In the seminar we listened to seminar papers on Wittgensteins book Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus, in his book he writes like I said in my last blog about the verification principle, but he also writes about a logically perfect language. He wants a language that is completely logically perfect so the words cannot be twisted to make a meaning which is incorrect. This statement in particular brought up an interesting debate with the class, we discussed that it would be near impossible to actually have this perfecly logical language as people would have to start from scratch with this new language. This would also create the problem that people would rebel against this new language so it would never take effect. Claire also thought of a good argument in her seminar paper that it would be especially hard because nowadays people have developed a text language in which they use to speak on social networking and text messages such as 'LOL', these abbreviations means you wouldn't be able to just change the language and make it mean something new.
We also discussed the use of words and how they have changed over time. The way we use words now is completely different from that of even only fifty years ago, this is essence means that throughout history languge has developed and changed with each decade, language could of once beeen perfectly logical but not anymore. With this in mind we were obvious to realise that environment was a big factor in the cause for language to develop. Myself being from Birmingham means that the language I use and have been brought up using is different from my fellow classmates. With this in mind it would be difficult to make have logical words that mean the same to everyone if I use different words and I only live 2 hours away.
We also discussed the way in which Wittgenstein expressed his views in his book, he writes with an assurance of his ideas. Stefano argued that philosophers always try to attack one anothers work however Wittgenstein writes with pure confidence in his idea that it is hard for anyone to challenge him. We then went on to discuss how we are taught things, such as pain. We argued that each country is brought up to handle pain differently, much as we are taught language. We know if were in pain because we are in pain but we know this because this is what we've been taught. Do we really believe were in pain because a particular action tells us we should be or do we actually feel it? This question is obviously hard to answer, different culture such as in Africa some tribes feel accomplished to inflict pain upon themsleves to prove their worthiness, does this mean they relish in their pain or they learn to hide it, or do they not actually know what pain is? This just like language is different for each person, you can't know what a symbol or a word means to each individual so is hard to state only one logical meaning over them.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Lecture- George Orwell
In this lecture we looked at George Orwell we also looked at the book Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus by Wittgenstein, this book tells us about the verification principle. This principle is based upon whether you can verify your statements, it basically means that without having proof of your statement being true than it has no meaning to it. Also known as the falsification prinicple, no statement will mean a thing unless it is proven to be true. Much like the very principle itself cannot be proven so must make no sense, this is why Wittgenstein said his first book was nonsense.
He then goes on to look at language, language he states is the basis for everything without language there can be no ideas, this means that the source of every idea is language. With this thought in his head he then goes on to explain that you can paint whatever picture you want with language and it becomes exactly what the language is. Orwell then continuing on from this idea he argues that language are facts so if you are able to control language you can indeed control fact which means you can manipulate the world to be whatever you want it to be. This idea has influenced things even today with 'Big Brother', 'Room101', a term used even today in journalism is the 'orwellian', to try and baffle the reader by muddling the language to create facts that aren't really there. Orwell was also close to a lot of communist leaders, however he himself was against this, he even stopped being freinds after he found out about lies they were telling, 'The God that Failed' being an example. The USSR banned paricular words from being said, with the thought that without the words the idea doesn't exist, this appalled Orwell. Orwell also wrote a book on the Russin Revolution 'Animal Farm' which still today is a big hit amongst the masses.
We were told about how language can be used to confuse and manipulate people the 'Orwellian language' he gave us the sentence, "The school aims to be at the leading edge of interprofesional education, practise and research for health, social care and complimentary therepies". This is a prime example of language being used to manipulate peoples thoughts. With its use of what looks like 'intelligient' words at first it basically tries to undermine people so they think that they are the stupid ones, even though this sentence makes no relevant sense at all. This is a lot of nonsense that doesn't mean a thing but is controlled in a way to look as though it does.
