Machiavelli

Machiavelli (1467-1527) was a Florentine, whose father was a lawyer.

Machiavelli obtained a minor post in the Florentine government (1498). He remained in the service of the Florentine government until the restoration of the Medici family in 1512. His role was to carry out important diplomatic missions.

Once the Medici family took power, Machiavelli was arrested but then released & was allowed to live in retirement in the country near Florence.

His most famous work was called The prince & was written in 1513. The book was dedicated to Lorenzo the second in an attempted to win over the Medici family, which failed. 

The prince is concerned to discover how principalities are won, how they are held & how they are lost.  

Machiavelli admired and had high praise for Caesar Borgia Because of the skillful way he went about things. Caesar Borgia had three main objectives after his father Alexander VI died. Those were as follows: Kill his brother. Conquer by force of arms & in the name of the Pope, territories which should of belonged to himself, not the Papal states, after his father died. Lastly to manipulate the collage of cardinals, so that the next Pope should become his friend. Machiavelli was impressed with the skillful & methodical way Caesar Borgia carried out these objectives & if it wasn't for the misfortune that he was to become ill, he would have most probably successfully completed these objectives. 

However it must be said, Machiavelli's admiration for Caesar Borgia was only for his skill, not for his purposes.

My thoughts on Machiavelli are that he comes across as a very smart man, because his time in employment in government made him very wise. He was able to observe what was going on around him & learn how to & how not to go about things, just from observing the people/leaders who were in higher positions than himself. So that's why his works titled The Prince & probably more successfully Discourses where so successful. However if his books were published today, they wouldn't be as successful because the methods used or needed to gain & sustain power in the world of today are completely different to how they we used to be.

Descartes

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) is widely known to be the founder of modern philosophy.

Cartesian dualism- mind over body. He believed the soul and body are seperate, he thought the soul was connected to the body through the pineal gland.

He lived in Holland for 20 years, from 1629 to 1649, except from a few brief visits to France and one to England, both were for business. One of the main reasons why Descartes moved to Holland, was because it was the one country that had freedom of speculation in the 17th century. This is also why many philosophers who wrote controversial books, went to Holland to get them printed. Such as Lock and Spinoza. But even in Holland, Descartes was subject to vexatious attacks by the Protestants. Because it was said that his views led to atheism, he would have been prosecuted if it wasn't for the intervention from the ambassador of France and the Prince of Orange. With this attack having failed, another  less direct attack was made on him a few years later, by the the authorities of the University of Leyden, which forbade any mention of him. But yet again the Prince of Orange intervened and told the University to stop being silly.

Queen Christina of Sweden, thought that because she was a sovereign, she had the right to waste the time of great men. So because she was a big fan of Descartes, she wanted daily sessions from him. But because she was so busy, the only time of day that she could spare was five in the morning. With Descartes being a man who didn't like to wake up before midday, he was unaccustomed to this early rising in the cold of a Scandinavian winter and therefore couldn't uphold these daily sessions.

Descartes fell ill and died in February, 1650. He never married, but he had a daughter who died at the age of five. Its been known, that Descartes said that the passing of his daughter was the greatest sorrow of his life. Descartes was always well dressed and always wore a sword.

Descartes was a philosopher, a mathematician and a man of Science. His great contribution to geometry was the invention of co-ordinate geometry, although not quite in its final form.

The book in which he set forth most of his scientific theories was Principia Philosophiae, which was published in 1644. The two most important books that Descartes has written from a philosophical stand point are the Discourse on method (1637) and the Meditations (1642).

In these books, Descartes begins by explaining the method of 'Cartesian doubt'. The method of 'Cartesian doubt' is basically to help Descartes have a firm basis for his philosophy. In order for him to achieve this he resolves to make himself doubt everything that he can manage to doubt. Knowing that this process could take some time, he decided to remove everything from his mind that he could possibly doubt in relation to his practice. He began with scepticism in regard to the senses. 'I can doubt', he says 'that I am sitting here by the fire in a dressing-gown ? yes, for sometimes I have dreamt that I was here when in fact I was naked in bed'. He then proceeds to discuss how he thinks that there might be a powerful demon misleading him and that if there is such a demon, it might be that all things that he sees are only are illusion of which the demon makes use as traps for Descartes credulity. In order for Descartes to overcome these thoughts, he then went on to say one of the most famous philosophical quotes of his time, which was 'There remains, however, something that I cannot doubt: no demon, however cunning, could deceive me if I did not exist. I may have no body : this might be an illusion. But thought is different, While I wanted to think everything false, it must necessarily be that I who thought was something; and remarking that this truth, I think, therefore I am'. Once Descartes established  this quote, he had set a firm foundation from which he could rebuild his knowledge from. He had established that the only thing he knew was real, was his mind. ' The I that has been proved to exist has been inferred from the fact that I think, therefore I exist while I think, and only then. If I ceased to think, there would be no evidence of my existence. I am a thing that thinks, a substance of which the whole nature or essence consists in thinking, and which needs no place or material thing for its existence. The soul, therefore, is wholly distinct from the body and easier to know than the body; it would be what it is even if there were no body.'

He also believed that Knowledge of external things must be by the mind, not by the senses.

Descartes believed that because god is good, god wouldn't act deceitful like the demon which he has previously mentioned. Therefore he believed that because god gave him an inclination to believe in bodies, bodies must therefore exist. He also believed that god gave him the faculty to correct errors, therefore, he uses this faculty to employ that whatever is clear and distinct, must be true. Which enables him to know mathematics and physics.

In the Meditations there was a discussion as to why the mind feels 'sorrow' when the body is thirsty. The Cartesian answer to this, was, the body and mind were like two clocks, that when one indicated 'thirst' the other indicated 'sorrow'.

