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?