Tuesday, 15 November 2011

Seminar Paper – Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz

Philosophers Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are all rationalists. They believe our knowledge comes through reason, meaning that our rational minds can think and use intellect to prove facts and logically make sense of things. This contrasts empiricists who believe our knowledge purely comes from our senses.

Descartes
Rene Descartes was a French philosopher who is classed as the Father of Modern Philosophy. He is also a man of science, discovering refraction and reflection and of mathematics as he invented co-ordinates and powers. All of which I am sure you have come across during your GCSEs.   

Descartes is most famous for his method on Cartesian Doubt. The purpose of this method is to use doubt and scepticism in order to find knowledge that you could be certain was true. Knowledge in Cartesian sense is to know something beyond all possible doubt, therefore by removing all beliefs which you could doubt, would leave you with beliefs that you could trust. Descartes held that you could not trust your senses, or your imagination as there is no way to prove that your sensory experience is not a hallucination or a dream. He believes that at any moment we could be dreaming and that our senses could be controlled by an evil demon that is deceiving you. This demon could have created a superficial world in which we all live in. However, one thing is for certain that no demon could deceive you if you didn’t exist, this could be summed up in a syllogism:
Whatever thinks exists
I think
Therefore I exist

This leads on to Descartes memorable line “cogito ergo sum”, known as “I think therefore I am”. This implies that mind is more certain then matter. Descartes doubted his own experience but realised he would not be able to doubt if he didn’t exist. A general rule that Descartes adopts is “all things that we conceive very clearly and very distinctly are true.”

Another doctrine which Descartes discusses in his book ‘Meditations’ is Dualism; this comes from the Latin word duo, meaning two. It is the relationship between mind and matter; however Cartesian Dualism contains three realms: mind/soul, matter and God. God is an uncreated substance, whereas mind and matter are created substances. Another form of dualism is substance dualism which Descartes supports as he believes that there are two kinds of substances: mental substance being the mind, and material substance being the body. Descartes raises doubts about everything except his mind, he could even doubt whether he had a body because he believes he could have been dreaming about it. This was the starting point to his realisation that the mind was one thing and the body another. He argued that only humans have minds, in Russell’s book it states that Descartes regarded animals as “automata” meaning a mechanical device that were “governed entirely by the laws of physics, and devoid of feeling or consciousness”. However men are different and they have a soul, using ‘reason’ Descartes worked out that the soul is located in the Pineal gland in the brain. The mind interacts with the body at the pineal gland; this form of dualism proposes that the mind controls the body.

In order to emphasise upon the perception that our senses cannot be trusted, Descartes demonstrates this through the wax argument. He uses a piece of wax to explain that there are certain attributes such as the taste, smell, shape, size, colour and hardness which are obvious to the senses, but if you put it next to a fire it will melt and these qualities will change. Although our knowledge tells us that the soft piece of wax is the same as the hard piece of wax, our senses do not tell us that the wax itself is a form of extension flexibility and motion. This can be understood by the mind not our imagination. Quoted from Russell’s book: “I understand the sole power of judgment, which resides in my mind, what I thought I saw with my eyes’, this means that what you think you can see with your eyes is actually understood by judgement which is in your mind rather then your senses. Knowledge of external things must be by the mind and not by the senses, this leads on to the different kinds of ideas:
a) Those that are innate
b) Those that are foreign and come from without
c) Those that are invented by me

The ontological argument is proof for the existence of God, it depends upon the distinction between existence and essence, yet Descartes argues that there is no such distinction with God. Once you understand God’s essence you will understand his existence. Descartes suggests that God is a perfect being, and His existence can be worked out from his nature, similarly to how the angles of a triangle can be worked out from its geometric nature.

Spinoza
Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher; he wrote a famous book called ‘Ethics’ whereby he rejects Descartes theory of dualism. Spinoza theory of monism holds that god is infinite, and nothing is separate from god; he regards God and Nature as two names for the same substance. Descartes believed that these were separate substances; however, Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, and everything that exists in reality is part of this substance. Spinoza is against the belief of free will, as he believes human being is not a separate reality as we are all aspects of god. God is nature and people are therefore part of God. This means that everything that happens is simply a manifestation of God, apart from sin and evil.