Hobbes's Leviathan

• Below are some of the controversial philosophical ideas that Hobbes believed in and wrote about in his Leviathan book.
• Hobbes believed that all men are naturally equal. In the state of nature, before there was any government, every man desires to preserve his own liberty, but to acquire dominion over others; both these desires are dictated by the impulse of self-preservation. From this he believes that from their conflict there will arise a war of all against all, which makes life 'nasty, brutish and short'. In a state of nature, there is no property, no justice or injustice; there is only war. The second part tells how men escape from these evils by combining into communities, with each subject to a central authority. This is represented as happening by means of social contract. It is thought that a number of people come together and agree to choose a sovereign, or a sovereign authority, which shall gain authority over them and put an end to universal war.
• Hobbes asks the question, why men can't co-operate like ants and bees. He states ' Bees in the same hive, do not compete; they have no desire for honour; and they do not have reason to criticize the government. Their agreement is natural, but that of men can only be artificial, by covenant. The covenant must confer power on one man or one assembly, since otherwise it cannot be enforced'. The government is chosen by the majority of citizens, once the government is chosen and takes power, the citizens loose all rights to the government except when the government find it expedient to grant. Also there is no right to rebel because the ruler is not bound by any contract, whereas the subjects are.
• A multitude so united is called a commonwealth. This 'Leviathan' is a mortal god.
• Hobbes preferred monarchy, he could tolerate parliament alone, but not in a system where the power is shared between King and Parliament.
• Hobbes believed that the English civil war occurred because power was divided between King, Lords and Commons.
• The supreme power , whether a man or an assembly, is called the Sovereign. In Hobbes system the powers of the Sovereign are unlimited. He has the right of censorship over all expression of opinion.The laws of property are to be entirely subject to the Sovereign. Rebellion is wrong, both because it usually fails and because if it succeeds, it sets a bad example and teaches others to rebel.
• In Hobbes system, the succession of the Sovereign is to be determined by the Sovereign himself. Which would usually be one of his children, or a near relative if he has no children himself. But it is held that there is no law that prevents the Sovereign from choosing otherwise.
• On the grounds of self-preservation ( though with limitation ) Hobbes holds that a man has a right to refuse to fight when called upon by the government to do so. Hobbes also believes that resistance against the sovereign is only justified in self defence; resistance in defence of another is always culpable. All teachers are to ministers of the sovereign and should only teach what the sovereign thinks is necessary. The sovereign also has the right to regulate foreign trade and the right to punish comes from him, not from any other forms of justice.
• Hobbes thinks that there should be no difficulty in teaching people in the rights of the sovereign, for they have not been taught to believe in Christianity. 
•  I think that Hobbes is very clear in what he believes in and he is not trying to trick anyone into believing in his concepts. I think he's got the best interest of the citizens at heart, although I must say that I don't believe his political ideas of the sovereign or the government. Mainly because, even though he says that the citizens choose by majority, the sovereign, he's not taking into account every citizen. He's only talking about people of high social status. Also because Hobbes believes that the sovereign has the right to choose his successor, that would mean, the public would only have the right to choose the first ever sovereign, but not any other. Which I believe will eventually lead to a dictatorship.

My visit to the Lourve and Paris

In May of this year, I went to Paris and I made a visit to the Lourve. I remember in our first lecture of the year Chris mentioned the Lourve briefly, also some of the pictures I took when I was in Paris, I saw in the last Kenneth Clark video that was shown in our last lecture. So I thought I'd post some of my pictures that I thought would be relevant to what we have been learning this year.

 

 




Aphrodite

  

Mona Lisa

The Wedding at Cana is the largest picture in the Lourve





David and Goliath



Outside views of the Lourve



Eiffel Tower



Arc De Triomphe



Hope you enjoyed the pictures.

Last Lecture Notes- Rousseau

• Was part of a group of French intellectuals, the most famous of them being Voltaire. Most noticeable for creating the first encyclopedia.
• Died a decade before the French Revolution.
• Believed before civilisation, people were generally good. Believed society damaged humanity.
• Was thought to be the founder of the Romantic Period.
• He was against the enlightenment.
• 'Man is born free and is everywhere in chains.' Was and still is a famous Roussaeu quote.
• His book 'the social contract' caused uproar. It was burnt and Rousseau had to flee. He fled to England to stay with Hume, but because he was so paranoid, he fell out with Hume.
• He made an attack on Hobbes' 'State of Nature'. Hobbes says that in the state of nature, there is constant war. Rousseau says that Hobbes wasn't thinking far enough back because war is only in civilisation and society. He thought that in the real state of nature, there was no war because war did not exist at that time.
• He also made an attack on Locke.
• Rousseau and 'General Will' -He believed that everyone should agree on something before it should be made law.

Seminar Paper (Part 2) Hume: Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

I decided to focus on three sections of this essay. which are, of the origin of ideas, the association of ideas and of probability.