Orwell gave people the advice that you should never use a big word when a smaller one will do so to not confuse your audience. Stay clear from metaphors and similies, they are not needed and don't really make much sense. Cut words out where possible, words that are not needed are meaningless. Never use passive uses of language when you can use active, engage with your reader directly. Never use a scientific, foreign word or jargon when you can think of an English equivalent, you want the majority to understand your writing theres no point in confusing them if you want to make sense.
He then goes on to look at language, language he states is the basis for everything without language there can be no ideas, this means that the source of every idea is language. With this thought in his head he then goes on to explain that you can paint whatever picture you want with language and it becomes exactly what the language is. Orwell then continuing on from this idea he argues that language are facts so if you are able to control language you can indeed control fact which means you can manipulate the world to be whatever you want it to be. This idea has influenced things even today with 'Big Brother', 'Room101', a term used even today in journalism is the 'orwellian', to try and baffle the reader by muddling the language to create facts that aren't really there. Orwell was also close to a lot of communist leaders, however he himself was against this, he even stopped being freinds after he found out about lies they were telling, 'The God that Failed' being an example. The USSR banned paricular words from being said, with the thought that without the words the idea doesn't exist, this appalled Orwell. Orwell also wrote a book on the Russin Revolution 'Animal Farm' which still today is a big hit amongst the masses.
We were told about how language can be used to confuse and manipulate people the 'Orwellian language' he gave us the sentence, "The school aims to be at the leading edge of interprofesional education, practise and research for health, social care and complimentary therepies". This is a prime example of language being used to manipulate peoples thoughts. With its use of what looks like 'intelligient' words at first it basically tries to undermine people so they think that they are the stupid ones, even though this sentence makes no relevant sense at all. This is a lot of nonsense that doesn't mean a thing but is controlled in a way to look as though it does.
Orwell gave people the advice that you should never use a big word when a smaller one will do so to not confuse your audience. Stay clear from metaphors and similies, they are not needed and don't really make much sense. Cut words out where possible, words that are not needed are meaningless. Never use passive uses of language when you can use active, engage with your reader directly. Never use a scientific, foreign word or jargon when you can think of an English equivalent, you want the majority to understand your writing theres no point in confusing them if you want to make sense.
Seminar- Tom Wolf
In this seminar we discussed The New Journalism by Tom Wolf, this is a collection of articles written in a new journalism format, he also gives the reader a reason why it is written this way telling them about how the form began. New journalism was a way in which journalists could take a hold of the reader through the emotion sense. Unlike old journalistic techniques new journalism is written more like a novel, it descibes the news rather than reports it. This style of writing you could argue grabs the readers attention because it gives them an opportunity to feel what is happening rather than seeing the facts. Nowdays readers want it shown to them rather than told, they dont want to just see facts and numbers they want to see emotion, scenery, as much description as possible to report the news.
New journalism first started during the war, reporters began putting down as much desciption as possible because people wanted to know exactly what was happening at this point. They wanted to know or I could say feel the news that was going on because it was a sensitive time so the news couldn't be just reported in a string of facts they wanted more from there papers. This is how New Journalism was created, reporters were now writing down every piece of description they could to write news articles, the style is novel writing, this however you could argue it being a good thing to be emotionally involved in a story can be also a bad thing. If their is too much emotion and faffing put into a story this means that people will also get attached to stories, reporters can twist stories in whichever way they want to get moral support from the public. Too much desription means that you don't get straight to the point, it could mean that people have to read between the lines to get the real truth. Although people have also argued that it gets us away from the rubbish of tabloidization, the yellow journalist which meant that people could engage more with the writing because of the improvement of the quality.
New journalism first started during the war, reporters began putting down as much desciption as possible because people wanted to know exactly what was happening at this point. They wanted to know or I could say feel the news that was going on because it was a sensitive time so the news couldn't be just reported in a string of facts they wanted more from there papers. This is how New Journalism was created, reporters were now writing down every piece of description they could to write news articles, the style is novel writing, this however you could argue it being a good thing to be emotionally involved in a story can be also a bad thing. If their is too much emotion and faffing put into a story this means that people will also get attached to stories, reporters can twist stories in whichever way they want to get moral support from the public. Too much desription means that you don't get straight to the point, it could mean that people have to read between the lines to get the real truth. Although people have also argued that it gets us away from the rubbish of tabloidization, the yellow journalist which meant that people could engage more with the writing because of the improvement of the quality.
