The Rise of Science

Astronomy is the study of the heavens and is key for Aristotelian Scholastics. Above the moon there are the celestial heavens (stars), which are close to God, and are perfect and unchanging. In the sub-lunar world nothing is constant, the elements are all mixed and everything changes. Ptolemy’s system fitted with this view, which was the idea that the Earth was the centre of the universe. The moon, sun, planets and a fixed orb of stars revolved around the Earth in a circular motion. Aristotelians and Scholastics viewed the world in terms of perfection and purposes, qualitatively. Things had essences which defined them and their purpose.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Bacon went against the Aristotelian Scholastic approach, stating that philosophy and theology should be kept separate, not intimately blended as they are in scholasticism. He was and advocate of the “double truth”, which is reason (philosophy) and revelation (faith). European thought was seen to be a slave of classical thought so he wanted a complete break from the ancient world, “let all previous knowledge be seen as worthless-nothing”. He was also a great believer in the inductive method, believing that knowledge could be gained through the orderly arrangement of data, which would make the correct hypothesis obvious. In his publication the “New Organon” there are four key themes:
1) Knowledge is human power
2) Must be a separation from science and religion
3) Gain knowledge through induction-proceeding from the particular to general theories
4) Science is dynamic, cooperative and cumulative

In the chapter on the “Rise of Science” Russell focuses on four great men: Copernicus
                                                                                                                                        Kepler
                                                                                                                                        Galileo
                                                                                                                                        Newton
Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus focused upon the Heliocentric Theory, which is the theory that the Sun is the centre of the universe. He then developed this to say that the Earth has a twofold motion: diurnal rotation, and annual revolution about the sun. However he gave no conclusive evidence in favour of his hypothesis.

Kepler (1571-1630)
Also believing in the Heliocentric Theory, Kepler developed his three laws of planetary motion:
1)  The planets describe elliptic orbits of which the sun occupies one focus  (planets move in ellipses)
2) The line joining a planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times (planets move fastest   when nearest to the sun, and slowest farthest from it)
3) The square of the period of revolution of a planet is proportional to the cube of its average distance from the sun

Galileo (1564-1642)
Influenced by Kepler, Galileo adopted the Heliocentric Theory and he then went on to perfect and build a telescope. He then discovered Jupiter’s four moons which obey Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. Previously there had been seven heavenly bodies, the five planets, the sun and the moon. Seven was seen to be a sacred number, but including Jupiter’s moons it mad eleven. Due to this traditionalists denounced the telescope and refused to look through it, stating it revealed only delusions.  Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition (a permanent institution in the Catholic Church to eradicate heresies), first privately in 1616, and then publicly in 1633, where he promised to never again maintain that the Earth rotates or revolves.

Newton (1642-1727)
His Principia, published in 1687, was a mathematical demonstration of the Copernican hypothesis proposed by Kepler. Newton, for the first time, managed to convince the public that the world was ordered and knowable. He was able to deduce everything in planetary theory: the motions of the planets and their satellites, the orbits of comets and the tides.  According to Newton the planets were originally hurled by the hand of God, but once he had done this God decreed the law of gravitation, and everything went on by itself without the need for further divine intervention.  Newton’s work was deemed to be exact until two hundred years after his time, when his work was amended by Einstein.

“Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid at night.
God said ‘let Newton be’ and all was light”

Blogging catchup

Today I'm going to post twice, well actually now three times, in order to catch up on the blogging I have managed to fall behind on. This means you have HCJ to look forward to plus a review on WINOL, exciting stuff isn't it? However as I was drinking my third cup of coffee of the day, my flatmate came into my room and showed me a video which I then felt compelled to share with you. Not only is it hilarious but it is also appropriate as it is the Halloween weekend. Oh if only I was born in the eighty’s!  
http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/how-to-master-michael-jackson-s-thriller-dance.html

Lets just keep this between you and me...

