HCJ 2 – The Dreyfus Affair & Anti-Semitism

THE DREYFUS AFFAIR

The Dreyfus Affair occured in the late 1800s in France. The basics are: Military information was found in a wate bin in the German embassy, Dreyfus was accused and charged for this, and was therefore stripped of his military rank and exiled to Devil’s Island. Soon after, there was evidence of a French Army Major, Ferdinand Esterhazy, actually being the culprit, but this was rejected. J’Accuse was then published, and this led to Dreyfus being acquitted and reintergrated into the army again.

At the time, the French Republic was divided. It was the age of revolutions (1775 – 1848).

Why is this important in journalism? 

The Dreyfus Affair lead to one of the most poignant examples of investigative journalism, a very raw and real type of journalism. It was scandalous at the time to right out accuse people publicly of wrongdoing when most of society would disregard your attempt to seek justice in a prejudice-filled country. Without Emile Zola’s journalism, Dreyfus would still be unjustly imprisoned.

Anti-Dreyfus media applied themselves to ‘yellow journalism’ to denounce and make fun of traditional newspapers such as ‘L’aurore’ (the newspaper that published ‘J’Accuse’). Yellow journalism consists of large pictures and basic headlines, just like what we use today, to connect with all members of the public with varying intellectual abilities.

ANTI-SEMITISM

Dreyfus was a victim of anti-Semitism. He was accused despite there being evidence of a french army major because it was easier to demonise the jews in the media and in the law at the time than it was their own. They would protect their own people. Zola worked to expose this.

Lazare proposed that the only way to stop anti-Semitism was to give the jews their own land. Anti-Semitism is caused by their ‘unsociable’ ways, and are exclusive politically and religiously. They were allowed ‘a state within a state’ wherever they settled. He went on to say that they were granted privileges, making their living conditions higher than others. Anti-Semites ensured that jews could never integrate into society.

HCJ 2 – Marx

Marx

‘Workers of all lands unite’; ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways – the point however is to change it’.

These are printed on Karl Marx’s gravestone, and summarise his values very well. Marx is commonly associated with communism, and rightly so as he created the Communist Manifesto with Engles in 1848.

Marx can be said to be comprised of three parts:

1. Hegelian Philosophy – the dialectics in particular. Society and economics change and arrive at new conclusions, but it is working towards the absolute best economic conclusion.
2. British Empiricism – particularly the economics of Adam Smith (the labour theory of value)
3. French Revolution – man is born free but is everywhere in chains (Rousseau)

Marx went about his life in a scientific way – like Darwin, he analysed every aspect of what would make up his views. He spent years in the British Library looking at census, tax records, and commodity prices.

Marx believed that you could explain everything about a society by analysing economic forces. Economics shape all aspects in society – religious, legal, political.

Men are productive animals, and are driven by technological determinism.

Marx believed that a commodity is worth the time spent on making it, and so factory workers were exploiting the workers as they spent no time on the making of the commodity but indulged in most of the profit.

The fluxation of boom and bust are the reprecussions of the chaotic capitalism. This partnered with the drudgery of repetitive everyday work sets up nicely for a revolution.

Hegel

Marx claimed to be a disciple of Hegel, but had ‘taken the liberty of ridding his dialectic of myticism’.

Marx attacks Hegel’s idealism/mysticism. The ‘Geist’ (spirit of a person/group), the real dialectic, was rooted in the real world – in money. This is all tied in to solving class struggle, the real problem.

Feuerbach

Feuerbach was one of the first Hegelians to criticise religion. Hegel talks about Spirit (the absolute), but man is a sensual being (Locke’s sensory data). Man is a communal being, which echoes Aristotle’s ‘man is a political animal’. He implies that man is only human when in a community, and therefore communism is a very good option for Feuerbach.

Alienation

People can appear to be free, but are in fact in chains – Rousseau. This is created by capitalism because people begin to value things over others. There is competition, greed, and inequality.

Work is the loss of one’s self, and we are alienated from our higher needs – work is other people’s needs. It is the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie.

Communism

The triadic system applied to communism:

THESIS: The bourgeousie (free market capitalism, liberal state, individual rights)

ANTITHESIS: The proletariat

SYNTHESIS: Socialism

Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto with Friedrich Engels which outlines his ideology for equality amongst all members of society. He talks about the proletariat (the workers) and the bourgeois (the wealthy, the people in charge) and how the proletariat will rise up against the bourgeois. If people worked together equally, the state would wither away.

 

HCJ 2 – Hegel

Hegel, possibly one of the most difficult philosophers to understand. Trying to learn his philosophy was truly an effort, so I will try to break it down as simply as I can.

It is said that if Kant didn’t exist, then Hegel’s system wouldn’t have ever been. Now that is something to think about.

All joking aside – Kant was the teacher of both Hegel and Schopenhauer, and so it is said that Kant’s thinking is sprinkled across their theories.

