TH!NK4: Climate Change - Al Gore is a cigarette thief!

I think that when the topic of climate change is raised the majority of people die a little bit inside! Although we all have very different, and very strong opinions about climate change, the thought of discussing those views and listening to others for the hundredth time has become quite a daunting thought.

I will always remember when I was in year 11 ant school and they made my entire year group watch An Inconvenient Truth. As you may already be aware, this film is over an hour and a half long. Research has shown that students are only able to focus fully for 45 minutes, so needless to say the majority of students were bored mindless watching this film; and a girl two rows in front of me was actually asleep for the majority of it!

I have to say that I was possibly one of the only students who was fascinated by Al Gore and his hard hitting “truths”. I could not believe that my peers we so uninterested in such a serious issue which is going to affect all of us whether we believe it or not. I kept thinking, how can these people be so small minded that they don’t care about the planet?

Until that point in my life I had assumed that everyone was as concerned about climate changed as I was. I thought it impossible to think that anyone in their right mind would be ignoring the problem. This was four years ago, and since then I have come across more and more people who genuinely couldn’t care less.

We have all heard the theories that climate change is a huge conspiracy, Al Gore is a mad man, and that it is a completely natural occurrence. Perhaps one of the most shocking views I have heard about climate change came from my boss. He stated, hand on heart that:

 “Climate change is something Al Gore invented to keep the world busy, so he can carry on stealing cigarettes.”

This comment left me absolutely speechless, and I have no doubt that it will stick with me for the rest of my life. Honestly what can you say to someone who thinks that Al Gore is a cigarette thief?! I think that my boss knew that Al Gore grew up on a tobacco farm, and then used that small amount of knowledge to come to a ridiculous conclusion. This, of course, is an extreme example of ignorance, but I think that it shows how people form opinions based on the very little they know about a particular subject, and climate change is no exception to this.

If I were to go around telling everyone about brain surgery, I think that people who be very quick to dismiss what I have said for the obvious reason that I am not a brain surgeon. I find it impossible to believe that 100% of the population are scientists or geographers, or even that they have thoroughly researched climate change in great depth. And yet, everyone has an opinion about climate change and we readily listen to each other’s views without ever stopping to think – “actually what does this person really know about climate change?”

Climate change is something which is going to affect the entire planet, no matter what reason we believe caused it. I find it incredible that with knowledge of an imminent disaster, there are so many people who are still refusing to do anything to prevent it. Meanwhile, there are thousands and thousands of people who are willing to believe that the world is going to end December 21^st 2012! How can people believe this when there is absolutely no evidence to support it, meanwhile dismissing the hundreds of scientific data about climate change?

Perhaps it is true that such extreme climate change is something which occurs naturally every X amount of years. I have heard a number of people using the ice age as an example of when this natural climate change has happened before. This may well be true, but I think that these people are ignoring the small fact that during the ice age almost nothing survived through it! So in all honesty, the possible fact that this is a natural event offers little comfort to me!

Whether it is a natural or man-made disaster, the fact still remains that it is going to be a disaster. Since 2000, there have been 2 major tsunamis, 2 devastating hurricanes to hit America alone and 14 earthquakes to reach 8 or 9 on the Richter scale (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php). These are only a few disasters which have been directly linked to climate change; surely this is enough evidence to prove the desperate need to do something about climate change?

I think that these disasters are horrifying reminders of the impact that climate change is already having on our planet. In November 2009 the BBC took a climate change poll, asking 1001 people whether they believe that climate change is happening. In November of 2009, 75% of those asked said that yes, they did believe climate change was happening. The poll was taken again in February 2010, and 83% of those questioned then agreed that climate change is happening. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_10climatechange.pdf)

These statistics clearly show that there was an 8% increase in the space of 3 months.  Theoretically, if there continued to be an 8% increase every 3 months of people who believe that climate change was happening, then by now 95% of people questioned will agree that climate change exists.

This is a staggeringly large percentage of people and proves that people, in the UK at least, are slowly beginning to accept climate change. So does this mean that more people will start recycling and switching to renewable sources of energy?  For the sake of the planet, I certainly hope so.

Now is a time to make a difference; a difference that the world desperately needs.

Journalism Now - Women's magazines in consumer society 1950 - present day

Currently in English speaking countries there are over eighty successful women’s magazines in publication. This is a huge change to the handful of women’s magazines in production prior to the 1950s; so what has changed?

Prior to the 1950s women’s magazines were mainly produced by men. This was because, even after the successful Suffragette movement in the early twentieth century, it was still unusual to find women in positions of power in any industry. The magazine industry was no exception to this. However, the late twentieth and now the twenty first century have seen a dramatic increase in the number of successful women in the workplace. In addition, more women have been at the forefront of making magazines appealing to other women.

Take for example Cosmopolitan, one of the world’s most popular women’s magazines. Originally created by Paul Schilcht in 1886, Cosmopolitan was meant to be an upper class family publication.

The magazine tried to appeal to women by featuring articles on cooking and how to look after _­children.  This was appropriate for the sexist generation of the time; but the magazine had limited success. Cosmopolitan only gained international recognition when Helen Gurley-Brown became the chief editor in 1965.