Three elements in a Breach of Confidence:

1.       Must have the “necessary quality of confidence”

2.       Must be in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence

3.       Unauthorised use of that information must cause “detriment”-they must show how they will be hurt.

Obligation of Confidence exists in:

·         Contractual relationship e.g. employee to employer

·         Membership of security services – Spycatcher Case http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/13/newsid_2532000/2532583.stm

·         Disclosure - in legal proceedings – protected until released at court or referred to a t a public hearing

·         Domestic Relationship – e.g. 1969 Duchess of Argyll prevented her former husband from publishing marital secrets. By 1980’s this was extended to the publication of kiss and tell stories, but details of transient affairs (e.g. with a prostitute) are unlikely to be protected

·         Third Parties e.g. Journalists, who come into possession of confidential information come under legal duty to respect the duty of confidence

·         Information gathered through unethical behaviour e.g. theft or trespass, is still under obligation of confidence

Journalists must give an individual or institution on which they publish damaging information a “right to reply”. This is an opportunity to respond to allegations before publication. This can be an issue for journalists as it gives the individual a chance to have an injunction imposed, and prevent the publication.

Three Areas of Concern:

1.       State Secrets – mainly affecting types of investigative journalism, and reporting communities with links to the armed forces – Official Secrets Act 1911

2.       Commercial Secrets – vital for solid news, investigative, and specialist reporting (e.g. health). This is common law confidentiality.

3.       Privacy – mainly for celebrity/tabloid journalism – Privacy Law and section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 right to “normal enjoyment of family life”

Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

·         Everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence

·         Except:  1) In the interest of national security/ public safety/ economic well-being of society

 2) Prevention of disorder or crime

 3) Protection of health or morals

 4) Protection of the rights and freedoms of others

The wording of section 8 of the Human Rights act 1998 suggests it only gives protection for privacy against a “public authority” but this also includes the media.

The main aim of the Official Secrets Act 1911 is to prevent spying. It is an example of statutory privacy. Section 1 concerns the revelation of information which could pose a risk from an enemy of the state.

Confidentiality Law e.g. conversations with doctors or lawyers, is often just expected or implied.

Gagging Clauses: often in contracts of employment (Journalists don’t like these)

·         Employees owe employer a “duty of confidence” even if it isn’t specified in their contract

·         Extends to matters of public concern – Graham Pink Case
Graham Pink Case: He held concerns that the hospital was not being properly cleaned, and spoke to a journalist of these concerns .Cases like this have a duty to report issues to the employer or to follow the internal complaints procedures, not to report to journalists. This is because it gives the employer opportunity to respond to the issue. The Public Interest defence is limited where there are internal systems to handle complaints. Where the organisation is covered by the Official Secrets Act the defence is also not allowed.

·         It’s generally seen to be a pretty bad thing

Princess Caroline Case:
Although she is royalty she argued that she had a right to privacy under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in circumstances where she has clearly tried to be private. It is forbidden to take a picture of someone without their permission unless they are involved in a public activity, or are carrying out their job e.g. a policeman on duty.

Max Mosley Case:
News of the World published story that he was involved in and enjoyed a Nazi themed sex orgy. He was defamed, although it was defensible as true because he did not deny his behaviour with prostitutes. However he claimed his behaviour was his own private affair and reporting it was in breach of s8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. He won his claim against News of the World as Mr Justice Eady rejected the papers claim it had a Nazi theme and ordered £60,000 damages. Mosley later claimed that because he was unaware of the article beforehand the opportunity of an injunction was not available to him.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=42168&c=1

Radio Article Attempt

Aimlessly wandering the hallway I couldn’t suppress the nervous feeling that had taken up residence in my stomach. It was so quiet; I couldn’t be the only person there surely… It all seemed so foreign to me. The emptiness and clinical style furniture made me feel like I was in a doctor’s waiting room. Could I really live here for a whole year? Standing in what would be my room, I tidied myself up and got changed from my crumpled travel clothes, hoping to make a good impression on whoever it was that would be filling the five other rooms. As someone who is permanently awkward, with the social skills of a chair, I was dreading the impending weeks of trying to convince people they should be friends with me. Was university really the best idea for me?