Hegel

There are two things that distinguish Hegel’s philosophical arguments: the strong and almost confusing emphasis on logic, and ‘the dialectic’.

The dialectic can be described as the process of opposing and resolving until we come to the ‘Absolute Idea’.

Hegel only believed in the whole – ‘The Absolute’. He believed that everything leading up to the whole is partially untrue, but they are all needed to come to the whole. We must use our logic to reevaluate until we arrive at the Absolute.

But what does this mean?

Hegel created a triadic structure to show how we may arrive at the Absolute:

 

THESIS

This is our first proposition, but this is incomplete and untrue.

ANTITHESIS

This is a reaction to the thesis, but is also incomplete.

SYNTHESIS

Both the thesis and antithesis are brought together as a new whole.

 

This system is repeated until we can arrive at the final conclusion – the ‘Absolute Idea’. We compromise until we reach the absolute truth. This makes him a teleological philosopher as he believes that all aparts lend themselves to the ends, the conclusion of life. Now, that’s a familiar word – ends. Kant’s Kingdom of Ends can be thought of when considering this.

An example given in Bertrand Russell’s ‘History of Western Philosophy’ is:

Thesis – the uncle is reality.

However, this implies the existence of a nephew. This now commits us to the existence of a nephew, so:

Antithesis – the newphew is absolute.

But this is not complete, as there is no uncle in the proposition, so:

Synthesis – the absolute is composed of both the uncle and nephew as a whole.

However, there are many other incomplete aspects to this absolute whole, so we may repeat the triadic system until it is satisfactory with no holes in it.

There is, however, an assumption that every proposition has a subject and a predicate. For example – there is an assumption that the proposition ‘the uncle and nephew are the absolute’ has to contain a subject – the uncle and nephew individually, and a predicate – they have to have necessary conditions for it to be so (the uncle himself must be related in some way, and so on). Hegel says that we must consider the whole uncle-nephew composition. Relations cannot be real.

A and B are not two. They are one in the same whole. The whole, the unity, the absolute, is considered alone to be real.

Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer is a peculiar one. He believed that the life we are living is suffering, and we are suffering from the original sin. He also believed that women were evil because they cause life. We must commit suicide in order to escape this life. I see Schopenhauer as Hegel’s evil twin.

Hegel believed that we are suffering in this life because of the original sin, but believed that we could redeem ourselves from it.

In comparison with Kant, Schopenhauer believed that there was only one big noumena, which is the universe itself. Everything had a will – a will to be, the force. The force is strong. There is no consciousness.

HCJ 2 – Kant

Kant is perhaps one of my favourite philosophers, purely because of how much of a challenge his ideas are. He seems to step back from the ordinary and give a completely parallel perspective.

Kant goes against the a posteriori stance of Hume, and claims that something can be known completely indepdenently of experience – synthetic a priori.

Before I go on, I think I should define the different types of a priori and a posteriori:

A PRIORI

A priori is described as the necessary and universal way to know of things. We know things through reasoning, and we can only think of things in terms of space and time.

• Analytic: The statement would be true in itself, we could analyse the truth within the statement. E.g. All bachelors are unmarried.
• Synthetic: We can assess physical experience and create connections through our reasoning: cause and effect. E.g. We know that fire causes pain because we have realised the link between the touching of fire and the subsequent feeling of pain. This is what Kant believes. Kant’s theory of  there being a union between rationalism and empiricism (synthetic a priori) is known as the ‘Copernican Revolution’.

A POSTERIORI

To obtain knowledge through a posteriori is to obtain knowledge through raw sense data, dissociated perception, or simply: our senses. It is contingent.

• Analytic: It is not possible to mentally process a posteriori knowledge.
• Synthetic: The only way to know a posteriori, which is from experience. E.g. Some bachelors are bald.

Kant went on to say that we can only think in terms of space and time, it is necessary as it is our only perception.

Example: Rose tinted spectacles – you think you cannot think of anything not pink if you have only ever seen through rose tinted spectacles. We don’t have the experience without the spectacles, this makes it a necessary and universal. We have always been human, and so we cannot think of anything outside of space and time.

_______________________________________________________

You can prove using synthetic a priori the existence of both space and time – we cannot imagine anything that doesn’t occupy space and that is out of time. Space and time is a necessary and universal precondition of perception.

The universe exists independently of one’s own mind.

The phenomena are the apearences, and the noumena are the things themselves. These two ideas are vital to Kant’s understanding of the world and epistemology. All of our judgements are of the phenomenal realm, but we will never know of the nourmenal realm as it is independent of our experience.

For example, if you look at the pen, then it is understood in the phenomena, but if it is then taken away/hidden, it returns to the noumena (the pen still exists, but we are not experiencing it).

‘Unity of perception’ – this means that individual thoughts and sense data are sythesised into a whole picture. All experience is united as one perception.

Difference between waking and dreaming: waking consciousness is not dependent of sense data but of necessity. Dreaming is a random series of sense impression, there is no cause and effect in dreaming.