The 1960s was the decade of free love and women’s liberation; Gurley-Brown used this to her advantage. She remodelled the publication to target a sexually liberal audience by featuring articles which openly discussed sexual matters. These articles were extremely innovative; today nearly every women’s magazine from Allure to Woman’s Own will feature sex in some way.

Cosmopolitan now features articles such as ‘How to ask a guy out’ (Cosmopolitan- August 2010) and ‘Sexy hairstyles – how to get them’ (Cosmopolitan – August 2010). At first glance it appears as though articles such as these are designed to empower women and make them more confident, ideals which are miles away from the 1950s articles, for example ‘How to avoid being a wet blanket to your husband’ ( My Home- 1950).

Many of the articles aim to give ideas and tips to the reader on how they can improve the quality of their life, and as a consequence will therefore be better able to please their men.

Women’s magazines target common female insecurities, then attempt to boost their readers' confidence. Western society is full of female consumers who lead hectic lives and use magazines as a means of escapism. Women enjoy reading about celebrity scandals and shocking real life stories because for the few minutes when they are reading, they are distracted from the monotony of their own lives. 

Ultimately the success of women’s magazines is based on a woman’s need to be socially acceptable, wear the ‘on trend’ fashion and make-up, sport the latest hairstyle, please their man and juggle a career and home life successfully.

WINOL Bulletin Feedback - 20/10/10

I have to say I was really impressed with the huge improvement in this bulletin compared to the previous one.

Things which have improved:

• The audio improved dramatically in this bulletin and the commentary could be clearly heard at all time.
•  
• The studio shots - at times when only one presenter was talking the other was clearly out of shot.
•  
• I think it worked well that the football results were on screen while someone read them out. This was a huge improvement on them appearing briefly at the bottom of the screen as it gave the audience a chance to process the information.

Things which worked well:

• I thought the news agenda for this bulletin was very appropriate for the audience and they were stories which could potentially affect viewers.
•  
• I think it worked well that you could see Andrew Giddings notebook in his segment because it made it clear that he was giving information that had come direct from the court.
•  
• I think that the studio interview worked well as there was nothing going on in the background to distract the viewer from what was being discussed, which is sometimes the case when interviews are in public places.
•  
• I thought it worked well that even though was one the stories was about university fees across the entire country, they related it back specifically to the University of Winchester to make it relevant to the viewer.

Things which could be improved:

• I was a bit confused about the shot of a bench during the piece about the Bishop. It did not appear to be relevant to the story.
•  
• I thought that the play out was quite odd and perhaps was not needed. While I understand that it could be seen as a relevant piece because the weather is getting colder, I think that it was not really appropriate for a news bulletin, and looked more like an advert than a feature.
•  
• I think that it perhaps would have been better if all the reporters' notebooks had been visible if they were using them for reference because when you can't see the notes it appears that the reporter is just fidgeting!

Overall I thought it was really good and again was very professional.

Locke - my opinons

Until now, as far as Locke goes, I have only summarised his Essay of Human Understanding and Russell's History of Western Philosophy, so this post is mainly to explain my thoughts about Locke's philosophy.

I will begin by commenting on his theory that all knowledge comes from either sensation or reflection. I think that this is actually quite a logical statement to make as it largely believed to be true that we are born knowing nothing and gain knowledge as we begin to be able to understand and interact with the world around us. Locke discussed that if a child were to grow up knowing nothing other than black and white then when the child is shown colour they will have no knowledge of them and will find colours difficult to comprehend. This is true of any situation, if we are raised with knowledge of certain things and not others then it is impossible for us to have any outside knowledge if we do not actively seek it ourselves.

An example of this is Oxana Malaya, a Russian girl who was neglected by her parents and as a result spent six years living only with feral dogs. The video below shows Oxana's story: 



This case proves Locke's theory that a child is a blank slate and can therefore be moulded into almost anything. 

Similarly to Locke, Berkeley claimed that our knowledge is gained through sensation and reflection, however he went further to say that the knowledge we have constantly changes as we experience new things. For example, if we experience new smells, Berkeley wold claim that old smells that we know are replaced by the new ones, and when we smell the old ones again the new ones are "pushed out" of our minds. I do not agree with this.

To give an example, at the moment I cannot smell any cinnamon in my room, however when I think about what cinnamon smells like I am able to recall it; the smell has not been forgotten simply because I can not smell it at present.

The same is true of Oxana. When found, doctors spent years trying to rehabilitate her, with only minimal success. She was able to learn a humanised way of life, but she did not forget her old mannerisms. For example, they taught her how to eat with a knife and fork. If Berkeley's theory was true then surely Oxana would forget how she used to eat from the ground not even using her hands. But this is not the case. Oxana was able to learn a new way of eating, but she did not forget the old way and could revert at any time. 

Locke claimed that there are two parts to a human, the mind and the soul, and used the idea of a soul as continuity for his theory. Unlike Berkeley, Locke explained that the reason we are able to recall old experiences even in the face or new or conflicting knowledge, is because the old knowledge is remembered by the soul. However, I found that Locke was not particularly clear on his ideas of the soul, and somewhat uses it as a way of tidying up a somewhat messy theory!

