Karl Marx

Karl Marx was born in 1818, into a Jewish family; but he later converted to Lutheranism. At the start of his academic carer Marx studied law, but he letter changed to philosophy and would later turn to journalism. Marx  had a heavy interest in revolution, he saw the cracks in society and sought a way to repair them, he embodied the revolutionary spirit. Marx was heavily influenced by the Hegel. Marx moved into radical journalism and in 1844 he meet Frederich Engels and they wrote the communist manifesto. On his tombstone it says "Workers of the world unite".

Marx believed that "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it". Through his background in both philosophy and journalism, Marx could interpret, through philosophy, and change it by the power of journalism. Marx also believed that it is possible to analyse everything through the economic happenings at the time, this is referred to as the behaviour of economics. Marx achieved the combination of Hegel philosophy, British empiricism and French revolutionary politics; making him a significant force in the western world.

In the lecture it was said that:

• Aristotle thought man was a rational animal 
• Plato thought man was a political animal
• Kant thought man was a moral animal 
• Hegel thought man was a historical animal 
• Marx thought man was a productive animal and it was this ability that allowed man to make tools, thus allowing man to become the dominate species

I would like to outline some of the theories that came up in the lecture. The theory of absolute, the spirit is separated into two parts the Zeitgeist is the spirit that is driving us now and Geist is guiding us through history.
There are two sides to the dialect dialogue. They are the Thesis, which is a proposition, and the Antithesis, which is a counter proposition or contradictions.

Another theory was Karl Marx's theory of Alienation. This relies on the first theory of human nature, in which it states the spirit is broken or fragmented because there are three parts to a person, in terms of need, they are:
1) the natural self- we need to eat, drink, breath, everyone has to do it. 2) Alienated self in which the natural needs perverted by capitalism. the need for clothes, commodities and shelter. 3) species self understands we are all part of one another like links in a chain. This will emerge in the communist state. Could these three states of needs hint at our time line of existence. We were lived in a basic state of eating and drinking and living off the land, then the industrial revolution and golden age of mankind breed the capitalist system; and our needs were alienated, this is the age we are in now; maybe the next step is the communist state. Capitalism has ruled the planet for generations; maybe the next step is communism. The example in the lecture, to illustrate the theory of alienation, was that in the capitalist system we are all stationed at various parts of a convey belt, and we have one task to perform, like putting a screw into a thing. We have no idea what this thing will be at the end of the process, we have no idea of what the thing was at the beginning of the process, we have no idea who was before us on the convey belt and we have no idea who is after us; we simple perform are jobs and don't ask any questions, this is alienation. We are alienated from other people, we just do what is asked of us and conform to the needs of the convey belt. Capitalism alienates us from ourselves, we lose our identities and out motivations. Everything, in the capitalist system, is motivated by money; work becomes the loss of the self, as we generally work below others, work does not develop our body or mind, if anything it reduces it. There is no fulfillment or expression of creativity in our work, it is just sitting in front of a computer screen, in a office, mindlessly tapping away at a computer.

Communism, Marx believed, was the cure to the capitalist disease. In communism the thesis is the bourgeoisie, who own and run the free markets and the antithesis's is the proletariat who are the working classes. The bourgeoisie are the ones who run the factors and workplaces that the proletariat's inhabit, it is the bourgeoisie who suppress the individualism and creativity of the proletariat's. One of the main problems of the capitalist system is the rich get richer, whilst the poor get poorer. Another major problem of the capitalist system in the insecurity of industry and business. The bourgeoisie rely on the working classes to buy the products that they produce, the problem is the working classes don't get paid enough money to buy the cutting edge products the bourgeoisie are producing. So if the working classes can't buy the products of capitalism, who is buying them? The insecurity of money is another problem, if the world is gripped by an economic crisis, like we are today, then the bourgeoisie suppress the working classes further, by driving down their wages, making huge staff reductions and shutting down facilities; to mend a problem that the greed of the bourgeoisie caused in the first place. Marx believed to be free, and break the chains that we are held by, the proletariat's need to rise up against the bourgeoisie and communism will replace capitalism and be the solution. In communism there is no difference between mental and physical labour, we would be free to express ourselves with in our work. A person would be a fisherman in the morning, a factory worker in the afternoon and a musician in the evening; working to their full potential and expressing themselves. In theory communism is the better economic system, but in practise there has rarely been a successful example.

