David Hume

I found Hume very interesting in discussing and reading about. Many of his ideas, concerning our accusation of knowledge made allot of sense; however through discussion in the seminar, that we found Hume can be a bit depressing and leave you feel a bit lost in the Universe. In part I of an Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Hume describes an optimum state of mind, that I think that is the best state of mind to further understanding and knowledge. "Be a philosopher; but admist all your philosophy, be still a man". in this paragraph Hume asserts that the "Mind requires relaxation", a balance between business and pleasure. Hume describes business as "Industry" and pleasure as social interaction. I read into this that if you busy your mind with constantly considering business, and do not relax your mind, then your mind may burn out and you may become frustrated and drowning in to much serious thought. That is why relaxation is required to re-set your brain and let it re-boot. This important in every aspect of life, the mind and body need rest to function at it's best.

His ideas on accuracy, and how it is advantageous to beauty, is of sound reasoning and something I agree with. Perfection does not exist in the Universe, if it did then we would not be in existence, however the pursuit of perfection can bread something beautiful. I understand accuracy as perfection, to be accurate is to be perfect. A good example is a gymnast coming up with a new routine, their pursuit of everything flowing perfectly can generate a beautiful routine. Although perfection does not exist the pursuit of it defiantly does and this is what produces beauty.

Hume also discusses how our own faculties and experiences shape how we perceive other thought or ideas.I found the topic of how we can imagine a feeling without feeling it, very interesting to read; and how our imagination can take us beyond anywhere out physical bodies dwell, such as the stars in the sky. "Every idea which we examine is copied from a similar impression". I'm not sure if I believe this is true, but Keith Richards once said "There is only one song that was made by Adam...All other songs are copies or imitations of that song". This is an interesting area to discuss. It made me think of critics and how they make their criticisms. In music how can a critic criticise a song, what are they comparing it to? To my knowledge there is not a thing as proper music, or a proper song, good and bad songs are a matter of opinion; but maybe there is one great song, as suggested by Keith Richards and maybe that's what songs are judged against. But without any proof of that song who is to say one song is better than another. Someone might love Wonderwall by Oasis but another person might hate it, who is to say weather it is a good song or not?

During the seminar we discussed how, according to Hume, somethings may not be 100% correct. Just because we are alive one minute there is no guarantee that we will be alive the next; probability is the only certain factor in understanding, However we discussed how the laws of physics must be correct as we have devised quantum mechanics from it, and have evidence that support these ideas and theories. We also discussed how somethings have to be taken at face value, otherwise you would be going around in circles. For example if you are on a train and are calling someone to pick you up at the station at a certain time, you can't say "so I will see you at half past, but I might not because I can't be 100% sure", if everyone acted like that then no one would get anywhere. Of course someone might commit suicide on the tracks then of course the train will be late. Somethings have to be taken on face value, such as physics and science, of course it may be wrong to make assumptions sometimes, but to go anywhere or achieve anything we have to assume somethings.

The Royal exchange & method

I found the reading quite interesting and enjoyable. I found the reading about the royal exchange particular interesting; I share the point of view being expressed. I think we are more enlightened by other cultures and visitors, it would be very short sighted to life in a little bubble and say this is the way things should be done and no other way. Through other cultures and foreign concepts we can further ground our own believes and understandings. If someone from another point of view challenges yours, your reasoning can be so grounded that it changes their perspective on things, or their reasoning might be so grounded that it changes your point of view. In the latter scenario you understanding of something is pushed and expanded and may even be better.

I thought I had a good grasp on the article about method. I thought that method was very important in writing. You need to structure a piece of writing for it to make scenes. I see it allot when politicians argue on T.V, when confronted with a question they may not want to answer, there method is to deflect from the question and go on to talk about something completely else; sometimes getting so lost in the deflection that they do not make sense. On the other hand, writing an essay for example you need method to write it, otherwise points will get lost and may not be as clear as they could be. However people in the seminar offered a different point of view and suggested that method is not always important. which got me thinking maybe method is not important in popular writing such as gossip magazines, but it is important in academic writing when stressing an argument. You don't need much method in film reviews as it is personal opinion, for example.