He suggested that the soul is able to comprehend both itself and the mind, where the mid can only comprehend itself, not the soul. This belief is contradictory in itself. The very fact that Locke was able to comment on the soul surely suggests that his mind is conscious of it. If it were not possible for the mind to comprehend the soul at all, then how is it that Locke was able to be so detailed in his description of the way in which it functions?

There is also, of course, the lack of proof that comes when suggesting the idea of a soul. To date no one has been able to prove the existence of the soul and I do not believe that anyone will ever be able to find sufficient proof. People often fall back on the idea of a soul as a reason to behave morally, as your soul will be judged in the afterlife. People commonly refer to it, saying things such as "this is good for your soul" or "it is as though he has no soul" without ever really questioning their belief in it. I find it odd that so many people are willing to believe in a soul, and yet refuse to believe in God or an afterlife due to lack of evidence. When it comes down to it, there is no more reason for me to believe that I have a soul than there is for me to believe that there is such a thing as Santa Claus - and yet I believe in an immortal soul none the less. So do I really have a leg to stand on when it comes to questioning Locke's theory of the soul? The only difference is that Locke made his theory public. I am quite sure that if I were to publicly share my opinions then I to would be open to such criticism!

It is my view that many people chose to believe in a soul as a form of comfort. Surely it is better to imagine that there is part of you that is eternal, so that the very essence of you being will not perish when your body dies? But is it a comfort to take Locke's theory, that your soul is linked to, but in essence is separate to your mind? Most people, myself included, are intimidated by what they do not understand, and what they know they will never be able to understand. For example, I do not understand the laws of physics in any great detail - but there are ways that I would be able to understand them. The soul however is a different matter, and to think that there is part of me that can, in Locke's opinion, think for itself without the mind being aware, is somewhat off putting as there is in theory no way that I will ever be able to understand my soul. For this reason alone I have difficulty in accepting Locke's ideas of the soul.

I found Locke's ideas about reflection quite interesting and largely agree with his views. I believe that it is true that a lot of our knowledge comes from looking back at past experiences. For example, do not eat brussel sprouts, as past experience has taught me that I do not like the taste, I do not need to try brussel spouts repeatedly to remind myself that I don't like them. I think it is true of most people that we learn from our past experiences. At one point or another I imagine most people have said "I'll remember that for next time" or something along those lines. This is a slightly odd phrase as it suggests that we will deliberately remember the incident should the same occurrence ever happen again. Locke would suggest that we remember everything on a subconscious level and that we retain the information should we ever need it again, not that we actively remember things.

Is this always the case though? Is it possible for us to always be able to recall information when it is needed? I would argue that it isn't. For example, when taking my A-levels I needed to revise information that had already been given to me. I actively tried to recall previous information - I could not rely on the belief that I would be able to pass simply by reflecting on the the information that was given to me by my teachers.

I do not agree that we are able to simply retain information that we are given which we can then reflect on and remember. Is Locke suggesting that the more advanced the soul is the more information it can retain? The video below tells us some of the numbers of pi:



I have watched this video five times over the course of today, and still cannot remember more than 6 digits! So even though I have been given the information a number of times, I am not able to reflect on this and remember it, nor would the majority of the population.

It is estimated that pi has over one trillion digits, with no end and no repeat patterns Of course it would be ridiculous to imagine than anyone could learn them all, but there are people who are able to remember up to much more than average. The current world record holder Lu Chao  can recall  67,890 digits without error -  is this simply because he is gifted? Or is it because his soul is more advanced than normal and so can retain more information? Perhaps Locke could have developed his ideas to explain why it is that some people are more advanced at reflection than others.

Overall I think that Locke's theory works quite well because before you think too much about it, it appears to make logical sense!

History of Western Philosophy - Bertand Russell - Book 3, Part 1, Chapters 10-18 notes

In preparation for the second seminar we needed to read chapters 10-18 in book three, part one of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. The following are the notes I have made to summarize each of these chapters.

Chapter 10 - Spinoza

• Spinoza lived 1632-1637
• His philosophy was based on a belief in God, but was rejected by Jews and Christians alike.
• He was educated as an Orthodox Jew but did not remain orthodox.
• His magnum opus was Ethics
• In his works he tried to prove that 'scriptures can  be interpreted to be compatible with a liberal theology'
• He believed that a wrong act was something which went again the law, and so in nature there is no right or wrong.
• He realised the importance of  freedom in opinion.
• His book Ethics deal with three matters: metaphysics, the psychology of the passions and will.  
• He put forward an ethic based on metaphysics and psychology.
• Spinoza suggests there is only one substance 'God or nature'
• He believed that individual souls and other matters are 'merely aspects of the divine'.
• Spinoza believed that in the mind there is no such thing as free will, nor is there chance in the physical world - 'it is logically impossible for that events should be other than they are.'
• Spinoza had an odd view about emotions claiming that they 'distract us and obscure our intellectual view of the whole'
• Although he did not object to all emotions, only those which are passions; i.e emotions which we feel to be out of our control.
• God is not subject to emotions of pleasure or pain.
• Spinoza believed that God sees events in the world as part of an eternal, timeless chain.
• We cannot change events in the future any more that we can change events in the past.
• He believed that personal survival after death is an illusion however there is an element of the mind which is eternal.
• According to Spinoza, feelings of hate can be overcome by feelings of love.