Objects of perception must conform to the mind. The mind creates imaginings by filtering raw sense data into the 12 categories, which can be deduced by synthetic a priori. These are:

1. Unity
2. Plurality
3. Totality
4. Reality
5. Negation
6. Limitation
7. Substance
8. Cause and effect
9. Community
10. Possibility
11. Existence
12. Necessity

All possible perceptions are synthesised from these, and exist in the mind as phenomena.

_______________________________________________________

Another thing to consider when talking about Kant is his ethics. Kant has ‘descriptive’ morality, rather than ‘prescripted’ – Hume.

The Categorical Imperative: this is a a maxim that should be done, but isn’t known necessarily from experience. We should act for the sake of duty, not for our own personal want of being moral. For example: You must stop at the red light.

The Hypothetical Imperative: this is a statement that consists of ‘if‘. For example: If you want to be good, then you must share your food. It doesn’t have to be done.

HCJ 2 – Locke and Hume

The next type of philosophers to consider in the topic of Epistemology are the Empiricists. Empiricism is the school of thinking where you obtain knowledge through our senses and experience – a posteriori. This is seen as a typically British approach to philosophy, especially after challenging European rationalist philosophers previously dealt with – Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz.

An example to show the difference between the two is if you were born in a box and stayed there all your life, could you know anything about the world? For rationalists, the answer would be yes, because knowledge is innate. For empiricists, the answer would be no, because we have experienced nothing.

The main two empiricists that we are going to consider in this post is Locke and Hume.

LOCKE

John Locke believed that our understanding came from our experience, which is worked on by our power of reason to produce real knowledge – we assess what we learn.

We are born a blank slate, so we cannot simply rationalise knowledge, as we do not know anything of the world. God has given us the ability to discover knowledge – God-given facilities.

HUME

David Hume disagrees with Locke. He believes that there are no God-given facilities, and that our knowledge process just happens naturally.

Hume is often labelled ‘the great infidel’. Because he is a skeptic, some attack him and call him an ‘irrationalist’. Hume is pro science and anti superstition.

However, Hume is influenced by Locke on epistemology. Locke spoke about ideas – the way we get ideas is by acting on sensory data with reason, as stated above in Locke’s section. Hume refines this and speaks about perceptions, meaning content of the mind.

Perceptions can be impressions (hearing, seeing, feeling, etc.) or ideas (thinking of something instead of experiencing it). This is how we know things.

Beliefs can be split into relations of ideas and matters of fact:

• Relations of ideas = a priori bonds between facts (5+5=10)
• Matters of fact = experience, a posteriori. The process of cause and effect – induction. This, according to Hume, is not rational.

LOGIC

There are two types of logic:

Deductive = if all the premises of the argument is true, then the conclusion must be true. It further defines what we already know. E.g. all men are mortal > Socrates is a man > Socrates is mortal.

Inductive = aims to establish a conclusion to be true with some degree of probability. Applying the particular to the general. E.g. cancer, climate change.

INDUCTION:

The scientific method is about finding of natural laws are inductive leaps. We carry out experiments and make observations, then make a general law out of this. This is induction. Science cannot be established by observation as we cannot observe future events.

Hume had argued that was a problem about induction – it is unreliable. However we cannot help this because this is how we psychologically are. This is known as ‘Hume’s problem’. Our assumption of the future is flimsy, but it is the basis of all our thought. This is custom for us.

Hume doesn’t want us to abandon our trust in relations between cause and effect, but he demonstrating how little we depend on reason.

MIRACLES

A miracle is transgression of s law of nature, and one is usually presumed to have been caused by God. Never listen to a person who claims miracles – extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Proportion belief to available evidence.

HCJ2 – Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz

Throughout the whole of the second module of HCJ the topic is Epistemology. Strange word, and an equally strange meaning behind it. What it means is the philosophy of knowledge – how we acquire it, what it is, and what it is to know knowledge. Strange indeed.

The first set of philosophers that we have concentrated on with this topic are Descartes, Spinoza and Liebniz. These three are all rationalists, meaning that they discover knowledge through reason – a priori. There is no need for the physical observation of the world because all we can know is known through our use of reason and consciousness.

 

DESCARTES

The main points with Descartes are:

• Cartesian doubt
• The senses
• I think therefore I am
• Substance
• and God

Each of these aspects are all linked together and are not independent of one another.

Cartesian Doubt and the Senses

Cartesian refers to the school of thought of Descartes. Cartesian doubt is the act of doubting all that is physically doubtable and to return to the most basic facts that we can truly believe in.

Why may we do this? Well, it is because Descartes is a rationalist, and he does not believe that observation is the correct way to obtain knowledge. He says that our primary mode of knowledge is sensory, and that it is often wrong. For example, with hallucinations, mistakings, and so on. If this mode of knowledge is so unreliable, how can we possibly trust it?