• Of The Origin Of Ideas
• Hume believes that there is a considerable difference between the perception of the mind and when you later recall that sensation or anticipate it by imagination. E.g if you was to touch a hot kettle or feel the warmth of a heater, you will be able to mimic or copy this sensation, but you will never be able to entirely mimic it to reach the full force of vivacity as the original sentiment.
• He believes that the mind can portray these sensations in such a lively way that you almost believe it's real. But it can never be as real as the original sensation or real object. He says in his essay "all the colours of poetry, however splendid, can never paint natural objects in such a manner as to make the description be taken for a real landskipe".
• "A man in a fit of anger, is actuated in a very different manner from one who only thinks of that emotion. If you tell me, that any person is in love, I easily understand your meaning, and from a just conception of his situation; but never can mistake that for the real disorders and agitations of the passion". I think Hume is trying to say that when you think about an emotion, such as anger or love, the perception/idea you get in your head is actually different to the actual emotion itself that one would feel.
• He says we can divide all the perceptions in our mind into two classes or species. The less forcible ones are called denominated thoughts or ideas, the other is called impressions. Impressions are, are more lively perceptions such as when we hear, see, feel, love, hate, or desire, or will. Impressions are distinguished from ideas, such as the ones mentioned above.
• He believes that our mind and thoughts are unbounded, they can help us to imagine things far beyond our universe. But the creative power of the mind amounts to no more than the faculty of compounding, transporting, augmenting, or diminishing the materials afforded to us by the senses and experiences we have been through. He says "all our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of our impressions of more lively ones". E.g If you imagine a flying car, you think of a car, then you think of wings or a bird, then you imagine them together to give yourself the idea of a flying car.
• "We shall always find, that every idea which we examine is copied from a similar  impression".
• "A person to have enjoyed his sight for thirty years, and to have become perfectly acquainted with colours of all kinds except one particular shade of blue, for instance, which it never has been his fortune to meet with. Let all the different shades of that colour, except that single one, be placed before him, descending gradually from the deepest to the lightest, it is plain that he will perceive a blank, where that shade is wanting, and will be sensible that there is a greater distance in that place between the contiguous colour than in any other". I personally don't agree with what Hume is saying here, because if I see a colour that I have never seen before, my mind may draw a blank in the sense that I wont initially recognise it, but I don't think it will draw a blank in the sense that I will see a gap between that colour and the next. I have come across colours that I have seen for the first time and when I saw them  for the first time I don't see a larger blank space when I look at them. Maybe I don't completely understand what Hume is trying to say, but if he is saying what I think he is trying to say, I disagree. 
• Hume believes that all sensations, either outward or inward are strong and vivid, therefore it is not easy to fall into any error or mistake in regards to them.
• Hume says if you have an idea in your head but you cant derive from what original impression it stems from, that will serve to confirm suspicion about that idea.
• He doesn't believe in innate ideas, meaning ideas that you had in your mind from before you were born or were born with. He believes that all ideas are copies of our impressions.  
• He thinks that the word "ideas" is used very loosely by Locke and others.
• The association Of Ideas
• "In our more serious thinking or discourse this is so observable that any particular thought, which breaks in upon the regular tract or chain of ideas, is immediately remarked and rejected". Which I think is true, because when a thought creeps into my mind, that is not relevant to my main course of thought, my mind automatically dismisses it. But then there are times when you are trying not think about something, because it may upset, or frustrates you, but your mind just wont let you not think about it. I wonder what Hume's answer to that would be, as I don't think he touches on that in this essay.
• He says there appear to be only three principles among connexion of ideas, which are resemblance, contiguity in time or place, and cause or effect.
• My Example on Hume's association of ideas. If you I was to say that I live at the house with the only red door on this street, you will be able to find my house because you use your association with the colour red and connect it with a door to find my house on that street.
• Of Probability
• My definition on Hume's probability- If you have a pack of 50 cards and 49 of them are 6 of hearts and only one of them is a 2 of spades, then it is more likely that you will draw the 6 of hearts.
• When is talking about probability I think he is trying to say, for example, if one was to say, it will rain next November that is only a probability. The reason why one would think it was a probability is because in the past it has rained for at least one day in November for the past ten years. Which means one would use the past to predict the future, which would mean that it's more probable that it will rain next November, even though it is not a proof or even that we will see next November.
• Overall I think that David Hume is incredibly smart and that out of all of the Philosophers/ intellectuals, he is the most believable and comprehendible of them all. I think that I only disagreed with one thing he said and I don't question anything that he is saying

Seminar Paper On Joseph Addison's The Adventures Of A Shilling

Joseph Addison's ,'The adventures of a shilling' allows the reader to imagine what it would be like if you were to follow a single shilling around from the day it was made, until the day it was taken out of circulation. The way that Addison is able to do this in this essay is incredibly smart, as he is able to make the shilling seem life like with human qualities such as feelings, emotions and also the awareness of space and time. Because Addison is able to do this so well, as you are reading this essay it can be easy to forget that you are reading about a shilling and not the life of a human.

The essay starts off by Addison having a conversation with his friend at his house, when his friend says to him. "I defy any of these active persons to produce half the adventures that this twelve pence piece has been engaged in, were it possible for him to give us an account of his life". This was the comment that Addison says left an odd impression on his mind and he says that as if it was a dream but more like a delirium, the shilling that was on the table next to him began to talk to him and started to give him an account of it's life and adventures. The shilling begins to tell him that he was born on the side of a mountain, near a village called Peru. When the shilling says it made a voyage to England in an ingot, it means in an mass of metal, such as a block or bar, because that's what ingot means. The shilling then goes on to say that it was brought to England under the convoy of Sir Francis Drake. Sir Francis Drake was a English sailor who led the fight for England against Spain in the Spanish Armada, he was known to many foreigners as an English pirate (especially to the Spanish). At this point I find it very funny that the shilling has the knowledge to know who Sir Francis Drake is and furthermore it's even more amusing that the shilling knew where it came from and also knew that the country it was brought to was England. If this essay was written today, I could imagine it to be like an episode of American Dad, because the way the shilling is made out to be anthropomorphic, reminds me of  Klaus (the Fish) and Roger (the Alien) in American Dad. American Dad is very good at giving it's characters human characteristics when they shouldn't have, just like Addison does with his shilling.
When the shilling says "taken out of my natural habit, refined, naturalised, and put into British mode, with the queens face on one side, and the arms of the country on the other", I'm not sure if it means it actually came from India because to my knowledge I don't think Sir Francis Drake visited India. However I know that Sir Francis Drake visited the Americas, so the shilling could have meant he came from a native Indian habit.