Chapter 11 - Leibniz

• Leibniz lived 1646-1716
• His work is split into two different kinds of philosophy, one which is optimistic, orthodox, fantastic and shallow the other being profound, coherent, Spinozistic and amazingly logical.
• He obtained a doctorate in 1666 at Altdorf, where he refused a job offer.
• He entered the archbishop of Mainz in 1667
• In 1672n he moved to Paris for a while. At this time Paris led the world in both philosophy and mathematics.
• He was influenced by Cartesianism.
• He spent time with Spinoza who also influenced his thinking.
• He spent some of his time focusing on trying to rejoin the churches but eventually gave on this.
• Conversely to Spinoza's ideas of substance, Leibniz believed that there are an infinite number of substances which he called monads.
• He believed that each monad is unique and has a soul.
• Leibniz claimed that it is impossible for two monads to interact with each other in anyway - and anything which appears to be interaction is illusory.
• Every monad mirrors the universe.
• Monads form a hierarchy.
• Leibniz allowed for free will in his philosophy claiming that everything that a human does has a motive, but the sufficient reason of his action has no logical necessity.
• Leibniz uses four arguments to prove the existence of God: (i) The Ontological Argument (ii) The Cosmological Argument (iii) The argument from Eternal Truths (iv) The argument from Pre-Established Harmony
• The Ontological Argument depends on the distinction between distinction and existence.
• Leibniz altered this argument slightly, claiming that the idea of God is possible, rather than the idea that the definition of God suggests his existence.
• The Cosmological Argument works from the premise that everything in the universe has a cause, but that there must have been a first cause who does not need a cause, and that this first cause is God.
• Again, Leibniz altered this theory by saying that the universe needs a cause, but that there is nothing contained within the universe which would be this cause, and so the cause must be something outside of the universe, and this must be God.
• He claimed that God had a free choice to create the  universe, and he did not necessarily make this choice out of his goodness.
• The argument from Eternal Truths works from the point that there are some things which are always true. 2+2=4 would be an example of an eternal truth, because it is know to always be true. 
• Leibniz claimed that external truths must exist, but that they can only logically exist in the mind of God.
• Leibniz introduced the doctrine of many possible worlds.
• He claimed that it was possible for a world to come into existence as long as its existence does not contradict the laws of logic.
• God had knowledge of all the possible worlds, and created our world out of his goodness because this was the best possible world out of all the options.
• Leibniz dealt with the problem of evil by saying that evils are necessary in the world so that we appreciate pleasures more and they seem greater.
• If we did ever suffer we would not appreciate pleasures.
• Leibniz's philosophy relies on the law of contradiction and the law of sufficient reason.
• Leibniz believed that nothing within the universe interacts with anything else, but they appear to agree as everything mirrors the universe. 
• There is a distinct difference between truths acquired through experience and truths known by logic.
• Leibniz claims that there is no a priori reasons for certain things to come into existence - it is purely up to God's goodness what He chooses to create.
• Things are compossible if it is possible for both of them to be in existence at the same time.
• Leibniz believed that it was God's goodness to want as many compossibles in the world as possible.

Chapter 12 - Philosophical Liberalism

• Early philosophical liberalism has been described as optimistic and energetic.
• There a generally widespread view that all me are born equal, and that inequalities arise through differences in social environments.
• Political Liberalism developed largely between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.
• Individualism became highly valued, as prior to this, particularly in Greek philosophy, the individual was relatively unimportant compared to the community.
• During the middle ages, the importance of an individual was secondary to a hierarchy and laws.
• Descartes' philosophy of I think therefore I am sparked ideas of individualism as it meant that the starting point became every mans personal experiences and thoughts rather than the thoughts and ideals of the community.
• Early forms of liberalism highlighted the importance of individualism in intellect and economy.
• Starting with Rousseau, ideals about individualism expanded beyond intellect and began to be considered with emotions.
• Russell explains how there were initial hatred for the industrial revolution due to nostalgia from the Middle Ages.