I Think Therefore I Am

This leads Descartes to an analogy: What is there were a ‘demon’ manipulating our actions, trying to mislead us? If there was such a thing, then all that we see would be illusion and not natural contrary to what we believe.

However, there is one thing that Descartes cannot doubt, even with the misleading demon. That one thing is the fact that we are thinking, and because we are thinking, we must exist. Even if our thoughts are manipulated or misconstrued, we are still actively thinking those thoughts. This is known as Descartes’s Cogito, meaning consciousness. This is Descartes’s foundation of knowledge. We must conclude that the mind is one thing and the body is another. This is known as Cartesian Dualism.

Substance and God

Descartes believed that we were made up of three substances – mind, body, and God. Mind and body are both obviously important factors to our existence as they are the only two realities we know of and can distinguish between. God, for Descartes, is necessary in an interesting way. In order to progress from the Cogito we must have something, a catalyst almost, to enable us to allow ourselves to expand our knowledge. God wouldn’t deceive us because He made us, and He is a benevolent being.

In order for this to be so, Descartes must prove that God is real, and does so by his version of the Ontological Argument.

Descartes jumps from statement to statement:

1. God possesses all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection
3. Therefore God exists

Descartes refers to an analogy of a triangle in order for us to understand why these statements are able to flow from one another so sweepingly:

A triangle has certain characteristics (predicates) that are necessary for it to be so – all of its internal angles must add up to 180°, there must be three sides. If these predicates are removed, then the triangle is no longer a triangle. This relates to Descartes’s argument because as the triangle must logically have three sides and so on, God must possess all perfections or else God would not be God.

 

SPINOZA

The main points with Spinoza are:

• Monism and opposition with Descartes
• God is the true substance
• No free will

Monism

Spinoza is a ‘logical monist’. What this means is that the world as a whole is a single substance, none of which can logically stand alone. There are not two different parts of the world such as Descartes said – there is simply the physical.

God is the true substance

The reason for our world being simply physical is that all of our thinking is embodied as a physical manifestation of God. If we had a separate substance from the world, that would mean that God is separate from it, and this cannot be. Our souls are aspects of a divine Being.

No free will

There is no such thing as personal immortality. We have no free will – all that is good is good, but what is evil does not exist to God. This is because we are all manifestations of God, so evil is eliminated.

All wrongdoing is due to intellectual error – the man who adequately understands his own circumstances will act wisely.

Spinoza expresses a form of Pantheism (the world being one and adds up to God). God did not create nature because He is nature.

Berkeley expresses similarity with Spinoza by saying that there is only one substance, but that is mental. All that exists is through mental stimulation, including ‘physical’ actions. For example, if we pick up a pen, it is not our physicality that matters, but the mental stimulation and interpretation of the action.

 

LEIBNIZ

Last, but not least (perhaps it should be last but not sane) is Leibniz, a somewhat confusing character, even when compared with Descartes and Spinoza.

The main points with Leibniz are:

• Substance – Monad
• Best World
• Ontological & Cosmological argument

Monad

There are an infinite number of ‘monads’ in the universe. A monad is the simplest form that is the foundation of our complex being. This is our form of substance. It is a ‘soul’.

Necessary and eternal truths may be known by reason – a rational soul may know more than an ordinary one.

Best World

Leibniz also said that this world is the best of all possible worlds because God is benevolent and chose this one out of an infinite number of possibilities. He also said that God has chosen the best plan for the universe.

Of course, this is disputed for obvious reasons.

Ontological and Cosmological Argument

Ontological = Anselm said, simply put, if we can conceive of a perfect Being, it must exist because we have thought of it. He further went on to say that it is impossible to conceive of a perfect being not existing.

Cosmological = Aquinas (derived from Aristotle) presents the concept of the unmovable mover/uncaused causer – everything is in a state of motion, everything has causality. There are contingent and necessary beings, contingent being us and necessary being God.

 

Comparisons between the three

•Descartes & Spinoza – where Descartes believes that God had created us to think and act in our own way (I think therefore I am), Spinoza is fully dependent on God in all aspects.

•Leibniz & Spinoza – similar in the way that they are monist and believe that God controls what we do

•Descartes & Leibniz – they both strip back to the simplest form, but D has more in-depth analysis of humans

•Substance

–Descartes = 3, mind body and God

–Spinoza = 1, God/nature

–Leibniz = 1, monad

Rousseau, French Revolution and Romanticism

I have found that this topic helps me understand Hobbes from the great contrast between Rousseau and him.

State of nature

The way in which Rousseau differs from Hobbes is through how he sees our state of nature. Where Hobbes believes that we are innately violent, “red in tooth and claw”, Rousseau says that man is “a noble savage”. What Rousseau means is that naturally we will co-operate and self-love is what drives us to do so.