When the shilling Finally gets put into circulation in England, it says "the people very much favoured my natural disposition and shifted me so fast from hand to hand, that before I was five years old, I had travelled into almost every corner of the nation". From this quote, you can begin to imagine how quickly the shilling travelled around the country. We are then told by the shilling about a time when he was imprisoned in an iron chest by a miserable old fellow, with hundreds more of his kind. To the reader we could imagine this as the old man is either collecting or saving shillings, but to the shilling, it's imprisonment. What I found amusing about this, was that it's funny how Addison makes the shilling out to be very knowledgeable for the most part, but in this situation he makes the shilling seem not so smart because it doesn't realise what is happening to it for the first time in it's life. The shilling then says "we heard somebody knocking at our chest, and breaking it open with a hammer". This would suggest that the money in the chest was being stolen.
Once the shilling had been broken out of the chest it tells us "the apothecary gave me to an herb-woman, the herb-woman to a butcher, the butcher to a brewer, and the brewer to his wife, who made a present of me to a nonconformist preacher. This shows how quickly money can be moved around in one day, and it suggests that the shilling ended up in a collection plate of some sort, because it said it was given to a preacher. The shilling also tells us about another account when it was 'arrested' by a superstitious old lady and put away in a greasy purse. Again, this suggests that whenever the shilling is put away for a long period of time, it thinks that it is being imprisoned. We are then under the impression that the shilling was used to bribe or lure soldiers into fighting for parliament in the English civil war, because the shilling says "I was employed in raising soldiers against the king: for being of a very tempting breadth, a sergeant made use of me to inveigle country fellows, and list them in  service of parliament".

The shilling was then lost again for some years as it tells the story of a young man gaining possession of it, due to his deceased father leaving him money instead of leaving him his Estate. So for that reason, the son got really mad and threw the shilling at a wall where it got stuck for a few years until a cavalier discovered it again.
The shilling finally retired, being made into a counter with more of it's kind. I could imagine, at this point the coin was so old that it had probably been taken out of circulation as was probably more seen as a collectors item. Lastly the shilling says " when I fell into the hands of an artist, who conveyed me underground, and with an unmerciful pair of shears, cut off my titles, clipped my brims, retrenched my shape, rubbed me to my inmost ring, and, in short, so spoiled and pillaged me, that he did not leave me worth a groat. This suggests that the shilling had been changed into something else, I'm not sure what exactly, but my guess is that it was made into a new coin, although I'm not sure.
Overall I think that this essay by Addison was great fun to read and was very smartly written. It made me start to think where my money had been before I had it and im sure it made a lot of people think the same. I think that if this was to be written today, it would still be as an effective and interesting peice to read as it was in the time it was first published. I think it would probably be even more interesting now, because people do more with their money now then they ever have done before, so therefore the coin would have more stories to tell. I also thought it was extremley clever how through the adventures of the shilling, Addison gave us examples of all the different ways money could be used, not just the standard way which would be just using it to buy things. This essay also allows  you to use your imagination to think about what could have been the outcome in the different adventures that the shilling had throughout the essay, I came to my own conclusions, as you can tell from reading this but i wonder if anyone else had different ones than I did?

Lecture notes on Liberal empiricism

• Sextus Empiricus said that thinking was pointless, he thought that everything you can think of has a counter argument or question. E.g. ' I think therefore I am' could counter into 'I am therefore I think'.
• Puritans lost the civil war and fled to America. They are very messianic and believe that the world is going to end. In fact when they were losing the civil war, many thought that it was part of the book of revelations and that it was the beginning of the apocalypse and that the world was going to end. They currently have influence over the U.S government. most live in Massachusetts and they also believe that the devil runs the world.
• The first Europeans to settle in the Americas were the Spanish. They went to south America and brought back gold to Europe. That's why most countries in the central Americas speak Spanish. E.g. Columbia, Ecuador and Costa Rica.
• The Dutch allowed anyone to publish anything they wanted in Holland. That's why most philosophers spent time in Holland because they were allowed to publish their books there. E.g. Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz.
• New York used to be called New Amsterdam because the Dutch founded New York. But eventually England became a more dominant nation than Holland and changed It's name to the New York as we know it as today.
• Adam Smith and the hidden hand of the market. He believed that the reason why one country would be richer than another was because the richer country traded with other countries whereas poorer countries didn't. Which effectively didn't allow their economies to grow. This is why China used to be a poor country, because they refused to trade with other countries.
• Hume quote ' ought from an is'
• Hume on causation- If you see a red ball hit a white ball, then the white ball moves, we think that the red ball caused the white ball to move. But Hume thinks that there is no proof that the red ball caused the white ball to move. It is only our mind that makes the assumption that it was the red ball that caused the white ball to move.
• Hume was an empiricist who believed in synthetic and analytic distinction. Synthetic distinction is when you build up an idea or ideas of something from something you have already seen. E.g. we see a bird and a human , then we put them together to make an angel. Another example would be to think of a fish then think of a human, which would make a Mermaid. Analytic distinction is when you strip an idea or a thought down instead of building it up like you would do with synthetic distinction.
• Hume also believed in induction, which basically means when you keep on adding more to the knowledge and ideas you already have.
• The triangle trade was when ships from the docks of cities such as Liverpool, Bristol and Glasgow, would travel to Africa to collect slaves. They would then bring them to north America in exchange fro Tobacco and Cotton, then bring the Tobacco and Cotton back to Britain. Then just continually preform this triangle. This was also known as the transatlantic trade.
• The funny thing about the dutch was that when they allowed anything to be published in their country, the only rule was that it couldn't be published in Dutch. So the books could be read in any other language, apart from the language of the country that it was published in.
• The Dutch and the British fought against the Spanish for control over the waters. The British had no British flag on their ships so they couldn't be accused for fighting for their country. The only flag they had on their ships were ones with a skull with two bones made in a cross on it. this was known as a form of English Piracy.