Spinoza’s political theory comes from Hobbes, he holds that in a state of nature there is no right or wrong, as if you do wrong you are disobeying the law. ‘Russell’ states that He agrees with Hobbes in terms that the sovereign can do no wrong, but disagrees in thinking that a democracy is the most ‘natural form’ of government. Moreover, Spinoza holds freedom of opinion important.

Spinoza’s theory of emotions:
Spinoza does not object to all emotions, like the stoics, he only objects to those that are ‘passions’ meaning that they spring from inadequate ideas. It is these passions which make our intellectual vision unclear. In ‘Russell’s’ book it states, “He who clearly and distinctly understands himself and his emotions, loves God” this introduces the principle of the ‘Intellectual love of God’, which consists of true thought and joy at the idea of truth.  Spinoza holds that all joy in true thought is part of the intellectual love of God, because it contains nothing negative, and we are taught that “God has no knowledge of evil because there is no evil to be known”. The experience of intellectual love of God occurs in the eternal part of the mind, it is entirely constant and without contraries. Those who possess it embody blessedness.

Spinoza describes the nature of emotions through the idea that freedom comes from the understanding of oneself and ones emotions. The stronger that understanding is the better your understanding of God will be. Freedom comes through acceptance that we are all modifications of god/nature. Relating back to Spinoza’s theory of one infinite substance, Spinoza teaches that our human mind is part of the infinite intellect of god, and that our mind understands God. Spinoza agrees with Socrates and Plato that all wrong action is a result of intellectual error, if a man understands his own circumstances, he will act wisely.

“Only ignorance makes us think that we can alter the future what will be will be and the future is as unalterably fixed as the past” This quote taken from Russell’s Book explains  why Spinoza disapproves of hope and fear because they raise uncertainty of the future. Spinoza believes that any emotion which is to do with an event as future or as past are opposed to reason.

Leibniz
Leibniz was a German philosopher and mathematician. Similarly to Descartes and Spinoza he based his philosophy on the notion of substance. Descartes allowed three substances, god, mind and matter, Spinoza allowed God alone, and Leibniz believed in an infinite number of substances called ‘monads’. This theory was Leibniz greatest contribution to metaphysics.

Theory of Monads:
The human body is composed of monads; each monad is a soul which is immortal. There is one dominant monad in our body which allows changes in our body to occur. For example when I move my arm or leg the dominant monad follows this “instruction”. Leibniz proposes that no two monads are alike, and that every monad is a mirror of the universe. Monads are a “unit” they are expressed as ‘windowless”, which means that no two monads have a direct perceptual relation with each other.

Leibniz believed in free will which contrasts Spinoza’s view, his “principle of sufficient reason” which means that everything happens for a reason, suggests that as humans we all have a motive behind what we do.

Leibniz finalised the metaphysical proofs of God’s existence, which began with Plato and Aristotle, and was formalised by the scholastics. The ontologolical argument was rejected by St Thomas but restored by Descartes.  Leibniz arguments for the existene of God are broken down into four parts:

1.      The ontological argument - depending upon the distinction between existence and essence
2.      The cosmological argument – This presents that everything finite has a cause and the uncaused reason of everything is God. Every particular thing in the world is ‘contingent’ meaning subject to chance, thus it could be possible for it not to exist, but relating back to his principle that everything happens for a reason, Leibniz suggests that this sufficient reason is God.
3.      The argument from eternal truths -  This is another form of a cosmological argument, if a reason can be given for something that exists it must exist, therefore eternal truth must exist but they can only exist as thoughts in the mind as God. An eternal truth is a statement that is always true for example 2 + 2 = 4 is always true, whereas “it is raining” is a statement that could be true or false depending on the weather.
4.      The argument from the pre-established harmony – this is only valid if you accept his windowless monads. It is also expressed as the best of all possible worlds.

The doctrine of possible worlds
This theory states that any world that does not contradict the laws of logic is ‘possible’ and therefore there are infinite numbers of worlds. All of which God contemplated before creating the actual world, but as God is good he decided to create the best of all possible worlds. He considered the best to be a world which had a greater surplus of good over evil; he did not disregard evil altogether because he said that some goods can be bound up with certain evils.

Leibniz was a strong believer in logic; unfortunately he never became the founder of mathematical logic because he never published his work. His reason for this was because he continued to find evidence that Aristotle’s doctrine of syllogism was wrong, but as he had huge respect for Aristotle he chose not to believe it, and blamed himself for the errors. Leibniz most famous mathematical invention was the infinitesimal calculus which was developed with Newton also. Leibniz’s philosophy was based upon two logical laws: the law of contradiction and the law of sufficient reason; this distinguishes truth of reason from truth of fact.