Are we blank pieces of paper?

I found the ideas, of the recent reading, very interesting and made me think of the origins of what I know now. When we first discussed Locke's idea that our minds are like blank pieces of paper, opposed to us having embed knowlege of things that we later deveopled, I agree with this idea. Personally I know that experience dramatically shapes knowledge because when I was younger, during the school years, I had little experience of the world, and because of this I thought I was right about allot of things because I didn't know any better, I often opposed what my Mum would say about situations, as I thought I knew better. However as I got older and my experience grew, I started to realise that my Mum was very often correct because she had a lot more experience of life than I do. I learnt allot from my Mum's experiences and Incorporated them into my own experiences of life (And I've realised I still got allot to learn, as I'm wrong about quite a few things)

So I totally agreed with the idea that we are born as blank pieces of paper and experience and senses are the only way to understand something. However it dawned on me that somethings we do know from our birth such as how to move limbs and how to blink and stuff like that. Also feelings we know from birth, you don't learn a feeling from experience and you can't touch feelings with our senses but we know what feeling sad is and feeling happy. So I'm split between Locke and Descartes on the white paper debate.

On a side note a question I've been wondering about, in realtion Decartes idea that we have knowledge already in our head, who dictates what knowledge we have? And surley through evolution and natural selection, we can learn to make peace with each other rather than fight each other.  

Another idea, of Locke, I find interesting; is the idea of reflecting thinking. Eventually at a point in our lives there will occur a process of  reflective thinking in which we will reflect on everything that we know, and possibly we will develop new knowledge. I have experienced this recently, ever since starting University I have been more challenged in what I knew than ever before, and having new knowledge.

I like Locke's political philosophies, the social contract is something I believe in. It throws up the debate, who is really in power (I touched on this point in another blog). If the general population elect people to rule other them, there is a strong claim to power there. However the elected ultimately rule other them, which is power. It is like Yin and Yang, both parties keep each other in check, however I think these days most politicians forget this delicate balance.

I think Locke's ideas on property are interesting. At first I was reluctant to think that property was a fundamental pillar in live. However I made sense of it by putting it into modern terms. I think nowadays you have to have property to be seen as a citizen in the eyes if the government.

Overall I found Locke a very intresting philopher to read about, and I look forward to further exploring his ideas.

Response to first lecture and seminar

At first I found the lecture rather hard going. New concepts and ideas were being thrown at me and at one point I started to believe in God, but I'll come back to that later. Although I found the lecture interesting, as I am fond of that time in history, I did struggle to see the link between what was being said and journalism, is was only after the reading did links soon appear, I hope that I was on the right track; and hopefully the group understand my interpretations of the reading and lecture, if anyone does have any questions leave me a comment and I will do my best to answer it.

The Renaissance is the period in time, in which, philosophers and intellectuals break away from the educational dictatorship of the church; they began to move back towards the teachings of the ancient Greeks. Key figures such in ancient history, such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle laid the foundation of philosophy as we know it. I think without them we could not conjure philosophies to decipher science, and I think journalism is a science. I mainly focused on trying to link the chapters to modern journalism, I broke up the chapters and put my interpretations into the following headings:

Plato; Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science.

Many have interpreted Plato as stating that knowledge is justified true belief. This links to journalism because writers have to get evidence for stories they are writing. If what they think is justified by this evidence then it’s knowledge.

Socrates sometimes seems to recognise two worlds: the apparent world which is constantly changing, and an unchanging and unseen world of forms, which may perhaps be a cause of what is apparent.

Machiavelli;

He marks beginning of political science. The south were more hostile to Christian teachings like Machiavelli. He was the first political journalist and began to define politics as a science.  Journalism tries to decipher the politics of science to report on it to the general public. His brutal honesty was unheard of at that time.