Socrates

• Socrates seems to be one of the earliest Philosophers of importance. He was tried, sentenced to death & executed in 399 B.C in Athens. He was about 70 years old.
• Two of his main pupils who he taught where Xenophon and Plato. we only know what we know about Socrates because of these two pupils. Although most of the time, they both had completely different things to say about him. Plato especially wrote volumes about Socrates, as he had a big influence over Plato. Some people say the Plato could of even invented Socrates because Plato made him out to be an extraordinarily interesting character. It is thought that Socrates taught his findings to others, but he never asked for money, so he was never paid through teaching. 
• The reason why Socrates was prosecuted was because he was thought to be 'an evil-doer and a curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the heavens; and making the worse appear a better cause, teaching all this to others'. He was mainly accused of corrupting the youths of Athens.
• At his trial Socrates was found guilty by the majority and because of Athenian law, it was open to him to propose a lesser penalty than death, then the judge was choose which one was fairer between the one that was going to be given to him or the one that he had proposed. The penalty that Socrates suggested was to pay a fine of thirty Minae, for which some of his friends (including Plato) were willing to help pay. But the Judge was so offended & annoyed by the penalty that Socrates offered,  that he was sentenced to death. Socrates accused his prosecutors of making him out to be Eloquence (Persuasive or forcible), but he said that the only Eloquence of which he is capable, he says, is that of truth. Towards the end of his trial Socrates points out that good men are better to live among than bad men, therefore he cannot be so foolish as to corrupt his fellow citizens intentionally; but if unintentionally, then Meletus (who was one of or the judge) should instruct him, not prosecute him. To me that sounds like a fair point, because he is already seen as a bad man who did what he did intentionally, his point would have probably been dismissed. He was also accused by Meletus as being an atheist, because he thought Socrates introduced Gods of his own.
• It is thought that Socrates believed that the best way to gain knowledge was to do so by gaining it through asking others questions. So he often spent his days talking to a lot of people and asking them questions. It seems to me that many people found Socrates very annoying because he often asked questions that the person he was talking to could not answer, which often made them look stupid. In Russell's book he quotes ' He then went to the poets, and asked them to explain passages in their writings, but they were unable to do so. 'Then i knew that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration.' To me this is an example of him making other people look stupid. Because if I was asked a question about my profession & I didn't know the answer, I know i would feel embarrassed and stupid.  

Socrates

• Socrates believed that God only is wise, and by his answer he intends to prove that the wisdom that man holds means little to nothing. He also believes that the reason why he is wiser than everyone else is because he thinks that people think they know things, when really they don't, which doesn't make them wise. But the difference between them and him is that he knows he knows nothing, which makes him wiser and smarter than most.
• Socrates says that young men of the richer class have nothing better to do so they spend time watching him expose people, which make him a lot of enemies. But he says that they themselves do not like to admit that their pretence of knowledge has been detected.
• Before Socrates became a Philosopher, he was a soldier. he believed that God had instructed him to leave his old post as a soldier and take up his new post as a philosopher to go on a mission of searching into himself and other men. No one knew if Socrates actually believed that he was literally hearing voices from a divine being or if he just thought that God would want him to do these things.
• He thought that in Politics, no honest man could live long. He thought this because, at the time, politics were so corrupt that it would be impossible to be a politician and tell the truth all of the time.
• He was also known to be a strange man, some even thought that he was crazy, because whenever he couldn't figure something out, he would get lost in thought and just stop and stand where ever it was that he had got lost in thought, until he had figured out whatever it was that he was thinking about. In Russell's book he mentioned a time when two men made up a bed outside and watched him stand in the same place all night, in deep thought, until the next morning, without even moving or anything. There was also another time when he was attending a dinner party with one of his friends, when he stopped in the corridor and just stood there until the dinner party was almost over. When his friend realised that he was gone, he sent a slave to go and find him, once the slave had found him, Socrates was in such deep thought that he didn't even acknowledge the existence of the slave.
• Socrates was known to be a really ugly man with a snub nose (which you can tell from my picture). It was said that his endurance was fantastic and that one time when he was a soldier, he was seen with his fellow service men in the winter, with very few clothes on, on the ice and with barefoot, whilst his couterparts were wrapped up in many layers of clothes. It was said that he had a complete mastery of soul over body, because he had control over all bodily passion. It was said that when he drank wine no one could out drink him, but no one had ever seen him drunk and in love, he would never give in, even to the strongest of temptations.
• It is thought that Socrates believed in life after death. Just before he was executed, he said that in the next world he could go on and ask question forever, and could not be put to death, as then he would be immortal.

Why Is The 19th Century Described As “The Age Of Change”

The reason why the 19^th century can be described as “ the age of change “ is because the modern world and most importantly modern Britain and Europe, began to take shape in the 19^th century. Politically the changes could be seen across the pond in France, because of the French revolution, whilst most of the industrial changes were being made here in Britain. During the Napoleonic wars, Britain became dominant and powerful by sea. This was through there naval forces. The Navy took control of the waterways, which gave them the opportunity to block the ports to France, so that the French couldn’t export anything, which became a huge problem for the French as it caused a crash in their markets. Britain took this as an opportunity to step in and begin trading with other countries such as America, South America, India and the Far East, amongst others. It was at this point that the British Empire really started and became dominant throughout the world. Britain was growing rapidly, whilst other European countries suffered and struggled around the time of the Napoleonic war.

New markets began to rise, this was on the back of a something they called the trans Atlantic triangular trade. Which was the transporting of slave that were taken from Africa and brought to the south of America to pick Cotton. That cotton was then taken to growing Cities throughout England such as Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol and also London. Once the cotton had reached these cities, it was used to make clothes, which was then shipped back to Africa, Where the cycle would start all over again.

There was also political change going on in Britain to, as Scotland became part of the union and in 1801 Ireland became part of it to, which then came to form the United Kingdom.

During this 19th century the major cities in England such as London and Manchester, began to grow quite rapidly. This was because the Farmers and families from the country side were forced to give up their fields and land as all the new heavy machinery where brought in to do the same jobs that the farmers could do, but the machine were able to do it on a larger scale and also a lot quicker than the Farmers were able to do it. This effectively drove the Farmers out, so for those reason the farmers barley made enough money to live on, forcing them into the cities to find work.