Fortunately whilst I was in the kitchen, two girls came in bright eyed and eager to introduce themselves. Unfortunately I was stood with my head in the bin, not quite the impression I had hoped to make. This happy and enthusiastic introduction gave me hope that perhaps this would work and I could belong here after all. As we chatted and gave the standard information to one another; what we’re studying, where we’re from, I discovered that I was living with a girl from my hometown, Braintree. It was one of the most surreal moments of my life. What were the chances that of all the thousands of potential flatmates, I would be living with a girl who had for the past eighteen years lived five minutes down the road from me? This was the defining moment when I felt like flat fifty two could be my home.

Unpacking my things I came to the sudden realisation of how much stuff I had, and how little shelf and cupboard space I had to fit it into. Words cannot begin to describe how excited I then became when I realised the mass of storage space under the mattress of my bed. I then came to the realisation of how lame I was for finding this mundane discovery quite so exciting. As her parting gift to me, my mum, bless her, made my bed and reorganised all of the unpacking I had done. Apparently my form of organisation has no logic, and it is impossible to deny the fact that everything is better if a mum has done it.

Although my awkwardness has not improved, whilst being at university I have developed my social skills, learned to cook, learnt much pointless yet interesting information about America from my Californian flatmate, and gained thighs of steel from the hills. So maybe with time university will kick the gawkiness out of me.

What makes a good journalist?

In a perfect world, a good journalist would be someone who could report fact to the public without bias. It is also important that they would not be afraid to ask the difficult questions, and would be willing to stand by the words they print. They would be able report with accuracy and would also have a well-rounded knowledge of media law to prevent libel action. Another quality of a good journalist is that they would be willing to put in the background research behind an article, to ensure they have a full understanding of the subject they are reporting on. To be able to employ a variety of writing styles so their article applies to their target audience would also be a quality of a good journalist. Essentially a good journalist is someone who follows legislation, reports with accuracy, and enjoys their job. 

Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke... essay alert!

Machiavelli (1467-1527) - The Prince, Discourses

Machiavelli is considered to be the most renowned political philosopher within the Renaissance period. He was a Florentine and held a minor government post until the restoration of the Medici in 1512. As he had always opposed the Medici family he was arrested, but then acquitted.

The most famous text by Machiavelli is ‘The Prince’, published in 1513, and was an attempt to win the favour of the Medici. It has since been viewed as a ‘how-to guide’ for rulers. ‘The Prince’ is the main focus in the chapter on Machiavelli, however Russell also mentions the publication ‘Discourses’, which was also written in 1513 but provides a more republican and liberal view. This is worth mentioning as it provides a more in depth insight into Machiavelli’s doctrines, whereas ‘The Prince’ was limited to please the Medici.

In ‘The Prince’ Machiavelli states that the prince is defended by ancient religious customs which protects them no matter how they behave, and they are upheld by a higher power (God). However this seems to act more as a justification for the Pope, rather than stating an attribute of the prince. In ‘Discourses’ Machiavelli states that religion is not a source of truth, but it acts as a ‘social cement’, however he also holds the Church as the reason for the divide in Italy. Machiavelli argues that politics and ethics are entirely separate, this means you can admire an enemies’ skill whilst still disapproving of their political aims. Morality appears to be a bit of a grey area when it comes to the ruler, stating that ‘the ruler will perish if he is always good; he must be as cunning as a fox and as fierce as a lion’. Essentially Machiavelli is arguing that the ruler need not be virtuous, but he must seem to be virtuous, and above all the ruler must seem to be religious.  Russell gives the example of Alexander VI who did nothing but deceive men, but he always succeeded in his deceptions.