Lecture 3- Heroine and Existentialism
This lecture was all about heroine and what it does with the body and the mind. Chris expained that basically heroine stops the pain neurone in the body, which means you go completely numb. The past and future no longer exist, the person using the heroine lives for the now. This is much like Camus ideal philosophy, he believes that a perfect world would have neither past nor future. So taking heroine in a way, well to Camus, is the perfect thing to do. When coming off heroine this is especially painful to the person because their pain and pleasure neurones slowly return making them be able to feel something again, their past bringing them guilt and their future bringing them fear, this is the reason why most people would become addicted to this drug.
Chris explained this to us by showing us a picture of Edie Sedgwick the actress who posed for Andy Warhol's 'sreen tests', his pictures were iconic. He was a major influence to 60's culture especially with the face of models, and fashion. His models were bony woman, with pale skin and dark circles, as if they were on heroine thus the name 'Heroine Chic'. At this time heroine had began to lower in price however the potentsy level of the product was rising which meant that more middle upper class people were taking the drug, perhaps to gain the same look as Andy Marhols 'Heroine Chic' models.
Chris told us about what philosophical idealism thought the existence was made up of, he said they believed the existence was made up of three things. The first, Things in Themselves this meant the things that are alove but are just there, they decay and change but nothing else. The second, Things for Themselves, this means people (white educated men) who were determined and self believing could do something about their existence e.g suicide. The third, things for others, these are the people who live for other people (wives, slaves), existentialists believe these people live in bad faith they live through someone else.
Chris also taught us about post-war exitentialism movement, this was to gain freedom for people and for culture , art and literature. Existensialists wanted equal rights in a way, they believed in gay rights, freedom of speech, racism banned and disabled rights. The movement also wanted to free the limitations of arts, theatres, and music which pre-war the country was restricted. Existential literature they wanted to show that slavery was wrong, you cannot write about slaves because they don't have freedom to think their own thoughts.
Chris explained this to us by showing us a picture of Edie Sedgwick the actress who posed for Andy Warhol's 'sreen tests', his pictures were iconic. He was a major influence to 60's culture especially with the face of models, and fashion. His models were bony woman, with pale skin and dark circles, as if they were on heroine thus the name 'Heroine Chic'. At this time heroine had began to lower in price however the potentsy level of the product was rising which meant that more middle upper class people were taking the drug, perhaps to gain the same look as Andy Marhols 'Heroine Chic' models.
Chris told us about what philosophical idealism thought the existence was made up of, he said they believed the existence was made up of three things. The first, Things in Themselves this meant the things that are alove but are just there, they decay and change but nothing else. The second, Things for Themselves, this means people (white educated men) who were determined and self believing could do something about their existence e.g suicide. The third, things for others, these are the people who live for other people (wives, slaves), existentialists believe these people live in bad faith they live through someone else.
Chris also taught us about post-war exitentialism movement, this was to gain freedom for people and for culture , art and literature. Existensialists wanted equal rights in a way, they believed in gay rights, freedom of speech, racism banned and disabled rights. The movement also wanted to free the limitations of arts, theatres, and music which pre-war the country was restricted. Existential literature they wanted to show that slavery was wrong, you cannot write about slaves because they don't have freedom to think their own thoughts.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Seminar Paper- The Outsider
Seminar Paper: The Outsider
Albert Camus was a famous French Algerian author, philosopher and journalist. Camus was awarded the 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature "for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times".[2] He was the second-youngest recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature, after Rudyard Kipling, and the first African-born writer to receive the award.[3] He is the shortest-lived of any Nobel literature laureate to date, having died in an automobile accident just over two years after receiving the award. He was often referred to as an existentialist, although he rejected these claims. His particular philosophical views helped give rise to absurdism, which you can see in one of his most famous pieces The Stranger. In my seminar paper I will be looking carefully at The Stranger, also known as The Outsider, to find Camus’ philosophical views on the world. He seems to reject hope but rejoices at the end showing his absurdist views, “He understood with Nietzsche that repetition, starting over again until death, is the supreme test of the absurd”. Camus as a writer rejects Nietzsche because he is a ‘Romantic’, so in ‘The Stranger’ he comes up with a non-romantic existentialist hero to counter attack the standard romantic heroes.