Places such as Manchester and London grew almost over night, with the population going from around 1500 to 150’000. This made the cities way to overcrowded, furthermore they became terribly polluted. Charles Dickens spoke about one side of this situation, that being urbanisation, whilst William Cobbett looked at the other side of this, which was how the countryside was affected by Industrialisation and the Industrial revolution on a whole. First we shall briefly look at the latter of the two men and see what Cobbett’s views and opinions were on this “ age of change “. Cobbett was a political journalist in the mid to late 19^th century. He grew up in the countryside of Farnham, surrey, so he was very passionate about farming and he was scared that the rapid growth of industrialisation would ruin the countryside and the farming culture. It was known that Cobbett hated London, because he thought that Londoners got paid for doing nothing and got fed by the sweat of rural labourers through taxes. His views of industrialisation were made most public through his book called Rural Rides. On the other hand Charles Dickens wrote books focusing mostly on situations that would be happening in the densely populated cities throughout the 19^th century, but mostly in London, because Dickens moved to London in 1822 from Portsmouth. You could argue that his books mostly focused on the poverty that the people in these cities had to face. Books that were written by Dickens such as Great Expectations, Hard Times and the more well known Oliver Twist, are all sort of similar as they all show two sides of these cities in the industrial revolution period. One side being the poor side, through characters such as Pip, Oliver Twist and Sissy and the other being the more wealthy through characters such as Miss Havisham, Mr. Thomas Gradgrind and Mr Brownlow. You could suggest that the stories that Dickens tells in his books of the Hardship that the poor go through are just a reflection of his own childhood, as he came to London as a poor boy and also his father did spend some time in prison when Dickens was a boy.

Others that contributed to making this period  “ The age of change “ were John Stewart Mill and Charles Darwin. Mill was best known for his ideas on Utilitarianism and Liberty. He received his ideas on utilitarianism from his mentor Jeremy Bentham, but he developed on these ideas and made his own slightly more complex ones because he disagreed on parts of Benthams initial ones. Utilitarianism in its simplest form means when a person wants to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Mill believed that there were different levels of happiness E.G. It would be better to be a unhappy wealthy man than it would be to be a happy poor man. You could also argue that Mill’s views on happiness are a bit vague and simplistic because he would be against someone going through hardships and pain to reach there eventual goal that would bring them happiness.

Mill’s views on liberty were he believed in individual freedom and that people should have the right to do whatever they wanted to do, as long as they weren’t affecting anyone else with their actions. He also thought that there was no difference between a man and a woman, so he thought that women should be able to vote just like men. He also believed in freedom of speech and that everybody should be entitled to there own opinion.

Lastly, Charles Darwin was very influential in the 19^th century because of his views mainly on evolution. From travelling and seeing fossils, Darwin believed that humans evolved and that there was no Adam and Eve like the bible suggests. He believed that groups of organisms undergo genetic change over a long period of time through the process known as natural selection. He also came up with the theory that members of the same species compete for survival and that the one who adapt best to the environment have the best chance to survive. He called this survival of the fittest.

Given all that had taken place in the 19^th century, along with all the influential and opinionated minds that lived through this period of time, it’s not hard to see why this era was labelled “ The age of change “.

Willaim Cobbett & Rural Rides

• William Cobbett was a political Journalist in the early to mid 19th century.
• He was writing and living in the times when Britain (mainly England) was changing dramatically, due to the Industrial revolution. new cities and towns where popping up all over the  country.
• William Cobbett grew up in the country side in Farnham surrey.
• He grew up in a farming family and from a young age he was a farmer. He was very passionate about farming and he was scarred that the rapid growth of industrialisation would ruin the country side and the farming culture.
• He was born in 1763 and had to older brothers
• In 1784 he joined the army and spent time in America. Once he returned to England from the army, he had found out the wages had almost halved.
• Cobbett had some weird views on Potatoes, he believed that they were unfit for human consumption.




William Cobbett


• He despised the government for taxes that ruined Farmers and fed the lazy, he had no time for the church and thought that the Army were freeloaders.
• He also hated London, he thought that Londoners got payed for doing nothing and got fed by the sweat of rural laborers. He also thought London was unhealthy.
• He loved Pigs and he believed that Pigs were the animal of the working class because he believed that if you had Pigs, you couldn't starve.
• In the later years of his life, Cobbett joined parliament.
• He liked machines, because he believed it showed the growth of man, but also believed that the machines and the industrial revolution on a whole would take the farmers and rural workers away from the country side and to the city to work in factories. This is what he was against.
• Check out the videos below as I found it helpfull for me to understand William Cobbett's radical Journalism.

Everything On Marx That I May Have Forgotten

Marx believed that money was the dominant factor in determining ones social class. Marx came to England in 1849, which was the height of the industrial revolution and at that time, most English men were either jobless or worked in factories. The Bourgeoisie ran the factories, which was the first problem for Marx because he believe this is where power became an issue. The Bourgeoisie had power and control over the proletariat (working class), which means they controlled how many hours they would work in a day and also, their pay –which was often very little when the amount of hard labour they did was taken in to consideration. Marx believed that the factory workers were alienated from the Bourgeoisie and from each other. He believed this because in the factories, each worker was told to work at a station on an assembly line, for example, if ones job was to put a wheel on the product, one would come to work every day and all one would do for the whole day, would be screwing the wheel on, then most likely never see the product again. Marx believed this would lead to ‘Alienation’, because one would be alienated from their co-workers at other stations and also from the final product.

In the time of Karl Marx, England was (and still is) a capitalist society, run by the Bourgeoisie. This was what Marx was against. He wanted England to become a communist society. He believed that in order for this to happen, the proletariats would have to overthrow the Bourgeoisie. He thought that this would happen by way of the factory workers finally getting frustrated with their working conditions enough to form trade unions, eventually growing large enough to overthrow the Bourgeoisie. He believed that once this had been achieved, we would finally have a communist society and that the power and social class issues would be eradicated. 

The Dreyfus Affair and J' accuse

• Dreyfus was sent to Devil's Island, he was a French soldier.
• Bismark attempted to unify Germany (the Prussian and German states)
• The French got defeated by Germany but France couldn't handle the defeat so they invented a conspiracy theory. They thought there were French soldiers acting on behalf of the Germans.
• The Germans took over Paris and all the French, rich people fled to the countryside. The only people who remained were the poor people. The poor were so desperate for food that they went to the zoo and ate all the animals apart from the lions.
• The French were made to pay for the damages of the war by the Germans.
• Also, the Germans wanted to have a parade through Paris to celebrate the war victory. Once the Germans left, the rich came back to Paris and demanded rent money from the poor for staying in Paris during their absence.
• The French Commune
• The right wing is the military and the Catholics, also the people who want to bring back the King.
• The left wing was the socialists and intellectuals.
• Drayfus was from Alsace, which was taken over by the Germans. He was also a Jew.
• He was patriotic towards the French because he hated the Germans for taking over Alsace. He went to military school and was very smart and wealthy.
• The information that was found in the waste paper basket was blamed on Dreyfus because he was a Jew and from Alsac, which meant he was considered a German.