In ‘Discourses’ Machiavelli sets forth the doctrine that princes, nobles and people should all have a part in the Constitution and would keep one another in check. The constitution in Sparta was the best example of this. Russell notes this to be an important doctrine, parallel in importance to those put forward in ‘The Prince’, so it seems only fair to make note of it. In ‘the Prince’ Machiavelli goes against the concept of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, and instead proposes that power is a free competition, and is something one can gain if they have the skills to act in a certain way. A good politician is somebody who can maintain power, keeping government and the population content. To achieve any political end one must have power, and this power is often dependent upon public opinion, which can be controlled by propaganda. Those who have power can control propaganda to make themselves appear virtuous before the ‘ignorant public’. Logically it then follows that politicians will be more virtuous if they depend upon a virtuous population, and are part of a community where their crimes and misbehaviour can be made publicly known. Machiavelli is a political realist, and holds an unsentimental view of human nature, suggesting that politics is simply a personal strive for power.

Hobbes (1588-1679) -Leviathan

Hobbes was an empiricist (believed that knowledge is derived from experience) and was a great admirer of the mathematical method. At university he was taught Aristotelian philosophy which he did not seem to appreciate, he was instead greatly influenced by the work of Galileo and Kepler.

  In 1628 Hobbes published a translation of ‘Thucydides’ with the intention of showing the evils of democracy. However when the Long Parliament met in 1640, Laud and Strafford were sent to the Tower of London accused of treason; fearing his own incarceration Hobbes fled to France. The English Civil War (1641-1651) in itself was not the cause of his opinions on democracy; it was instead the prospect of any civil war. First hand observation simply re-enforced those ideas.

One of his most renowned publications is the ‘Leviathan’, which he published in 1651. This however, was not well received; his rationalism and attacks on the Catholic Church offended many, including the French Government. Hobbes was forced to once again flee the country he was in, this time however he returned to London; England, where he made submission to Cromwell. He abstained from all political activity and was banned from printing any material that might have been deemed controversial in England.

So what were the doctrines put forward in the ‘Leviathan’ which offended so many?

The first part of the ‘Leviathan’ focuses on man as an individual and this is where Hobbes manages to offend the Catholic Church.  He argues that ‘imagination when asleep is dreaming’, nothing too controversial there, I think that’s a point we can all agree on. However he then extends this to say that the religions of the gentiles, (non-Jewish people), came from not distinguishing dreams from waking life, and belief that those dreams are prophetic (from God), is mere delusion. He compares belief in the Catholic Church to belief in witches and ghosts. Hobbes is a nominalist and notes the importance of language, stating that it is the only universal, and without language there would be no truth or falsehood.  He argues that what is religion and what is just superstition should be decided by the legislator, and that there should be only one religion within a state.

So who is the legislator?

Hobbes focuses the foundation of his argument on ‘the state of nature’ where all men are naturally equal, and they all wish to preserve their own liberty, whilst dominating over others. Their actions and desires are dictated by the impulse to self-preservation. In this state of nature there is only war, a war of all against all, making life ‘nasty, brutish, and short’. He argues that the only way to escape these evils is to appoint a sovereign. Hobbes believed that power should not be divided, but instead should be in the hands of one supreme authority, and this where he develops the concept of a ‘social contract’. This is a covenant made by the citizens with each other to obey the sovereign, which is chosen by the majority. The subjects may only choose the first sovereign,  from then on the successor is to be chosen by the sovereign. Once the first sovereign has been chosen the subjects lose all of their rights. The sovereign in Hobbes’ theory is the ‘Leviathan’, which is a mortal God. The ‘Leviathan’s’ power is limitless, they would control the laws on property, and resistance against them is condemned. However Hobbes limits the sovereign by giving the citizen the right to self-preservation. This means they have the right to self-defence even against the sovereign, including the right to refuse to fight when called upon by the government. Also if at any point the sovereign fails to protect you, then you have no duty to them and can effectively get rid of them.

Hobbes preferred the system of monarchy but his theory can be applied to all forms of government, provided there is one supreme authority. His reason for preferring the monarchy was that they would have fewer favourites than a government where there are more members, and a monarch can seek advice privately from anyone whereas a government can only seek advice from its own members. There is also the possibility of disagreement in a government assembly, which can result in a civil war.