The book is split into two parts, part one starts with Meursault finding out about his mothers death. Straight away in the book you see that Camus wants to shock his reader with the pure bluntness of his character, Meursault. “Mama died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know. I got a telegram from the home: 'Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.' That doesn't mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday”, you can see from the calm way he talks of finding out about his mothers death that he is an absurd man. The funeral goes by with Meursault acting in a way that is completely bizarre to most people; he doesn’t seem to feel any sadness or guilt over his mother’s death. Camus writes using the character as someone who sees rather than feels. It is written from a person’s perspective but misses the links between feelings and facts that ‘normal’ people would connect together. Quoted ‘The World of the Man Condemned to Death’ by Rachel Bespaloff, “supposes a narrator who arranges past events according to the meaning he confers upon them-whereas here, precisely the meaning is lacking. He has become a stranger to his own life.” She believes that Camus wanted to write using a character that doesn’t express him; he let the character see the facts and issues but didn’t let his own thoughts come into the book. His readers will make the connection that the man has no feelings leaving the audience with mixed emotions.
Meursault’s interaction with people is also uncanny; he makes no real effort to be connected with anyone although enjoying their company. He doesn’t seem to understand how people make the bond with someone else he believes in the individual. The individual to him stays individual not allowing other people’s influences block his own. Even the girl he is dating, he doesn’t make the connection with, and Marie to him is just there, he doesn’t believe in love or that people belong with one another. This is a view Camus holds writing in ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’, “It is only on the basis of a collective way of seeing, for which books and legends are responsible, that we give the name love to what binds us to certain human beings.” Meursault clearly doesn’t believe that two people can be bonded as one. This lack of emotion to even someone he has been dating baffles people because of the obscure relationships he forms. Meursault also doesn’t care much about the types of people he talks to, Raymond the apparent pimp, becomes friends although Meursault doesn’t really mind either way if they are or not. Camus writes using only facts so the reader continuously gets the logical view of what’s happening which makes sense when you put it down in a blunt fashion. However the logical, for most, is always twisted because of the emotions involve, if you look at the feelings that should be scattered around in this book it would have a completely different meaning and probably even ending. Camus wanted to take the audience away from this to show them how to just see.
Meursault lives very much in the present, in the whole book he doesn’t look at the past but just what is happening to him then and in the immediate future. He has no time for thinking about what happened or what could have happened. He is free from any guilt, even in his moments in court and in prison; he doesn’t think of what he should have done or show any remorse for his actions. He also doesn’t think of the future, having no dread, he goes back to the same spot where the Arabs had been but doesn’t think of the consequences if he does this. This character has the many characteristics of an existentialist, as he doesn’t dread the future and seems not to have a past or else doesn’t feel guilty about the past. His existence in the present is all that matters to Meursault. His life in Part one is seemingly content, he doesn’t do much going about his existence in a slow moving way. You can tell that he is interested in the human existence; he follows the ‘robot woman’ as if he were researching an animal. He finds the way Solomon, Raymond and even Marie think to be unimportant, he answers their questions or befriends them because they want him to rather than he actually cares. In Part two he does this also with the chaplain and the prison guards, he studies their behaviour at first but then gets bored by their existence. To him the people are there to fill his time, but eventually he gets bored and moves onto something else. In the courtroom he himself looks at all the faces and notes what he sees; only after the prosecutor has examined him he notices that all the people seem to loathe him. This bothers Meursault at first but after a while he starts to get bored of the proceedings and goes into his shell once again.