Friday, 11 November 2011

WINOL 9/11/11

WINOL keeps getting better, this week's bulletin was successful as it covered a balance of positive and critical news. Throughout no laws were disobeyed which proves that the production of the bulletin was of a professional standard. In particular, this was evident through the school report, as it obeyed the laws of privacy; no child was named or filmed throughout the story. I also found that the panorama shots of the classroom were sharp and contextualised the voice over reporting well.   

There was a variety of interviews covered which is a prime source for journalists to get information. The interview with the MP of Eastleigh, Chris Huhne, stood out for me as it was clear, concise and informative. Furthermore, I was impressed to see our input was listened too, as we all suggested the sports section should be cut down as for those that do not have the greatest of interests in sport lost interest. This week however, was far briefer, which worked well as it still provided you with short bursts of the key aspects of the game. I also found that the fencing was a nice change from ice hockey. The only criticism for the fencing story, would be to zoom in further on the action, as it was filmed from quite a distance. 

I know that filling up 13 minutes of relevant news is a challenge, but if I am going to be picky, I felt the bin story was irrelevant because it did not provide the viewer with much of an update from last week. It felt as though the story had been repeated and the footage had been reused. Apart from that, the graduation story was a positive way to end, it was reported the day after it happened, meaning the news was very current covering the fast accurate and fair aspect of journalism - Chris would be very proud! For an added bonus it would have been nice to see Horrie become knighted as a professor! 

All in all, good job!

Tuesday, 8 November 2011

Media Law Lecture 7 - Investigative Journalism

I have left the lecture this morning feeling extremely awake and in an interrogative mood. Brian left us all with an overview into the case of David Morris, as this is part of our third year studies: 'The Innocence Project'. It fascinates me, and gives me an intense burst of excitement to want to fast forward the next two years. But until then, I will wait, and continue to read all about it.

I guess, my enthusiasm got the better of me, so I have began this blog with how the lecture ended, rather than how it started. So back to the start - Investigative Journalism.  This simply means reporting everyday news of events that someone somewhere doesn't want you to know about, and in other words publish. As De Burgh says: "Discover the Truth"

The term "off diary" can be used to explain investigative journalism, as you set your own agenda and prepare what it is you wish to investigate yourself. In comparison to ordinary 'news' journalism whereby you explain news which has been determined by public agenda. There are two key points to be aware of during investigation, malice and conflict of interest. 

Miscarriage of Justice 
The classic "off agenda" is miscarriage of Justice, this means people are framed and convicted for something they didn't do. After Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6, The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was set up to investigate alleged cases of miscarriage of justice, however, this was not effective and therefore did not work. The legal system has raised the interrogative "but what if the criminal justice system is corrupt?" this leaves hope in the hands of journalists. Now you can see why I began with The Innocence Project because it all ties in nicely; as training journalists we carry this investigation out, we are "students doing something worthwhile" check out the website for more detailed information: http://www.innocenceproject.org/


Thursday, 3 November 2011

WINOL 2/11/11

This week's news bulletin was by far a huge improvement from last week. I found the stories extremely newsworthy, the filming was sharper, and the editing was professionally done as it the stories smoothly followed on one after the other. I could tell a lot of hard work had gone in to it this week, perhaps because of our criticism from last week, proving that we can all learn from our mistakes. Looking back over my notes rest assured second years because I have a lot of positive feedback to give.

Starting with the presenter, I felt she was extremely well spoken, she maintained a constant pace and clear voice throughout which enhanced the professionalism of the bulletin. Similarly, the voice overs reporting the filming was also informative and easy to follow. I particularly found that the interview with the MP Steve Brine in London was strong as it was detailed and filmed in a prime location. Although some of the shots were a little wobbly it conveyed the atmosphere well and kept the reader engaged. 

There was one clip which seemed weaker then the others, however this was only because of the low quality footage and nothing against the actual reporter. Similarly to last week we established that the outdoor reporting was harder to understand due to the muffled wind in the background distracting the viewer away from the important audio. 