There are many discussion points that I wanted to get people thinking about;

‘All armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones’;  How are journalists armed and have access to things? E.g. behind the scenes at celebrity/sports events.

‘Fear is constant, love is fickle’. Bad news stories always sell more copies of a newspaper.  If fear is constant; they can always sell a newspaper, as it has a bad news story in it. Love is fickle, and might not always sell. This is linked to capitalism and the medias fight for competition. If the news was 100% true fact, would it sell as much? There is also the idea that capitalism is ruining media. Every newspaper or news channel is in such a rush to be 'breaking news', that the journalists don't even check if the stories are true. E.g. David Beckham is now suing In Touch magazine because of false claims the magazine published about his marriage. It also brings up the idea that you always have to criticise what you read.

Erasmus and More; Erasmus was the first columnist/critic. He founded the basis of popular journalism. In Mores’ description of utopia he starts to discuss the possibilities of journalists. ‘There are no locks on the doors, and everyone may enter.’ Links back to how journalists have access to behind the scenes.

Renaissance; Without the renaissance, the aim of journalism might not exist today. If it did it would probably just be reporting’s on the church.

Reformation; the period of European history at the close of the Middle Ages and the rise of the modern world; a cultural rebirth from the 14th through the middle of the 17th centuries.

Rebirth of classical thought and art. Idea that ‘man is measure of all things’.

Francis Bacon; Bacon did not propose an actual philosophy, but rather a method of developing a philosophy. He said before beginning, the inquirer is to free his or her mind from certain false notions or tendencies which distort the truth. This emphasises my point about the audience having to question everything they read, as the truth could be distorted. He’s important because he began to come up with a way of ordering ideas and philosophies. Journalists need to formulate their ideas to construct an argument. He is famous for the quote ‘Knowledge is power’. This is significant to journalists because they gather knowledge.

Hobbes’s Leviathan; Societies can’t function without a single person controlling them. From this chapter, we use the term 'sovereign' to describe this person. This chapter discusses how the people elect these sovereigns and give power to them and then sovereigns rule over them. This is linked to the passive audience theory, as the audience is influenced and manipulated by the media, which in this case would be the sovereign. However, it also raises the question, who is actually in control? This is because, if society elected the person in charge, then surely they are the ones with the power?

Descartes; He marks the intellectual transition from the Middle Ages to the modern world. He was the first thinker to provide a philosophical framework for science to develop. He is famous for the quote; ‘I think therefore I am’. This makes us question everything we see as a journalist. Could that accusation/story be false? Descartes also travelled around a lot, which relates to journalism as a global practice. Journalists uncover facts and have to find common ground to legitimise stories. E.g. in a war/conflict like Afghanistan, the American press would say it’s a valid war, because of 9/11. However, Afghanistan press would disagree so if journalists find common ground in solid facts you can then begin to build the truth.

Protagoras; ‘Man is the measure of all things'. The news caters for everything that man is i.e. world news, bulletins; local news but there is more to man’s existence than what is shown on the news. However, the world isn't centred on man anymore, because there is too much science in modern times.

Medici Family; If we think about news institutions as corporate businesses, journalism becomes industrialised. E.g. newspapers have to have an edition published every day; TV channels have to have news shows everyday to make a profit. However, are the 'cat up a tree' stories in a newspaper and celebrity activity stories in magazines just filling the pages? Are they real news? So, in the pursuit of capitalism is real journalism being sacrificed

I know there are no right of wrongs, but hopefully I'm on the right tracks, if anyone has any questions, I will try and help.

Yo

Hello my name is Caidyn White, if you think that is a strange first name, you should ask me what one of my middle names are. I am from Southampton, and commute to UNI by train. I am studying Film Studies and Journalism combined. If you see me around don't be afraid to say hello, don't be put off by my UNI I.D picture, it's also my passport picture, so it looks like I'm a bit scary, but I'm really not.