Chapter 13 - Locke's Theory of Knowledge

• John Locke lived 1632-1704.
• His magnum opus is An essay concerning human understanding - published 1690.
• He wrote An essay concerning human understanding prior to the Revolution in 1688 because he could not then openly express his philosophy.
• He was heavily influenced by Rene Descartes.
• He has been regarded as the father of philosophical liberalism.
• The political powers in the country shared his views around the same time that he completed them and so he was able to share these ideas and become hugely influential.
• His primary followers were Berkeley and Hume
• He put forward a theory on what he called Primary and Secondary qualities.
• Primary qualities are defined as those that are inseparable from the body for example, motion or rest.
• Everything else are described as being secondary qualities, for example colours and smells.
• Primary qualities are maintained within the body, while secondary qualities are the precipitants.
• Russel uses the example of an eye being a primary quality, and colours seen by the eye are secondary qualities.
• Locke worked from the point of logic and believed that valid reasoning from sound principles cannot lead to error.
• Locke largely disregarded the dogmatic beliefs of society, following only the ideas about our own existence, the existence of God and the truth of mathematics.
• Locke claimed that when multiple people could not agree on certain truths, what is actually true becomes a matter of personal opinion rather than some people being wrong.
• It is not in a mans nature to blindly follow someone elses views if they differ to their individual thoughts. Therefore we must listen to what others think but if we feel that our ideas are accurate then we should not accept the ideals that are trying to be prescribed to us.
• We should not assume that people are wrong for not accepting our views, as it is equally possible that we should accept their views instead.
• Locke was not a fan of metaphysics, and while he accepted the metaphysical justifications for the existence of God, he did not consider them in any great detail.
• Lock has be considered to be the father of empiricism.
• He believed that knowledge can come from two sources - sensation and reflection (for more information about his thoughts refer to An Essay on Human Understanding -chapter one notes)
• In the third book of Essay Locke considers the use of words, and expresses his view that what metaphysicians present as knowledge is merely verbal.
• He believed that essence is only verbal.
• Locke argues that all simples things must agree with things.
• He believed that every sensation has a cause but that we do not know the cause, we only notice the sensation - so the question of validity is raised here; if no one can experience it then how does Locke know that it exists?
• Similarly to Bentham, Locke believed that man must continually strive to achieve the greatest happiness and pleasures for himself.
• It is noted that future pleasures are considered of less value than present pleasures.
• Locke argued that a man should put his future happiness ahead of present pleasures.
• He believed that morality is capable of demonstration.
• Locke suggested that even if there were no laws or police/authorities to enforce them, man would generally act for the good in accordance with Divine Law.
• Russell highlights the problem with Locke's belief in Divine Law and God punishing those whose break it.
• Locke does not discuss any reasons as to why God punishes people for some acts and not others - in other words why did God decide that certain acts are wrong?

Chapter 14 - Locke's Political Philosophy
A. THE HEREDITARY PRINCIPLE:

• In 1680 Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha: or The Natural Power of Kings
• Filmer believed in the absolute power of the Kings over his kingdom.
• Filmer put forward his belief that Kings were direct heirs of Adam, and that Kings have a parental control over everyone else, and the King is completely free from any human control.
• Filmer's ideas were completely disregarded by Locke.
• Locke found it preposterous to suggest that all kings are heirs of Adam, and raised the issue that Adam had only one heir, and if he were ever to be found would all the kings have to submit their power to him?
• Locked raised the point that in life parental control is temporary and once the child is an adult, all parental control is lost.
• Locke also pointed out that if it is an issue of parental control then the mother should have equal control as the father does.
• The hereditary principal in politics has been completely disregarded, however there is a slight difference with regards to economics.
• For example, it is accepted and largely expected that a father will leave their land and money to his children.

B - THE STATE OF NATURE AND NATURAL LAW

• Locke was a believer in natural law, although his ideas about natural law were not anything new as philosophers such as Aquinas established the ideas first.
• Locke's views on natural law are hard to uphold in modern society.
• One of Locke's main beliefs was that with natural law, a man has complete freedom over his property, his possessions and his family.
• This means that if a man were to threaten anything belonging to another man, then the second man would be allowed to punish the first in whatever way he found fit, even murder.
• State law is not so liberal as far as punishment is concerned, although the laws of murder alter when in self defence or the defence of others.
• There is some debate as to what natural laws actually are, although for Locke these laws are evident in the Bible as they have come directly from God.

C - THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

• During the seventeenth century there were two theories as to the origin of government.
• One of the theories is that God gave power to certain people over others - this is the theory that Filmer supported.
• The other theory is that civil government is the result of a social contract - this is the theory that Locke supported.
• It was considered important that people had a reason to obey the government.
• The social contract could be interpreted in mainly two different ways, one of which allowed a tyranny.
• Hobbes, for example, interpreted the contract to mean that citizens handed over all power to the government a part of the contract.
• On the other hand, Locke interpreted it to mean that the government was part of the contract, and if the government went against the contract then it could be repelled against.
• Locke defined political power as the right of making laws.
• It is suggested that a system of government was the logical solution to problems which arise with following natural law.
• Russell explains that an absolute monarchy is not a form of a civil government because there is no neutral observer to intervene should a problem arise between civilians and the monarchy.
• Generally, a civil society means that rules should be made based on the opinion of the majority.
• Locke however did not include women or the poor as having citizenship.
• It is understood that the power and choices of the government will never go against the common good.
• Locke argued that the judge should be the opinion of the majority, for if the government was judge then it would be bias to itself.