The way Meursault views the world is out of the ordinary, quote from An Explication of ‘The Stranger’ by Jean-Paul Sartre, “The ‘absurd’ man is the man who does not hesitate to draw the inevitable conclusions from a fundamental absurdity”. The way Meursault thinks about situations and the logical truth he brings out emphasises the strange character he is meant to be. Raymond asks him to write a letter luring the woman to go round, even though he knows that Raymond wants to hurt her. His argument is that he sees Raymond’s point that she ‘did him wrong’. When the fight breaks off and everyone else is scared for the girl he feels no sympathy and wants to carry on with his night because it’s not his business. Solomon, is another key example as he treats his dog with pure malice, the neighbours all believe this to be a shocking thing but yet again Meursault doesn’t want to meddle in people’s business, or should I say doesn’t care about other people’s business. The guilt and shame Solomon feels after he loses the dog is evident from the interaction we see between Meursault and himself, this is the ‘normal’ way people would react.
Meursault as a character speaks very little which Camus believed in, he states in “The Myth of Sisyphus”, “A man’s virility lies more in what he keeps to himself than in what he says.” Making his character have very little speech, you see there can be a lot more taken from what he doesn’t say. Camus takes this idea from Heidegger as he declares, “silence, is the authentic mode of speech”.
The last chapter when the chaplain goes to Meursault in one last attempt for him to see God, Meursault goes into a fit of rage. This last part of the story, you finally see the real essence the existentialist view on life. The rejection of God, humans are condemned from birth to die so God has no importance in life. The idea that the body and soul have no connection, they believe that once they are dead the ideas stop and that’s it. So he argues, why, not do what you want in life? Live for the present because the future is filled with dread of death, the past filled with guilt. He states to the Chaplain if he even knows if he is alive because he is not living in the present, always worrying about the afterlife.
After this he starts to think himself about how he lived his life in the last paragraph. He sees that people don’t make any difference to him, they have no influence or hold over him, and so all his decisions were his own. So in theory he would make the same decisions as he had already made because they were his own. Being sentenced to death he realises he is happy and content with his life, other prisoners facing the same fate are unhappy because of the outside influence. They feel guilt about their past, so dread their condemned future, being influenced but the chaplain they now believe in God and their afterlife, all of this makes them feel sick in the present. Meursault re-looks on his life and realises he has been happy and still is happy so then life to him is worth re-living. Quote by Rachel Bespaloff, “A book without hope, or rather against hope, it ends on a promise”.
Albert Camus was a famous French Algerian author, philosopher and journalist. Camus was awarded the 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature "for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times".[2] He was the second-youngest recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature, after Rudyard Kipling, and the first African-born writer to receive the award.[3] He is the shortest-lived of any Nobel literature laureate to date, having died in an automobile accident just over two years after receiving the award. He was often referred to as an existentialist, although he rejected these claims. His particular philosophical views helped give rise to absurdism, which you can see in one of his most famous pieces The Stranger. In my seminar paper I will be looking carefully at The Stranger, also known as The Outsider, to find Camus’ philosophical views on the world. He seems to reject hope but rejoices at the end showing his absurdist views, “He understood with Nietzsche that repetition, starting over again until death, is the supreme test of the absurd”. Camus as a writer rejects Nietzsche because he is a ‘Romantic’, so in ‘The Stranger’ he comes up with a non-romantic existentialist hero to counter attack the standard romantic heroes.
The book is split into two parts, part one starts with Meursault finding out about his mothers death. Straight away in the book you see that Camus wants to shock his reader with the pure bluntness of his character, Meursault. “Mama died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know. I got a telegram from the home: 'Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.' That doesn't mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday”, you can see from the calm way he talks of finding out about his mothers death that he is an absurd man. The funeral goes by with Meursault acting in a way that is completely bizarre to most people; he doesn’t seem to feel any sadness or guilt over his mother’s death. Camus writes using the character as someone who sees rather than feels. It is written from a person’s perspective but misses the links between feelings and facts that ‘normal’ people would connect together. Quoted ‘The World of the Man Condemned to Death’ by Rachel Bespaloff, “supposes a narrator who arranges past events according to the meaning he confers upon them-whereas here, precisely the meaning is lacking. He has become a stranger to his own life.” She believes that Camus wanted to write using a character that doesn’t express him; he let the character see the facts and issues but didn’t let his own thoughts come into the book. His readers will make the connection that the man has no feelings leaving the audience with mixed emotions.
