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.