For example, in ‘Mad Max’, Max helps a group of civilised people, only fights when he has to, and does not steal. He is a great example of a Romantic hero, as he is very much self-liberated in the sense that he lives by his own rules and only creates contracts when it would benefit himself and others.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, general will and morality

The main way in which Rousseau is different from Hobbes is how he outlines his social contract.

Rather than giving up our freedoms to obey a leader, we must obey ourselves and give power to someone who is equal to ourselves. Sovereignty should be both a citizen and a subject, and they should know the common good of man.

This notion of equality then leads on to the idea of the ‘general will‘. The leader would need to enforce the general will of the public to ensure that good is being done. If someone were to go against the general will of the society/civilisation, then they would be going against their own will. Everyone who enters this social contract must be ‘forced to be free’. We must not mix up freedom with liberty – if we are forced to be free, then we are being told to have rights. It is not, however, the absence of coercion, which is essentially what liberty is. Therefore, although you surrender liberty, you gain freedom.

The general will is more effective than the will of all as it allows the general want of society to prevail, rather than individual needs, which would lead us nowhere. For example, the general will would be to follow the highway code and rules of the road, such as obeying traffic lights. However, an individual may want to disobey and drive through red lights, but this is not entirely moral, and so it is much more logical to follow the general will.

Morality itself is another important point. Morals are simply obligations, and we should follow inherent good. We should act on reason rather than physical impulse, which is a very anti-Plato concept. As said above, we must act in a way that would enable ‘amor-prop’ – self-love, and connection.

What may be deducted from this type of morality is how to ‘feel in moderation’. For example, if we see a poor family, then we may be moved. However, we cannot strive to change the situation as a whole – we must be cold to a certain extent by using our reason. We should refrain from trying to right all wrongs, but appreciate what is right and wrong.

GOVERNMENT AND ARISTOCRACY

Rousseau believed that Aristocracy was the best form of government. This consists of basically whoever you vote for then gets the government in – this is what the UK has.

There are, however, types of Aristocracy:

• Elective – This is the best type. Those who are best suited are placed in charge.
• Natural – “a committee of experts” – elders or noble persons in charge with no election.
• Hereditary – This is the worst type. This is where certain families govern – they may not be suitable at all for the position of leading.

There is also Democracy and Monarchy. Democracy (direct, not what we know today) is best for very small states – Rousseau imagines a small town gathering in the town hall. The state would be small enough to walk across in one day as it would require all members to be present to deliberate on issues.

Monarchy, however, is both good and bad. Elective monarchy is good for the reasons of elective aristocracy, and hereditary monarchy would result in individuals being above the general will – the state would eventually be rub by “a child, an imbecile or a monster”.

CRITICISM

One criticism would be how Rousseau’s ideals link very much with nationalism due to the notion of general will (the government’s acts are the general will of the nation) and the totalitarianism of how we must be ‘forced to be free’. Who draws the line? Or rather, who guards the guardians?

Romanticism & the french revolution

Romanticism and the French Revolution come hand-in-hand and they both arose at the same time.

The French Revolution is considered the age of Enlightenment, where the conventional thinking of France was challenged and changed. For example, Newton’s scientific method challenged the natural laws that were absolute at the time. The way of thinking was therefore changed – they didn’t discard of religion altogether, but they were influenced by scientific reasoning.

Wordsworth is often quoted in terms of Newton and his thinking:

‘…Newton, with his prism and silent face,
The marble index of a mind forever
Voyaging through strange seas of thought alone.’

Newton therefore helped the coming of the French Revolution as the absolute religious explanations for things also justified the absolute monarchy, and so the foundations of their thinking shook and the monarchy fell.

This then introduced Romanticism. The Romantics were very much influenced by nature, and tried to do everything in accordance with nature – they attempted to create a nature-based religion, change the names of the months to what it is like weather-wise, and much of the arts was to do with nature and raw emotion. There would be no hiding of what is natural to us as humans, as they did prior to the revolution.

Famous Romantics include Lord Byron, Keats, Shelley, and Beethoven. All of these artists had a hand to play in the evolution of the Romantic era. This can be explained further in this documentary on the Romantics:

Machiavelli & Hobbes

Here is a controversial HCJ topic that centers round the politics of power. For this topic, we also had a screening of The Godfather which portrayed the ideas of Machiavelli in the form of a New York mafia family and their power over others.   I find that after each of these lectures and seminars, we begin to question our own society in conjunction with the ideas and contexts of the philosophers.

MACHIAVELLI

Machiavelli (16th century) wrote ‘The Prince’ with the political tumult of his time in mind. Italy was going through many political conflicts, and he very much opposed the Medici family who then arrested him and sent him to live away near Florence. In order to win the favour of the Medici family, Machiavelli wrote ‘The Prince’ (Note: he didn’t succeed).

His work, ‘The Prince’, can be described as a ‘how-to guide’ for rulers, and it projected much stark realism throughout. He can also be said to have ‘redefined morality’ as he classes there are two kinds of it: one for ordinary people, and one for princes (or rulers). You can almost see how desperate Machiavelli was to gain the Medici’s favour.