The Sports section once again covered a vast amount of information and news, I liked the choice of music as it kept the news upbeat and light hearted, however, this did end pretty suddenly and I think it would have worked better if it faded out gradually. Finally, the "sneak peak" of WINOL life consisting of mini clips was fun and entertaining, it was a nice way to end leaving the viewer intrigued to watch next weeks.

The video below may help you understand my review, if you haven't already seen it then you definitely should -  all round very impressive features! :)

"Journalists are like Magpies, constantly looking for new shiny things"

I can now see why "clinic" is an appropriate name, with all us young journo's spread around the room with our heads buried in to our paper waiting in what felt like a doctors surgery. After listening to the Today programme on Radio 4, and taking a trip down to the hospital shop to buy a paper, I am pleased to say I followed Horrie's 8am lecture start instructions and for the first time I felt as though I had my eyes and ears fully open to the news.

This was one of the first lectures that I found directly related to Journalism, as a 'focus group' we discussed Audience and Agenda of each paper:
The Sun - "white man van", working class (Right Wing*)
Daily Mail - Regular men, 40+ middle class (Right Wing)
Independent - Male 30+ (Left wing* - liberal paper, the only paper which didn't have a poppy on, subtly symbolising that they are not telling you what to think - Locke would agree with his strong views on human nature and freedom)
The Times - Older males, upper class profession e.g Business man, Lawyer (Right Wing)
The Telegraph - aka "Tory-Graph" conservative paper, oldest readership (Right Wing)
The Guardian - previously classed as a university paper as many students read it (Left Wing) 
The Mirror - Females audience as many features geared towards fashion (Left Wing)
The Star - youngest readership

*Right Wing - Conservative, Fascism, Rich
*Left Wing - Communism, for the 'people'

To cut a long story short, look out for DFS adverts, the clue is behind advertisements, they are a key to the target audience of the paper. As we established today in our seminar, the difference in the price advertised for DFS adverts differs between each paper as it is targeted towards different readership classes. Evidently, the cheaper prices were published in The Mirror and The Sun ranging from £399-599, compared to the increased price of £899 in The Guardian. 

To be more technical, audiences are broken down in to different classes
A - Upper Middle Class
B - Middle Class
C1 - Lower Middle Class
C2 - Skilled Working Class
D - Working Class
E - Lowest Level 
[Broadsheets are in the ABC1 Bracket, and tabloids are in the C2DE bracket]

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Christopher Jefferies Libel Case

A perfect example of defamation has been brought to our attention today through the Christopher Jefferfies case. Eight newspapers have classed Jefferies as a "peeping tom" and "freak", this has led to him suing for libel as it covers the three grounds of identification, publication and defamation. He has received public apologies for the allegations made against him regarding the Joanna Yeates murder, in addition to the headline published by The Sun to describe his character as "Weird, posh, lewd, creepy". These defamatory statements have formed an impression that the individual is a "monster", thus ruining his reputation and invading his privacy when it is proven that he is "entirely innocent". He has suffered the scandal of the British tabloid media, making him the most recent victim of their "witch hunts". However, the papers have apologetically paid out substantial sums for the damage; the Daily Telegraph informs the public that the Daily Mirror has been fined £50,000 and The Sun £18,000. 

The case was won on the basis of a "no win-no fee" system by Jefferies solicitor Louis Charalambous. However as concerns were raised regarding the rules of this system changing next year, The Ministry of Justice released a statement that the government will continue to support "deserving" cases. An interview with Christopher Jefferies was broadcast on Radio 4 this morning; click the link to listen - http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9629000/9629799.stm

Tuesday, 1 November 2011

Media Law Lecture 6 - Copyright

First things first, this is my blog, my words, and from now on will be of my own images. Therefore, unless you are granted my permission you cannot copy it.

Copyright is self explanatory in its name - do not copy unless you have the right. Any type of work such as literature, drama, music, photography that is yours, only belongs to you; unless you choose to license it, or sell it on to someone and therefore 'pass on' ownership. However, for purposes such as comment, criticism or review you are allowed to use someone's work, on the conditions that it is brief, packaged and most importantly the source is credited.

Always remember that there is no copyright in the facts of a news story. Fair Dealing, aka 'Lifting' is the process where by you can 'lift' quotes out from reports and reuse them. This is certainly a tactile means for journalists to get information and spread the news fast.

Copyright marked the midway point between the first semester, 6 weeks in already! Oh how time flies when you're having fun!!