D - PROPERTY

• We learn in this section that every man has private property in the produce of his own labour.
• Locke believed that when dealing with property, peasant proprietorship would be the most efficient, fair system.
• He states that a man can own the amount of land that he is able to look after, and no more than that.
• Russell however point out that this system would be unsuccessful across Europe.
• In most countries the majority of the land was owned by the aristocrats, who charged farmers rent, or took a proportion of their produce.
• In Russia and Prussia the farm workers were 'serfs ... and had virtually no rights.'
• Russell then goes onto explain the labour theory, which had two main aspects; ethical and economic, the difference being that 'the value of a product OUGHT to be proportional to the labour expended on it, or that IN FACT the labour regulates the price.'
• Locke remarked that it is the labour which accounts for the different prices on everything.
• Russell explains how Locke's ideas of peasant proprietorship would not work in a more modern working environment, and gives the example of large-scale mining to emphasise this point.
• Locke's theory, according to Russell is that a man must not have more produce than he and is family is able to eat before it goes bad as this is a waste.
• He does not appear to factor in the idea that a man will be able to sell the excess produce for a profit before it goes bad.
• He does however allow for as much money and diamonds as the family is able to acquire, as these things never go off.

E - CHECKS AND BALANCES

• Locke strongly held the belief that the legislative (Parliament) and executive (the king) must be separate to one another to prevent abuse of power and to ensure, what Locke described as a well framed government.
• In general terms Locke considered the legislative to be virtuous and the executive to be wicked.
• He believed that the legislative must have ultimate power, but that it should also be able to be removed from power by the community.
• It must also be elected by the majority of civilian votes.
• Locke asserted the fact that if the executive decides to go against the legislate, then the executive is directly conflicting with the people, who would be well within their right to remove the executive by force.
• Locke held the opinion that an honest man can know what is just and lawful. This does not however allow for the situation of there being an honest man on either side.
• He believed that if there were to be a conflict between legislate and executive then they must fight because Heaven will give the victory to the better cause.
• Checks and balances were initially introduced in England to limit the power of the king, who in Locke's day had complete control of the executive.
• This control dwindled and eventually the executive became dependent on the legislate
• Russell notes how Locke's principles about the legislate and executive are best shown in the United States of America where the President and Congress are completely separate from one another, and the Supreme Court is independent of both.
• Locke's ideals on this issue were valid until the industrial revolution, when corporations grew beyond anything Locke had ever imagined.

Chapter 15 - Locke's Influence

• One branch of philosophy owes it's ideals to Locke, the other to Kant.
• The first heirs of Locke were Berkeley and Hume.
• Secondly were the French philosophers.
• Thirdly were Bentham and the philosophical radicals.
• He also influenced Continental philosophy and Marxism.
• In Locke's day, his opposition came largely from the Cartesians and Leibniz.
• Locke's eventual victory in both England and France came from the success of Newton.
• Newtonian laws diminished their respect for Descartes and increased their respect for England. Both these causes inclined men favourably towards Locke.
• Kantianism eventually took the place of Locke for a number of reasons. For example, the German opposition to the French made them favour a German philosophy, while the French turned to Kantiantism as an opposition to Jacobinism.
• After Rousseau and Kant, two forms of Liberalism were formed - hard-hearted and soft-hearted. 
• Hard-hearted liberalism was favoured by Bentham and Marx, and eventually led to Stalin.
• Soft-hearted liberalism was favoured by Byron and Nietzsche and eventually led to Hitler. 
• There were also two types of philosophy, British and Continental. 
• In his philosophy, Locke drew general conclusions based on a broad survey.
• Leibniz drew very specific conclusions working 'logically' from small facts. 
• The two different methods can be somewhat explained by the differences of metaphysics. 
• Kant offered metaphysical proof for the existence of God, where as Spinoza had a pantheistic God, who seemed to the orthodox to be no God at all.
• Locke believed pleasure and happiness to be the good, and urged people to actively seek them - throughout the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries this was the view shared by empiricists.
• Locke's opponents rejected this active search for happiness and pleasure, and instead sought heroism.
• They valued strong emotions, which led to the toleration of hatred and revenge.

Chapter 16 - Berkeley

• Berkeley lived 1685-1753
• He believed that there was no such thing as matter unless it can be perceived - for example a tree does not exist unless someone is there to see and perceive it.
• He expanded on this by claiming that the reason matter appear to be present all the time is because God continually perceives everything.
• He claimed that sensations such as touch and taste are in the mind.
• Russell questions what is meant by perception.
• Philonous rejected the idea that perception is a link between a subject and a percept.
• Russell suggests that a perception is an event that can be remembered.
• Berkeley thinks that there are logical reasons to support his stance that only things in the mind exist.