Dreyfus

• The information that was found in the waste paper basket was information on the French army that was given to the Germans.
• Dreyfus was innocent, the person who really did it, was a Frenchman who was in the army, but a spy for the Germans. His name was Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy.
• After the cba ge of government, Dreyfus was brought back for another trial, but even with all the new evidence, he was still found guilty.
• Before the trial, the barrister was shot by gunmen because he was said to be on Dreyfus' side. The barrister still attended the trial.
• The final irony, was that Dreyfus' granddaughter was killed in Auschwitz.
• At Zola's funeral, Dreyfus was the guest of honour and he was approached by a gunman.
• Zola was the journalist who stood up for Dreyfus and wrote a letter to the President of the republic to accuse the people were currupt in the French Ministry of War. And also Esterhazy. His Article was published on the front page of the Paris Daily.

Seminar Paper on Emile Zola's, J' accuse



This article was published on January 13th, 1898 on the front page of the Paris Daily. It was written by Emile Zola in regards to the Dreyfus Affair. In this article, Zola is writing to the president of the French republic, who was Mr Felix Faure, to accuse the government of Anti- Semitism in the Dreyfus affair.

At the start of his letter to the president, it is almost as if Zola is trying to praise the president for all that he has done up until this point, because he says ' You have passed healthy and safe through base calumnies; you have conquered hearts. You appear radiant in the apotheosis of this patriotic festival that the Russian alliance was for France, and you prepare to preside over the solemn triumph of our world fair, which will crown our great work, truth and freedom. But what a spot of mud on your name-I was going to say on your reign-is this abominable Dreyfus affair!' From this, you could say Zola starts off by acknowledging all of the presidents past achievements because he wants him to see that after all the great things he has done in the past, the Dreyfus affair could tarnish his reputation, which would ultimately ruin his reign as President. You can see a more clear indication of this by when Zola writes 'History will write that it was under your presidency that such a social crime could be committed'.

In the next paragraph, Zola says ' I do not want to be an accomplice. My nights would be haunted by the specter of innocence that suffer there, through the most dreadful of tortures, for a crime it did not commit'. By Zola saying this, it is like he is saying to the President; I don't know how you can sleep at night, knowing that a man is in jail for a crime that he did not commit.

The first person who Zola accuses about the Dreyfus affair is Lieutenant Colonel Du Paty de Clam, who he claims is the one who was building up a misleading and scandalous case against Dreyfus and was the first culprit in the appalling miscarriage of justice committed. However, there are three other people who he mentions in the next paragraph, whom he believes turned a blind eye to the case and who did not investigate the case as well as they could have. The three people were the Minister of war, General Mercier, the assistant manager of high command, General Gonse and lastly the head of high command, General De Boisdeffre.

Zola thinks that it is well and truly a hoax and very foolish that Dreyfus was initially arrested in private by Colonel Du Paty de Clam based on his imaginary and false reasons for doing so. Colonel Du Paty de Clam told Dreyfus's wife that if she speaks, her husband is lost.

 Emile Zola

When Dreyfus was brought to court Zola reminds us that the twenty three officers whose testimonies overpowered Dreyfus, all belonged to the war office, which is run by the four culprits that Zola has already accused. He also reminds us that it was the high command who wanted to file a lawsuit against Dreyfus.

Zola then moves on to discuss the new information that the French ministry of War had received on Commander Esterhazy. They received information that Esterhazy had received a letter telegram from an agent of a foreign high power in 1896. Zola states that the French Ministry of War opened an investigation on this from May till September of 1896. Once the investigation was closed they did not want to accuse Esterhazy because that would mean the revision of Dreyfus's trial and the High Command wanted to avoid that at any cost.

The reason why The French High Command hated Dreyfus so much was because he was known to be of German origin and also a Jew. So, because of the recent embarrassing defeat that the French took at the hands of the Germans in the war, which was not to long before the Dreyfus affair, Dreyfus was considered to be almost like an enemy because the French hated the Germans and Jews.

Zola then goes on to say in the next two paragraphs how he believes that General Billot is the most guilty of them all, because he succeeded General Mercier ministry of  war. Therefore, when General Billot took his position he came in knowing that Dreyfus was innocent and that Esterhazy was the real culprit, but even with all the new evidence he had, he still decided to side with Colonel Du Paty de Clam, General Gonse and  General De Boisdeffre. Zola says that General Billot could have been ' the master of justice '.

Zola then tells the President that Major Picquart had fulfilled his duty as an honest man, because he insisted to his superiors that in the name of justice, Dreyfus should not be wrongly accused, but because the High Command did not want Major Picquart to be involved any further, they sent him on a mission to Tunisia, just to get him out of the picture. Zola, in addition, tells the President that Mr. Scheurer-Kestner believed that the truth should come out before the situation gets worse and becomes a public disaster.

Subsequently, Zola clearly states that the memo was written by Commander Esterhazy, not Dreyfus. ‘Mr. Mathieu Dreyfus denounced Commander Esterhazy as the true author of the memo just as Mr. Scheurer-Kestner demanded a revision of the case to the Minister of Justice. Zola then says how just before the trial of Esterhazy, the evidence against him was taken away and given to the high command which Zola believes was the work of Colonel Du Paty de Clam. So because of the lack of evidence against Esterhazy, he was not found guilty. Also, Zola says that the judges were brought to their seats.

Zola proceeds to mock the French army by saying 'It cannot restore his (Dreyfus’) innocence without all the High Command being guilty' and ' what of people I know who, faced the possibility of war, tremble of anguish knowing in what hands lies national defence!'