The prince’s code is different and much more appropriate to their position, as it must be effective. What is meant by ‘effective’ is that sometimes it is necessary for a prince to be evil – for example, China’s effectiveness vs Zimbabwe’s. Machiavelli believed that men are egoists, and so in order to stay in power and defeat enemies, the prince should act in self-interest and be immoral at times.

There are two goals for the prince:

1. You’ve got to be able to maintain yourself in power
2. You’re got to be able to maintain your state, which if your first duty of the true prince.

There are also a few rules that Machiavelli sets out for the prince:

• Support the weaker side because you will be the dominant power in the end (My enemy’s enemy is my friend)
• Centralised regimes are difficult to conquer but easy to hold
• Armed prophets succeed and unarmed ones fail (this is due to Machiavelli’s bitterness of Savonarola’s – the leader of Florence before the Medici – execution)

He went on to explain that “men forget the death of the father more easy than the loss of their inheritance”, and so we must concentrate on human obstacles rather than property.

HOBBES

Hobbes wrote his book, ‘The Leviathan’. a century after Machiavelli. The name is derived from the biblical sea monster. The main theme throughout the text is fear, which is understandable when considering the context of it – the English Civil War and the execution of King Charles.

Our state of nature is aggressive, and if we don’t form a civilisation, then there would be ‘no arts, no letters, no society’, and life would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’. Civilisation mitigates our state of nature – a state of constant war. We would live in ‘continual fear’ without civilisation.

This would therefore mean that we must form a social contract. We would have to give up our freedoms, except one, to the sovereign who would protect us. Our morality would come from the ruler, and all citizens would make an agreement to not harm one another.

The only freedom that we would not give up is self-preservation. The reason for this is that if the social contract fails, then we must protect ourselves. However, when would it be reasonable to practice this? Take this as an example: if a man intending on killing you arrives at your house and enters it, when would it be permissible to take action against him? When he is outside of your house? Entering it? Or when he is physically attacking you?

However, Locke would disagree with Hobbes. Locke would say that our state of nature is a very social one, that we would peacefully honour obligations, and that we would have an innate sense of good and bad. Locke famously said that we have many rights – ‘life, liberty, and property’ (then changed to ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence by Jefferson).

To summarise, Machiavelli is very much teleological in terms of how to get to power – one must do things with the end in mind – the ends justify the means. There is no social contract as such, just individual manipulation in order to gain power. However, with Hobbes, there must be an understanding of how the public makes the leader powerful, and how they must protect us. There is a connection, a trust, a bond.

Plato, Aristotle, and the State

I was chosen to be leader of discussion this seminar for the topic of Plato, Aristotle, and the State. Here is my PowerPoint:

.

.

I started with this painting by Raphael because it gives the real essence of the differences between Plato and Aristotle when considering anything they both have opinions on, such as the State. Plato is pictured on the left pointing upwards, towards the sky; this is suggestive of his metaphysical theories. Next to Plato is his student, Aristotle, who is pointing forward, and is thus suggesting his empirical philosophical tendencies.

.

PLATO’S UTOPIA

•Plato’s main concepts (forms, analogy, etc.)

•Three classes of citizens: Guardians (mostly concentrated on), Soldiers, Common People

•What makes a guardian – education, economics, biology and religion

•Justice and the State – Republic

.

This slide outlines the main four points of what we learn in the chapter in Russell’s History of Western Philosophy.

.

In order to understand Plato’s ‘Utopia’, we must understand the context of his thinking.

FORMS: Ideal commonwealth – Forms are the perfect essences of this material world, they do not appear truly here.

CAVE ANALOGY: We only know the ‘shadows’ of what is real – sunlight = ‘good’, philosophers are the only ones to escape and know what is truly ‘good’, and so they must be leaders.

Three different parts to the soul – REASON, SPIRIT, DESIRE

The chariot

These encourage the classes in society which Plato stated

.

Forms – Plato believed that there was a separate world to what we know in this material world: the world of forms. These hold the main concepts of things we experience here. For example, the concept of Beauty. Some may believe that something is beautiful, but others may not. Beauty is not present in its true form in this material world, there are only reflections, or ‘shadows’ of it here.

.

This brings us to the Cave Analogy:

.

.

The cave is an analogy of the world. We are all prisoners, made to watch the shadows on the wall (reflections of the Forms). For example, if the shadow of a book appears, we may point and say ‘that is a book’, but we know that the shadow is not the real book. The analogy moves on the explain that if one of the prisoners are set free, they may leave the cave to now observe the real world (the world of forms), and these people are metaphorically philosophers. They are first hesitant, but then welcome the sunlight (the form of Good, the best kind of Form).

.

