontaneously wandering through my day.
After a few glances at Russel's words, however, the answer seems simple.
Balance, as I'm sure my good friend George would agree, is the key to happiness. There is nothing wrong with playing the long game, planning for the future and making allowances, it will reward you in weeks, months and years to come. Equally there is a lot to be said for seeking out pleasure and excitement, it gives you a feeling that cannot be matched. But neither can be truly fulfilling without the other. If you lack all prudence, nothing gets done. If you're nothing but prudent, you'll plan your life but never live it. Balancing the two on a daily basis allows the benefits of both, without detracting from the other, and you can "find your bliss", to quote the aforementioned TV show that has taken over my day. So that's what I'm gonna get to work on, balance. That, and my reading for this weeks lectures. One concrete assertion I derived from today is that nothing good can come of spending all day in bed, watching TV and munching cereal. Although that realisation won't change a thing.
Anyway, back to the genius of Neil Patrick Harris. I never learn.