The theories in the ‘Leviathan’ fail to account for class differences, as Hobbes only considers national interest as a whole, assuming that all the major interests of all the citizens are the same. He also fails to provide a remedy for the relationships between the different states, meaning that their relationship is still in the state of nature, making it a war of all states against all states. There is no account for the need of an international government.

Locke (1632—1704) – Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Treaties on Government

Russell provides us with two main chapters to focus upon regarding Locke. The first is ‘Locke’s Theory of Knowledge’, and the second is ‘Locke’s Political Philosophy’.

In the chapter on Locke’s theory of knowledge the main doctrine to remember is that he argued all of our knowledge is derived from experience (empiricism). Locke argued that our ideas come from two sources: sensation, and internal sense perception. He defines perception as the ‘first step and degree towards knowledge’. Locke argues that these sensations have external causes and share the attributes of their cause.  On ethics Locke claimed that people are moved to act by an attraction to pleasure and repulsion from pain (an idea made famous by philosopher Bentham, and his Hedonic Calculus). However people are not always drawn to act in a way which results in maximum pleasure, as people are more attracted to the immediate pleasures, rather than those which must be achieved over a length of time. Locke develops this argument and states what is in the public interest, and one’s own private interests are often the same thing, so people will act to promote the general ‘good’.

On Locke’s Political Philosophy, between 1689 and 1690 Locke wrote his two ‘Treaties on Government’.  The first acts as a criticism of Filmer’s ‘The Natural Power of Kings’, which lays out the theory of the divine right of kings. This theory argues that God chose Adam as the first King, and the various monarchs are the heirs of Adam. I don’t think anyone can deny how ludicrous this seems, this theory puts political power in the hands of people based upon heredity.  Locke wholeheartedly rejected this theory.

Locke’s second of the treaties on government states that the origin for the need of government comes from the ‘state of nature’. However unlike Hobbes, Locke has a more positive view of this state of nature arguing that all men have natural freedom and equality, but must follow natural laws, which have divine origin (e.g. though shalt not kill). However within the state of nature every man has the right to defend himself and his property, which means someone could kill another person for petty theft. Preservation of property was the main reason Locke saw for the creation of government.

Civil Government is the result of a social contract, and they are permitted to create laws and the coinciding penalties, preserve property, and protect the Commonwealth, all for the public good (a very important point). Locke argued that government power should be restricted, and it cannot be a monarchy as there would be no neutral party to solve disputes between the monarch and a citizen.  There is also religious freedom, as religion and politics are kept entirely separate. This type of government would have rule of the majority, however it is not quite democracy as it does not count women, or those who cannot afford property, as citizens. The creation of this type of society is dependent upon the consent of the population, and also taxation cannot be altered without the populations consent. This concept of a social contract was a great influence to the American Constitution. Similarly to Hobbes, until the installation of an international government, individual state relations are still in the state of nature.

Apology in advance ...

My next blog post is going to be ridiculously long and painful reading, but for those of you who do grit your teeth and fight your way through it you will find it is my seminar paper! Unfortunately years upon years of essay writing has made it so the only way I can learn something is to write it out myself in essay form. I once again apologise!

Defamation is a dangerous game

Defamation is a civil tort meaning it is a dispute between two parties. This is where something which affects a person’s reputation in a negative way is published in a permanent form. It only has to ‘tend’ to defame them, which is tested upon the ‘balance of probability’. For example “Headmaster X, who lives in Town Y, hits his students.”

There are three requirements:

1)      Identification- This has to be positive identification, such as a photograph

2)      Publication- Must be in a permanent from shown to a third party

3)      Defamation- Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt. It causes them to be shunned or      avoided. Discredits them in their trade or profession. Lowers them in the eyes of right thinking people.