Chapter 17 - Hume

• David Hume lived 1711-1776
• His magnum opus was the Treatise of Human Nature, in which he discusses understanding, passions and morals.
• He claimed that our simples ideas are formed from impressions, but our complex ideas do not need to be based on impressions.
• He believed that no man perceives his own brain, but ... he has an 'idea' of it.
• Hume defines seven kinds of philosophical revelation:

1. Resemblance
2. Identity
3. Relations of time and place
4. Proportion in quantity or number
5. Degrees in quality
6. Contrariety
7. Causation

• He then said that these seven revelations can be split into two categories, those which depend only on ideas, and those which can be changed without changing the ideas.
• We can only be certain of knowledge obtained in the first category.
• Hume was the first person to pose a real to challenge to the Scholastic view that the connection between cause and effect were necessary.
• He claimed we can only know cause and effect through experience, not reasoning or reflection.
• To explain his ideas we are given the statement A causes B.
• Hume would arguer that just because A and B are frequently linked together does not suggest that A causes B.
• Russell clearly summarises Hume's doctrine as such:

"(1) in causation there is not indefinable relation except conjunction or succession; (2) induction by simple enumeration is not a valid form of argument. Empiricists in general have accepted the first of these and rejected the second."

This post has been simply summaries of each chapter - my thoughts about John Locke will follow shortly!

John Locke - An Essay Concerning Human Understanding - Chapter One Notes

After reading through chapter one I have decided that possibly one of the most useful ways to write this post will be to go through Locke's point and translating them into how I have understood them as the wording was quite confusing!

Idea is the object of thinking:

Locke starts by questioning the origins of our ideas. He states that he believes that some ideas are "stamped upon" our minds - in other words, that they are innate to us. He explains that he has already examined this theory, and will go on to try and answer his question of where all of our thoughts come from. He suggests that the best, and possibly only, way to do this is by considering the "observations and experience" of other people.

All ideas come from sensation or reflection:

Locke then works from the idea of a mind being a blank page to question the reader as to how a mind can go from being completely "void of all characters" to being full of thoughts and ideas.These questions make the reader think about possibly answers, which is when Locke then answers the question for us by explaining his belief that the mind only gains knowledge and ideas through experience. By questioning the reader first it makes us want to be given a definitive answer, meaning that when Locke proposes his idea we are likely to accept it as it gives closure on the previous questions. He explains that our experience allows us to forms opinions and ideas not only about "external, sensible objects" but also allows us to understand the "internal operations of our minds".

The objects of sensation one source of ideas:

Locke explains that our ideas about external objects come from our sense experience. For example we know that something is hot by using our sense of touch. We know that flowers smell nice by using our sense of smell. Locke calls the knowledge and ideas we obtain through our senses sensation.

The operations of our minds, the other source of them:

Locke recognises that we also form ideas that are outside what we can understand through sense experience. He claims that these other ideas come from reflection. By this he means that there are things which we know by reflecting on the workings of our minds. He believes that everyone is conscious of their mind working and the way in which ideas are formed within the mind. For example, ideas about love cannot be formed through sense experience and instead ideas about love are formed by reflecting on our previous experience of love.

All our ideas are of the one or the other of these:

Locke highlights his firm belief that ideas are not formed through any other method other than through sensation and reflection and challenges the reader to try and argue against his theory as he is certain that he is correct.

Observable in children:

Locke backs up his ideas about sensation and reflection by using the example of a child. He says if a child grows up seeing only black and white until he is a man, there is no way that he could have ideas about any other colours until he sees them because this knowledge can only be gained through sense experience - it is not something which is innate. This example supports his theory that there are only two ways to gain knowledge.

Men are differently furnished with these, according to the different objects they converse with:

Locke vaguely discusses the importance of seeking knowledge here. He states that men who do not experience things will never be able to gain an understanding of them. Similarly, men who do not take the time to reflect on the workings of their minds will not be able to fully understand or appreciate their ideas, nor will they be able to form further ideas other than what they are told or understand to be true.

Ideas of the later, because they need attention:

Locke suggests that the reason why it takes a long time for children to fully understand the workings of their mind, or the ideas that dwell there, is because they do not experience anything which makes a lasting impression on them; they may experience things and be told things but they do not register in the mind. Locke says that it only later on in life when the child needs that information that they then reflect on the basic ideas in their mind, and only then do the fully start to comprehend and understand these ideas.

The soul begins to have ideas, when it begins to perceive:

Locke states that having ideas and perception are the same things. He explains that the ideas of the soul and the perceptions of the body and mind start at the same time. Locke suggests that the soul is able to think of things as well as think of itself and will continue to think until it ceases to exist.

The soul thinks not always, for this wants proof:

Locke then goes back on his ideas about the soul claiming that he does not know enough about the subject of the soul to give an definitive statements about it. He believes that the ideas of the soul are not the essence of the soul but are an operation of the soul. The soul is not solely designed to think, but this does not mean that it is not always thinking.

It is not always conscious of it:

Locke states that the "the soul in a waking man is never without thought." However the soul can continue to think while the man is sleeping, although it is difficult to comprehend something which not being conscious of its thinking. He then questions whether it is possible for the soul to think and feel pleasure and pain while the man is sleeping. He uses the example of Socrates, stating that Socrates awake is a different person to Socrates asleep and Socrates asleep is a separate person to the soul.

If a sleeping man thinks without knowing it, the sleeping and waking man are two persons

Locke explains that in order for the soul to think whilst a man is asleep then it "must necessarily be conscious of its own perceptions." He says that it would be a contradiction for men to believe that the soul cannot live outside of the body when they willingly accept that animals are bodies living without souls - why shouldn't it be possible for the opposite to occur? He raises the point that if the soul is thinking separate to the body while the man is asleep, then the soul can choose to think wherever it wants, for example it could choose to think in the body of someone else. And if the soul of the sleeping man is in the waking man then that means that two men have only one soul between them.