In conclusion I would like to consider, is capitalism all that bad? Capitalism and the free market does breed advancements in technology, without capitalism maybe we would not of had the i-pad. Capitalism apparently allows for a free democracy, in which the people of the system have freedom of speech. But in the capitalist democracy are we as free as the bourgeoisie would like us to think we are? When we protest in this country we, cause a little of bit of fuss for one day, then go back to work the next day. Whereas in the Arab revolution the people stayed in protest for weeks and weeks until something changed. They were under a dictator for generations and did not leave until he was overthrown, whereas we in the Britain generally give up after a day because we can not afford to miss one more day off work. Furthermore are we hopeless in changing the capitalist system, as I mentioned when we protest in Britain,  never changes. We are born into this system, we do not chose it, but can we ever get out of it. Capitalism is a fierce beast, it encourages risk taking and gambling with money you do not have, it encourages selfish behaviour and cut throat tactics, is that anyway to live?

Viva la revolution I say.

Romanticism

Romanticism is probably my favourite force within the western world, I enjoy it's influences on music, architecture, art and literacy. It is a reaction to the age of reason, and allows encourages the heart to answer the questions the mind can not. I see it as catalyst that awakened people for the slumber of dogmatic times. I will start with the myth of Prometheus. I found this very captivating, an individual defying the Gods, to steal fire from them and mould man out of clay. However the God's punish him by chaining him to a mountain and sending a vulture to peck at his liver.

I'll try to break down this myth, by offering various readings of the myth, and apply it to the romantic movement and the French revolution. Its easy to see why the revolutionists in France worshipped Prometheus they to wanted to take the fire (or power) away from the Gods (the bourgeoisie) and give it to man (the workers). Prometheus is the embodiment of the revolutionary spirit of liberty, equality and fraternity. We can also pick out certain elements of the myth that reoccur throughout romantic inspired works. Nature with in the myth seems to be a powerful force, the mountains that become Prometheus's asylum, and the vulture that pecks at his liver. This establishes nature as the fierce, powerful yet beautiful force that it is; a co notation that appears in romantic works, such as Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. In Frankenstein the mountains of the Swiss alps and the great lake, rejuvenate Frankenstein's spirits and soul after tragic news strikes the family.

   

I think we can also apply the myth to what is happening in the world today. Prometheus could be embodied in things like citizen journalism and social media. The Gods from the myth, are the Rupert Murdoch's and News International corporation's and governments; and the fire is knowledge. The fire is also the people communicating and sharing information freely and more efficiently. Take the Egyptian revolution for example, people used Facebook and Twitter to organise protests, to tell their stories across the world, to inform the world about what was going on in the country. The government tried to restrict the Internet, but through apps on smart phones and loop holes in the Internet, the Egyptian people prevailed and continued to pass information on. Citizen journalism and social media played a massive part in the Arab uprising; it stole the fire (the knowledge, the information) and gave it to mankind. However in this new reading of the myth, a vulture is on the horizon, that is waiting to peck the liver of citizen journalism and social media. The vulture is rearing its ugly head through Rupert Murdoch's urge to monopolise online news; which is damaging the flow of free information; and restricting the power of the people.

Speaking of Rupert Murdoch, I will now turn to Percy Shelly's 'Ozymandias'. 'Ozymandias' is a sonnet, but not in the traditional sense. It is about a great empire belonging to the proclaimed King of King's, Ramses II, being ravished by the test of time. Even though his empire was vast and mighty, his great bust was buried in the sand. His empire was built on sand, but the sands of time is what dissolved it. The bust was sculpted by a sculpture, a.k.a. a working man; this reinforces the point that empires can not be built without workers. If you suppress the workers for to long, they will rise up, as seen in the Arab revolution. I think comparisons could be made to the empire Rupert Murdoch has built. He has built a vast empire, in multiple strands of delivering information, but as people begin to exchange information freely and without administrating, is his empire beginning to crumble.   