Now Headmaster X would go running to his solicitor the minute he saw that published and they would begin to plot how to take you for every penny they can. Unfortunately for you, unless you can prove that ‘Headmaster X hits his students’ is a fact (the defence of Justification), then you can wave goodbye to a hefty sum of money.

However if you were to publish ‘Katie Price is the ugliest woman to grace the screens of our televisions,’ and that is your genuine and honest opinion, then you’re safe as houses!  This is the beauty of ‘fair comment’, if it’s your honestly held opinion, and it’s free from malice, then you’re free to rant and rave away. However it’s always best to throw a bit of positive in there too, just to be safe.

There are countless celebrity defamation claims, this is just one of them :
http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/268198/kerry-katona-wins-libel-case/1
In 2008 the Sunday Mirror took the gutsy decision to publish an article claiming Kerry Katona had previously been a prostitute, claiming this was information supplied in a book to be published in Sue Katona’s book. A claim which was revealed to be ‘entirely untrue’, supplying Kerry with a undisclosed 5figure sum and a public apology from the tabloid.

If you go down to the courts today...

On this depressing and drizzly day Christina and I decided to head to the courts. What better way to spend your mid-week break than to have a nosey at the court system? I am not going to deny how out of place we looked, as the only people in the entire building not wearing black or some form of suit jacket, alongside the fact we were at least twenty years younger than every person we encountered. I have never felt more like a sore thumb. Fortunately the security guard sensed the no doubt overwhelming nervousness we were emitting, and lightened the mood with some university related banter whilst he rifled through my belongings.

We were greeted with a sigh from a woman behind the desk, apparently today was a poor choice on our part, as today was a slow day and there was only one case left to be heard. However refusing to be disheartened, we found our way to court seven and snuck into the public gallery. Unfortunately the case we were hearing was in its third day and was not due to conclude until tomorrow, so the first half an hour was one of the most confusing moments of my life. After a while we managed to get a gist of what we were observing and it turns out was a case about drugs possession by a prisoner. However a previous assault which had taken place within the prison against the defendant was the focus of today, as this was the basis of his defence of duress. It was all going quite well, sitting in silence, learning about how the court system works, and then it happened, the ever embarrassing stomach rumble. If there was ever an inappropriate moment for my body to express a need for food, this trumps them all.

Two hours later the judge decided to call it a day, he gave speech to the jury about why they shouldn’t discuss the case with other people when they get home, and we took this as our queue to sneak out. Slightly dazed and confused we attempted to grasp a clear understanding of what we had just heard as we softened our starvation with a shared cereal bar. As far as this case is concerned I guess I shall never know what will happen to the prisoner sat behind the glass, but I would without a doubt sit in the public gallery again through another trial. Although perhaps next time I’ll eat a hearty meal before I go…

A bit of light reading ...

Bertrand Russell ‘A History of Western Philosophy’ is not your typical light reading, carrying it around is a work out in itself. Unfortunately as a champion of slow reading, working through book one resulted in many late nights, and a few too many cups of coffee. Caffeine fuelled I managed to work my way through it, and just in the nick of time.

Part one concerns Pre-Socratic philosophers, based in the city of Miletus in the region of Ionia, who created a foundation of philosophy for Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The first Pre-Socratic philosopher we encounter is Thales. As a Greek philosopher, scientist, and mathematician he theorised that everything in the universe is made up of water. What was also found to be shocking was that he made no accounts of ‘the Gods’, which at the time were central to civilisation. However his upmost achievement was the successful prediction of a solar eclipse in 585 BC.

Anaximander, who was thought to be the student of Thales, argued that ‘the boundless’ is the source of all things, and it is an accumulation of all the elements which makes up the universe, not just water. Anaximander was criticised by Aristotle for never giving an explanation of what he meant by ‘the boundless’.

Pythagoras is the next philosopher to cross our path, but unlike Thales and Anaximander he was more focused on the idea of form, rather than matter. He wanted to use mathematics and geometry to explain the universe and all that is contained within it. However I cannot deny that I am pleased that not all of his theories have made it through the generations, I don’t think I could survive as a student without Heinz baked beans. With Parmenides there is very little to say on him, other than he believed that everything comes from one substance.