Then I move on to explain how Plato viewed the Soul. Plato believed that there are three parts to the soul; Reason, Spirit, and Desire. Reason holds our previous knowledge to the Forms (intellect). Spirit is what pushes us – courage, anger, bravery. Lastly, Desire relates to our natural instincts, such as food, shelter, and sex.

.

Plato goes on to form an allegory to depict how this does indeed affect us. It is the allegory of the Charioteer.

.

Reason is the Charioteer, and the two horses are Spirit and Desire. If the charioteer can keep both horses in a harmonious state, then he has achieved the perfect state of soul. If one of the horses goes out of control, then you tend to lose reason and depend on either your desires or your spirit.

.

This view of the soul links in to Plato’s theory of State. If you are harmonious, then you are a Guardian, if Spirit takes over then you are Auxiliary (Soldier), and if Desire takes over, then you are a common person.

.

•GUARDIANS – they have political power, legislators, in charge

•SOLDIERS – are what they are, ‘auxiliaries’ (support, help, etc)

•COMMON PEOPLE – just like you and I, we fill in society

.

Plato was particularly interested in the Guardians, as they were the ones who would lead us in the State, and are therefore special.

.

•There are few of them than the other two classes

•They must have the right education, economical background, biology, religion

Education	Music and gymnastics (culture and athletics).MUSIC: no Homer (it expresses things that should not be allowed such as loud laughter and fear of death), plays should contain only faultless male heroes of good birth, and the censorship of any sorrowful/relaxing music, only simple and expressive of courage.GYMNASTICS: No fish or meat other than roast, no sauces or confectionary. Young people are to see no ugliness, only young men to see – but not partake in – war.
Economics	Small houses, simple food, dine in companies – only have necessities, no luxuries. Wealth and poverty are harmful, so neither will exist (in Plato’s city).
Biology	Women are to have the same education, and may share some titles with men (philosopher, soldiers). There will be no families – children to be taken away at birth, sex and pregnancy is regulated heavily, loyalty to state.
Religion	‘One royal lie’ – gold, silver and brass & iron. Societal class is hereditary, but if it is fitting then they may be promoted or demoted accordingly.

.

The ‘religious’ point is particularly interesting, and links in with the soul theory. Guardians are golden people, Auxiliary are silver, and the common person is brass and iron.

.

From this, Plato continues with his main point of his book ‘Republic’ which is to define Justice.

.

•‘the city is Just when trader (common person), auxiliary (soldier), and guardian, each does his own job without interfering with that of other classes.’

•‘Justice’ is synonymous with ‘law’, and nothing to do with equality.

3 points to be noted:

–Injustice would only occur if there were men in the other classes who were wiser than the guardians (hence promotion/demotion)

–What is man’s job? A man is not a father (no family), so the government determines man’s job (no art or science produced, creativity controlled)

–Plato v Thrasymachus – Plato will prove that his ideal republic is good, but Thrasymachus = depends on personal preference (impersonal ideals). Euthyphro dilemma is hinted here.

.

As stated above, Justice is only to do with keeping the law, and nothing to do with equality in any way, as you can see from how everyone is classed before they are even born.

.

Thrasymachus opposed Plato in The Republic, and it brings one of Plato’s later theories to mind: The Euthyphro Dilemma. This dilemma is: Are good things so because God said they are, or does God instruct us to do things because they are good. In other words, is morality an individual concept that can be interpreted, or are things only good because God – or anyone in charge, for that matter – says so? Thrasymachus takes the stance that morality is subjective, whereas Plato tries to make morality seem objective, and thus illustrates a truly timeless mind-boggling dilemma to our world.

.

And so this is Plato’s basic theory of what he would consider a Utopian State. We must consider that in the context of what happened during his lifetime in Ancient Greece, that this incredibly authoritarian and totalitarian stance was entirely reasonable. In terms of creating the most structurally strong society which will survive the unpredictable rulings of Ancient Greece, Plato may be theoretically reasonable.

.

This brings us to Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ and his approach to the State. These are the main four points for this section of the PowerPoint:

.

•Aristotle’s main concepts

•Clashes with Plato

•His version of what the State should be

•Types of government

.

These are Aristotle’s main concepts:

.

•Four Causes

–Material

–Formal

–Efficient

–Final

•Golden Mean – the happy medium

.

Aristotle’s theory of the Four Causes brings us back to the point I started with when I explained the painting by Raphael: Aristotle believed in empirical evidence for the reason of our existence. The Four Causes illustrates the four causes of our existence. Aristotle explained each point by applying it to the existence of a statue. The material cause is what we are made from, which for the statue it’s marble. The formal cause is the form of which we take, which the statue may take the form of an influential/historical figure. The efficient cause is how it has come to be – the maker – which for the statue it would be the sculptor. Lastly, there is the final cause, the cause which is most important. We all move towards the same ‘end’ – towards the unmovable mover who started off the domino effect of life.

.

The Golden Mean is a simple concept which is really what it says – one must find the ‘happy medium’ in things, not go for the excess or deficit. For example, one must not be rash or cowardly, but courageous.