That men dream without remembering it, in vain urged.

Locke explains how the soul can think constantly, even when the body is asleep, but that the memory will not retain any of those thoughts. He also highlights though that this would need a certain of evidence before it can be proved to be true.

That a man should be busy thinking and yet not retain it in the next moment, very probable:

The idea that the soul can think independently without the mind being able to recall these thoughts would "make two persons in one man." But could it be possible that the mind is also thinking but is simply not aware of it?

No ideas but from sensation or reflection, evident, if we observe children:

Hicks makes his view clear by stating that he does not believe that "the soul thinks before the senses have furnished it with ideas to think on" - meaning that the soul can think, but can only think about ideas that have been 'given' to it through our sensation and reflection experiences.  Thinking then becomes "exercise" for the soul and that by thinking it improves and expands on those ideas.

If it shall be demanded then, when a man begins to have any ideas?

Hick believes that a man first starts thinking "when he first has any sense experience." He thinks this because he does not believe that ideas are able to exist in the mind until they have not been experienced in reality.

The origin of all our knowledge:

Hick believes that the origin of all knowledge are "impressions that are made on our senses by outward objects." We then gain experience of these outward objects and can then gain further knowledge of them, or reflect on what we already know and form more opinions in our mind. He states that "the mind is fitted to receive the impressions made on it" through sensation or reflection.

In the reception of simple ideas, the understanding is for the most part passive:

Hick claims that the mind does not actively start seeking knowledge, instead sensation and reflection occur while the mind is passive. He states that our senses somewhat impose ideas onto our mind, for example our sense of taste will give our mind the idea on whether we like certain foods or not. Despite this though Hick stresses that "no man can be wholly ignorant of what he does when he thinks."

WINOL Bulletin feedback - 14/10/10

Today we watched a WINOL bulletin and were asked to write a small post on the blog giving feedback of our opinions of the positive and negative aspects of the bulletin. I will start by highlighting some of the things which I thought worked well as part of the bulletin and will then go on to comments on aspects which I feel could be improved.

Things which worked well:

• Before the news bulletin started in full, the main stories were briefly explained in a sentence or two. I think that this worked well because it prepared the audience for what is coming up. It also allows someone who perhaps doesn't have time to watch the whole thing to still be able to briefly hear the news. Also this is useful if someone perhaps can hear what the main stories are before they watch in case they find that they are not going to be interested in any of it and so will not waste their time watching! 
•  
• Another thing which I thought worked well were the visuals that went with some of the stories. For example a nightclub was shown when there was a story about identification issues. This worked well because it was directly relevant to the topic that was being discussed, and so kept the attention of the audience without making them think about something else.
•  
• I thought it was useful to have a voice over reading the quote at the same time that it was shown on screen. This was a good idea because perhaps there might have been some members of the audience who could not see the quote clearly, or were not able to read it very well, or maybe they might simply have the news on in the background whilst doing something else and would not have been able to look at the quote. So having the help of someone read it to them would have been useful.
•  
• I also thought it was a good idea to have the motion background behind another quote during the bulletin as this looked very professional.
•  
• When there was commentary about different sporting events I thought the visuals were well chosen as they often showed the moments which were being discussed as well as general footage from the events. Again this was a good idea because it allows the audience to have something to look at whilst still holding their focus on what the news story is.
•  
• I thought that the presenters were excellent and added to the professional feel of the bulletin.

Things which could be improved:

• One of the things that I though could be changed was the clip of people playing pool when the commentary was about tuition fees. Whilst it is understandable that it was a student who had been playing pool who was then interviewed I do not feel that the images of pool were particularly relevant and it would perhaps have been better to see a student at the ATM.
•  
• The story about the tuition fees contained a lot of numbers about the current fee prices and the proposed new ones. I think that it might have been helpful to the viewer if the numbers appeared clearly on screen whilst the commentary explained what they showed as I found it quite hard to watch a visual whilst trying to follow the numbers given!
•  
• Another thing which could be improved is the length of time that the names of who was talking appeared on the screen as often they only appeared briefly and it was not possible to have time to read and register who people were. Similarly, when the final score of the football came up on screen it could have been up for longer to give the audience time to register it.
•  
• Whilst I thought it was good to have footage of sport events playing whilst the commentary about the game was heard I found that the clip of the girls playing netball was too loud and actually blocked out what was being said about the match, so perhaps in future the background noise on the clips could be muted as it was not important to hear people cheering.
•  
• I understand that the story about the Queen was important although I think more of a point could have been made about how close she was to Winchester. Also, the clip of her talking was muffled and it was not easy to understand what she was saying.
•  
• Whilst I thought the presenters were very professional, there were times when Tom Otrebski's arm was visible in shots when the sport was being reported. I think if he had been completely out of the shot it would have made it look more professional.  

These are mostly my personal opinions and overall I think the bulletin was of an extremely high standard.