 It then leads us to Heraclitus, who is considered to be the most important of all the Pre-Socratic thinkers, and possesses a pessimistic view of human nature. Writing his doctrine ‘On Nature’ he stated that the world is made up of a conflict of opposites and is in a constant flux, coining the famous phrase ‘you can’t step into the same river twice’.

Part Two focuses upon Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These familiar names were surprisingly reassuring, bringing back memories from A-level philosophy, a subject I felt so grateful to escape back in June.

Socrates was the teacher of Aristotle, and one of the most influential philosophers of all time, despite never actually writing anything down. As the years went on he became absorbed by philosophy, resulting in self-inflicted poverty. Unfortunately his life was cut short as he was accused of impiety, and had to end it himself by drinking hemlock.

Plato is a well-known student of Socrates, and most of what we know of Socrates has come from Plato’s writings. His most well renowned piece of work is ‘The Republic’, which seems to lay out his plans for a utopian society. He covers the concept of justice, politics, ethics, and what is knowledge?

Aristotle was a student of Plato, who argued about ethics, politics, physics and logic. Unlike Socrates and Plato, who believed that knowledge was innate, Aristotle argued that knowledge is gained empirically. Like Socrates he was charged with impiety, however unlike Socrates, he ran off and escaped his fate.

Part Three tells us about Stoicism. Their main belief is that only Zeus is granted with immortality, the other Gods were created at the beginning of the Cosmos, so are not as high in status. If you lived a ‘good’ and virtuous life you would be granted with immortality and a place among the Gods.

For the Epicureans, the soul and death affected their view of the afterlife. They stated that the fear of death is the main thing that plagues the human race, not death itself.

After the Hellenistic period, the population fell under the sway of Aristotelian teachings again, where no part of the human soul possesses immortality.

I feel it is safe to presume that you are damn right knackered from reading all of this, and I am shattered from writing it. I bid you adieu.

Cosmos

Consumed by the mountain of reading I’ve had to do these last few days, I had completely forgotten to post about the HCJ lecture on Tuesday. Despite a reminder from Chris Horrie, like a true student, I still managed to forget about it. I’m going to fall back on the ‘video game generation’ excuse for why I have a memory span not much longer than a goldfish.

As a student with very limited knowledge on history, my notes from the lecture were left as incoherent scribbles as I tried to follow what was being explained to me. However fortunately I then watched the Cosmos link which, with the repeated use of pause and rewind, helped me make notes which actually followed in chronological order.

In the third century BC the city of Alexandria was renowned as the greatest city on Earth and in that city was a library, containing the work of the greatest minds of the time. The Greeks were extremely advanced in their way of thinking, discovering concepts which are still correct to this day, and unlike many civilizations intelligence was greatly supported by the heads of state. Eratosthenes discovered that the world was round, and worked out an incredibly accurate estimation of the circumference of the Earth, only incorrect by a few percent. Archimedes had the original ‘eureka!’ moment when he discovered how to work out the volume of an object. Euclid systemised geometry and Dionysius defined the parts of speech; verbs, nouns, etc. These are just a few of the great minds and their great achievements. The Romans were the source of power, so Greco-Roman society was very advanced. However in the middle ages the Romans became corrupt, and as this classical civilization disintegrated, most of the books and scrolls in the library of Alexandria were destroyed. They dropped the schools of philosophy and embraced the concept of a ‘God’ emperor. From St Augustine all emperors were seen as ‘resurrected Gods’. They then adopted Judeo-Christian faith where there is one God, so all people are equals.

The Dark Ages then emerged. This in basic terms was just a very long period where not much happened, only three books were published, and religion was key. Greek knowledge disappeared during this era.  The Dark Ages came to an end around 1300-1400 AD and the Arab world was flourishing. This was because the Arab world had more Greek knowledge, which gave them a great technological advantage over Europe. The knowledge was then taken from the Arab world, Al-Ghazali taught that the Ihya is all you need as your guide back to Allah, and all the knowledge you need is in the Qur’an.