In the last part of the letter, Zola tries to make the President realise how wrong everyone involved in this is, he describes it as the truth is locked away and needs to come out. This is clear from what we can see Zola says here ' and he repeats it here: ‘when one locks up the truth underground, it piles up there, it takes there a force such of explosion, that, the day when it bursts, it makes everything leap out with it. We will see, if we do not prepare for later, the most resounding of disasters.’

Then lastly, comes Zola's ‘I accuse’. He finally says that he accuses Colonel Du Paty de Clam, General De Boisdeffre and General Gonse , General Billot, General Mercier, General De Pellieux for their part in covering up the truth. Also, the three handwriting experts, sirs Belhomme Varinard and Couard, of submitting untrue and fraudulent reports. Finally Zola accuses the first council of war for violating the law by condemning a defendant with unrevealed evidence.

In the time that this was happening in France, I can imagine that a letter like this being published on the front page of the Paris daily was probably really big and shocking news, especially when the author is blatantly accusing people who are suppose to be honourable members of the French society. To my knowledge I cannot remember anything like this happening since I've been alive, but I would imagine that if it was to happen, there would be a big buzz around the letter and it would probably be headline news in the papers and on TV. Lastly I would like to find out where Zola got all of his information from because he does not say in his letter and it would have been unethical for him to falsify information. It would be interesting to know if the French general public took this letter seriously or even the president, for that matter.

Hegel

I cant say I fully grasped the concepts of Hegel in his chapter in  A History of Western Philosophy, but through the seminars and lectures I think I have come to grasp some the main concepts of which Hegel believed in (but not in too much detail though). So I will try to explain to my knowledge what Hegel believed in.

Karl Marx

• 'Capitalism comes into the world dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt'. This is a famous quote from Karl Marx.
• Marx was born to a Jewish family in 1818. He converted to Lutherism.
• He first studied Law then Philosophy, but finally decided to become a journalist. He was influenced by Hegel.
• He was pushed out of Germany and France and pretty much everywhere else in Europe because of his radical views. He finally settled in London in 1848, where he lived for the rest of his life. he was buried in Highgate cemetery.
• He believed that everything had somehing to do with the economy. E.g. people live were they live because of the economy.

• Unlike other philosophers Marx wanted to get his hands dirty and make a change, instead of just talking about his ideas like other philosophers did.
• Marx based his views on real life and facts, which is (materialism). He used to go to the British Museum and look through artifacts for decades, just to gather facts.
• Marx's theory on Alienation rests first on his theory of human nature. Which is the human need for shelter,clothing, food and sex.
• Marx wrote in the time of the industrial revolution, so he thought that factory workers were Alienated because they would each have there job to do in  an assembly line. Without even knownig what the final product would look like or be once it had left there station of the assembly line. So in  that sense the workers would be alienated from the final product and from the other workers on the assembly line and in the factory.
• According to Karl Marx Communism is the final outcome, the communist state is the best possible situation.

Semester 2, Week 3 notes

• The creatures of Prometheus (1801) is a song composed by Ludwig Van Bethoven.
• Prometheus is the bringer of fire and took fire from the gods to give to mankind. He was punished by the god of Jupiter and tied to a rock whilst vultures came to eat out his Liver everyday for 30 years.
• Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is the modern Prometheus (1818).
• Prometheus is the adopted god of romanticism.

Prometheus

• Percy Shelly's Ozymandias- Also known as Ramesses II, ruled Egypt for 67 years and was one of the great Pharaohs. She wrote a famous sonnet about him in January 11 1818.
• The Egyptian empire in the time of Ozymandias was the most powerful in the world, but at the time when Percy Shelly wrote her sonnet, the British empire was the most powerful. So I find it extremely pretentious of the British to bring the Statue of Ozymandias to the British Museum. Because its almost as if the British are saying that they are great because they have everything that's great from other countries in there own country. I'm pretty sure that Ramesses himself would of preferred his statue to stay in Egypt.

Semester 2, week 1 notes

• Rousseau loved mountains and enjoyed walking. He lived on a Island close to Vienna, this was because his ideas were often controversial, so therefore he was often run out of towns.
• Rousseau believed in nature and that civilisation had corrupted us. He believed we once were 'Natural', 'Free' people before there was civilisation.
• He believed that people who were not from a civilisation were pure and innocent human beings. He thought that humans should be more like animals, because he thought that animals were innocent, pure and beautiful creatures.
• He once came across the people of Tahiti and thought they were all happy, free people so he believed that people should be more like them.
• One of his most popular quotes is ' Man is born free but everywhere is in chains '.
• He believed that civilisation began when a man put down  his stick/fence and said 'this is my land'. He believed that what should of happened was that someone should of picked up that stick and said 'dont be stupid, this is not your land, this is our land'. 
• He thought that babies were beautiful because they had not yet been tampered with by civilisation. He also thought that we could not go back into our purest form, which was in nature. 
• He believed in a ' General Will ' were he thought that as long as everybody agreed on something, there would be no loss in freedom for anyone. 



Thought to be Rousseau

• The dangers of the ' General Will ' is that if someone doesn't agree with it, then they will not be truly free in Rousseau's eyes.
• The legacy of Rousseau was the Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen, which was used at the end of the French Revolution.
• Wordsworth said that the revolution seemed to bring Rousseau's idea of natural man to reality. This was the romantic movement in action.
• Starting from 1972 the reign of terror began. In 1972 Paris was attacked by Prussia, which meant that the citizens of Paris were armed.
• In 1973 the Guillotine was invented and it was thought that everybody should be executed the same way. So that year the King was executed by the Guillotine just like any normal citizen would be, whereas before the King would have been executed by Sword and normal citizens would have been executed in which ever way thought possible.
• Mary Wollstonecraft believed that education was the key, she believed that there is nothing different between a man and a women when they are born. She believed that as long as women were educated , they could be equal to men. She admired and believed in John Locke's theory about human beings being born like a blank slate. She also had a love hate relationship with Rousseau..........