.

Here are the clashes between Aristotle and Plato when considering State:

.

•Plato gives too much unity to the state

•Family abandonment – love would become ‘watery’

•No communism – mind your own business. This allows benevolence and generosity.

•No equality – crimes are due to excess, not want

.

All of these points link nicely. The main idea that Aristotle dislikes is the mindless loyalty that we should give the State, completely disregarding our human nature.

.

This then brings us to Aristotle’s theory of what the State should be.

.

•State = highest form of community

•Family = first, and is built on relations of man, woman, and slave (natural)

•Slaves should not be Greeks, only inferior races with less spirit, prisoners of war

•Human society = State, 4 causes (efficient cause)

•Trade = trade is unnatural, skilled work is natural.

•Size = not too big (golden mean), big enough to defend and function properly

•Golden mean – education. Children should be taught in a moderate standard. E.g. boys should see war, but not partake.

•The aim of the State is to produce cultured gentlemen

.

Rather than giving up family life, Aristotle believes that we should embrace it, and our natural roles: man, woman, and slave.

.

He states that human society is the efficient cause of the State, and so it is only natural that our society creates the State. The State should also be in accordance with the golden mean: big enough to defend and function properly as to not become inferior. It is a virtue to be of the golden mean.

.

Aristotle goes on to explain the different types of government, and which is best.

.

•GOOD = Monarchy, Aristocracy, Polity (Oligarchy and Democracy)

•BAD = Tyranny, Oligarchy, Democracy

•GOLDEN MEAN

•Monarchy v tyranny = ethical

•Democracy v polity = above

•Aristocracy v oligarchy = moderate fortunes

•Democracy = large number of citizens, easily swayed

•Revolution = clash of oligarchs and democrats. Oligarchs = more prone to fall out.

•Prevent revolutions:

–Government propaganda

–Respect for law

–Justice in law and administration

.

Aristotle clearly states which are good and bad types of government. Let me define each type he has stated:

.

Monarchy – A government in which one person reigns (King/Queen)

Aristocracy -A governing body composed of those considered to be the best or most able people in the state.

Polity – A state or other organized community or body.

Tyranny – The rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.

Oligarchy – A government by a small dominant class.

Democracy – A government chosen by the people.

.

Aristotle incorporated the golden mean into the types of government, also, as listed above. What differs a Monarchy and a Tyranny is that a Tyranny is oppressive, whereas a Monarchy (as my next post on Machiavelli and Hobbes will concentrate on) offers protection over the people. Here, Tyranny is a vice, and Monarchy is the golden mean. The reason why Polity is superior to Democracy is due to the added essence of Oligarchy, the absolute opposite of Democracy – thus making Polity the golden mean. Furthermore, the difference between an Aristocracy and Oligarchy is that an Aristocracy is through a bloodline which the better equipped people are in charge, rather than in an Oligarchy where a small superior class control the State with themselves only in mind.

.

The reason why Aristotle is so critical of Democracy is because it was not how we understand it to be today. The type of government the Ancient Greeks had were ‘composed of a large number of citizens chosen by lot, unaided by any jurists; they were, of course, liable to be swayed by eloquence or party passion.’

.

A revolution would consist of the clash of Oligarchs and Democrats as the Oligarchs would be continuously oppressive and prone to fall out, and are the polar opposites of Democrats. The way in which one would prevent a revolution would be to follow the three points stated above, or more simply put: brainwash the citizens into trusting the government completely so they will not even have the possibility to think against their ruling.

.

Final thoughts:

.

Plato and Aristotle are both very Authoritarian thinkers, which links in with the movie that was shown along with the lecture: 1984. These thoughts, although seemingly alien to us now, were accepted for the most part of history, all up until the Renaissance. Scary.

What makes a good Journalist?

I have been asked to write 150 words on what makes a good Journalist, and although I could write 1500 words on the subject, here is the most broad piece I could have written about it:

Journalists’ quality nowadays is typically judged by what does not make a good journalist, due to the bad reputation tagged to the word ‘Journalism’. Some may say that all Journalists are biased, bent on twisting stories to make people look terrible, and are horrific liars! They are demons!

But, if you consider the opposite definitions of the above assumptions, then we arrive at what a good journalist should be – and what most journalists are typically like. They are taught to be disinterested in their work, to avoid causing disrepute and to avoid all sorts of inaccuracy. And, of course, they are most certainly not demons.

A good journalist will convey all information in an appropriate and law-abiding manner, acting as the public’s gateway to current world and local issues, such as the Arab Spring, or even David Cameron’s conference speech. A good journalist serves the public for the public’s sake!

You may recognise some themes from the Media Law post I made a couple of weeks ago. If not, take a look! But I have found that I am becoming more and more clued up on how Journalism really is even after these few weeks, and it really shows in assessment pieces like these.

Please feel free to comment and tell me what you think makes a good Journalist.