The reformation moved religion to Protestantism, which is a simplified version of Christianity and is a more Jewish form. Here they still lacked Greek intellect as they burnt and drowned thousands of women because they thought they were witches. Then the Renaissance came and saved our bacon. The Renaissance was a cultural movement which reintroduced classical thinking, and the flowering of art, literature, science, and politics. Here began the rediscovery of classical Greek knowledge.

So in summary, thousands of years ago BC people were of great intellect. Then there was an awkward and unproductive period where they thought witches were running amok in their towns. Then the reformation and the renaissance got us back on track to where the Greeks started.

Here’s the Cosmos link which I guarantee you, although it has cheesy music and the presenter wears a turtle neck in the desert, is very informative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3NAW1U-swc

Mass Culture Theory

To put it bluntly, this is a theory which argues that the mass production of commercial products is ruining today’s society. As with many theories such as this, it pulls its arguments focus to the younger generations. Why does this not come as a surprise? However the quote from Paul Johnson ‘huge faces, bloated with cheap confectionary and smeared with chain store make up…broken stiletto heels’ does give me instant flashbacks to my hometown in Essex. Mass culture within this theory is described as ‘superficial’ ‘trivial’ and ‘formulaic’, just to name a few, making it abundantly clear that MacDonald and Q.D. Leavis are not its greatest fans. It is also referred to as ‘Americanisation’.

MacDonald uses the example of the expansion of Hollywood, and its effect on theatre, to illustrate his argument. He claims that the development of sound film not only standardised the theatre, through the mass production of plays, it also standardised the film industry itself. Movies lost their artistic merit and became more about the prospect of profit. This represents how popular culture over the years has begun to undermine and devalue high culture, which poses problems for the archaic view of class, and strikes fear in members of the aristocracy. MacDonald is described as a ‘cultural pessimist’ as he believes ‘bad culture’ is driving out what was ‘good culture’.

However he gives us hope in the form of ‘avant-garde’ which sole purpose is to stay separate from the main market, and is a way to ensure that serious artists, and the culture they portray, can still survive. When I think ‘avant-garde’ I think pretentious minuet portions at an extortionate price, in a restaurant which I can’t pronounce the name of. When McDonald, and cultural pessimists like him, thinks of ‘avant-garde’ they see a ‘faint glimmer of hope’. 

This form of ‘mass culture theory’ is heavily criticised as being elitist and therefore unjustified. Elite values are considered to be superior and the standard against all other forms of culture should be judged. This claim however has no real evidence to support it; it is an assumed theory which has remained unexamined. Elitism also fails to account for the diversity that arises within popular culture, seeing it as ‘homogenous and standardised’. However this is clearly not the case, taking television programmes as an example, there is a larger range of programmes presented on different national networks at the same time. Although they will all take a standard format they can all present very different view of the same situation.

The elitist argument disregards the concept that taste and style are culturally and socially determined, instead arguing that there is an objective and universal ‘authentic’ culture. This argument romanticises the past giving an idealised account of a ‘golden age’. But when exactly was this ‘golden age’? When exactly did it begin to decline? Alongside the absence of a precise definition of ‘mass culture’, the ‘mass culture theory’ has limited its ability to validate its argument. What was once seen as ‘pop culture’ is now widely regarded as ‘high culture’, for example jazz. Now jazz is appreciated as art but originally jazz was condemned as mass culture. What is classed as high culture and what is classed as mass culture shifts with the generations.

Mass culture theory claims that the audience are drones open for manipulation by the media. It doesn’t consider the possibility of preference, or the possibility of different types of cultural taste. Within this theory it’s not possible for the audience to watch or read something just because they enjoy it. This poses problems for those of us with guilty pleasures such as Hollyoaks.