Seminar paper

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

by Mary Wollstonecraft: Chapter IV

·         “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”- agree with this, we are ultimately born, but it is institutions that dictate that we need a job and a salary, but ultimately we don’t need to do anything, it is the idea that we seek happiness for ourselves, we don’t need to breath, we don’t need a job, we don’t need food, but if we want to live we need to breath, if we want a roof over our heads we need money etc, it is our want to maximise pleasure and minimise pain that dictates our ‘needs’.

·         Education “first step to form a being moving gradually towards perfection...but seen only as a preparation for life”- When people are more educated they can be enlightened. Just by participating in education your views are challenged, you are pushed to reach sensible conclusions and taught to consider different points of view to your own. These are all traits of an enlightened being. Without education I think people’s minds rot, as they fall into a day job where they are not challenged.

·         I believed that we were born equal, that men are born equal; however there is deep rooted prejudice towards the sexes. As the reading suggest why do we put women on thrones? Why is it that a man has to pull the seat out for women to sit down at a table, why does a man have to hold the door for a woman? Furthermore we are not physical all born equal, some people are born disabled, and some people are born with conditions that make them prone to aggression and violence. Maybe principally we are should be considered born equal, such as every person should have the right to vote, every person should have the right to walk down the street regardless of their skin colour. But physically we are not born equal.

·         “Man is naturally good, and only by institutions is he made bad”- What about people born with genes that are prone to aggressions and violence, nature Vs Nurture

·         Pleasure is the business of woman’s life- disagree, no one can, and may never know, there purpose in life. Women are capable of deciding what their purpose in life is, just like men can.

·         “Man was made to reason, woman to feel: and that together, flesh and spirit, they make the most perfect whole, by bleeding happily reason and sensibility into one character”

·         But if we were to return to a state of nature, it is un-natural for animals to have one lover. The purpose of live, it is argued, is to reproduce, a lion in the wild does not get married he mates.

·         The concept of love and happiness is a concept of the mind. During the process of a feeling chemical reactions take place in the body, synapses firing in the brain and the mind tries to make sense of this process usually resulting in love, happiness, jealousy etc.

·         We then become slaves to these feelings as they dictate how we behave and act. Feelings also cloud reason and can blind us to truths that we do not want to see.

·         Again maximising pleasure and minimising pain, if we enjoy a feeling we will want it to continue, say a bad relationship for example. If you are getting treated poorly but enjoy the feeling of love you will blind yourself to the negatives.

·         “Educate women like men” Rousseau

·         “And the more they resemble our sex the less power will they have over us”- interesting to consider who has the power between the sexes. “How eager men are to degrade the sex from whom they pretend to receive the chief pleasure of life”. In public it would appear men have the control and power to enslave women, but in privacy women could retain the pleasure that men seek so much, if they do not get what they want. On a side not surely men also enslave other men, in a professional capacity, if women were slaves surely they would do all the menially jobs in a work place, such as working at a desk typing, and men would be in management capacity, but more and more these days this is not the case.

·         “Riches and honours prevent a man from enlarging his understanding” (expand)- Could we be getting blinded by riches and honours and success. We fall into the routines, working towards carers etc, that maybe understanding is hindered. We are surrounded by magazines of how we should look, how we should behave, rich and successful people moulding our understanding. We should distance ourselves from this and re-evaluate our understanding of what it really means to be rich. E.g. rich in friends.

·         “Friendship...it is founded on principle, and cemented by time...The reverse may be said of love”. Is passion and love all it’s cracked up to be, is it not more reasonable to befriend someone first, learn their qualities and drawbacks, before committing an act of passion. When you rush into a relationship because it had raw passion, what is left after the passion sizzles out; you might not even like the person when this happens.  

REASON                                                MEN                                                                      WOMEN

Women are apparently incomprehensible of reason and man acts as a buffer between reason and women, translating reason so women can understand. I don’t think this is the case physiologically there is no difference is the genetic makeup of the brain of a man and woman’s, except maybe size. There is not a special piece of the brain that men possess, that allows reason, so why would women be unable to use reason. 

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.