Meursault’s interaction with people is also uncanny; he makes no real effort to be connected with anyone although enjoying their company. He doesn’t seem to understand how people make the bond with someone else he believes in the individual. The individual to him stays individual not allowing other people’s influences block his own. Even the girl he is dating, he doesn’t make the connection with, and Marie to him is just there, he doesn’t believe in love or that people belong with one another. This is a view Camus holds writing in ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’, “It is only on the basis of a collective way of seeing, for which books and legends are responsible, that we give the name love to what binds us to certain human beings.” Meursault clearly doesn’t believe that two people can be bonded as one. This lack of emotion to even someone he has been dating baffles people because of the obscure relationships he forms. Meursault also doesn’t care much about the types of people he talks to, Raymond the apparent pimp, becomes friends although Meursault doesn’t really mind either way if they are or not. Camus writes using only facts so the reader continuously gets the logical view of what’s happening which makes sense when you put it down in a blunt fashion. However the logical, for most, is always twisted because of the emotions involve, if you look at the feelings that should be scattered around in this book it would have a completely different meaning and probably even ending. Camus wanted to take the audience away from this to show them how to just see.
Meursault lives very much in the present, in the whole book he doesn’t look at the past but just what is happening to him then and in the immediate future. He has no time for thinking about what happened or what could have happened. He is free from any guilt, even in his moments in court and in prison; he doesn’t think of what he should have done or show any remorse for his actions. He also doesn’t think of the future, having no dread, he goes back to the same spot where the Arabs had been but doesn’t think of the consequences if he does this. This character has the many characteristics of an existentialist, as he doesn’t dread the future and seems not to have a past or else doesn’t feel guilty about the past. His existence in the present is all that matters to Meursault. His life in Part one is seemingly content, he doesn’t do much going about his existence in a slow moving way. You can tell that he is interested in the human existence; he follows the ‘robot woman’ as if he were researching an animal. He finds the way Solomon, Raymond and even Marie think to be unimportant, he answers their questions or befriends them because they want him to rather than he actually cares. In Part two he does this also with the chaplain and the prison guards, he studies their behaviour at first but then gets bored by their existence. To him the people are there to fill his time, but eventually he gets bored and moves onto something else. In the courtroom he himself looks at all the faces and notes what he sees; only after the prosecutor has examined him he notices that all the people seem to loathe him. This bothers Meursault at first but after a while he starts to get bored of the proceedings and goes into his shell once again.
The way Meursault views the world is out of the ordinary, quote from An Explication of ‘The Stranger’ by Jean-Paul Sartre, “The ‘absurd’ man is the man who does not hesitate to draw the inevitable conclusions from a fundamental absurdity”. The way Meursault thinks about situations and the logical truth he brings out emphasises the strange character he is meant to be. Raymond asks him to write a letter luring the woman to go round, even though he knows that Raymond wants to hurt her. His argument is that he sees Raymond’s point that she ‘did him wrong’. When the fight breaks off and everyone else is scared for the girl he feels no sympathy and wants to carry on with his night because it’s not his business. Solomon, is another key example as he treats his dog with pure malice, the neighbours all believe this to be a shocking thing but yet again Meursault doesn’t want to meddle in people’s business, or should I say doesn’t care about other people’s business. The guilt and shame Solomon feels after he loses the dog is evident from the interaction we see between Meursault and himself, this is the ‘normal’ way people would react.
Meursault as a character speaks very little which Camus believed in, he states in “The Myth of Sisyphus”, “A man’s virility lies more in what he keeps to himself than in what he says.” Making his character have very little speech, you see there can be a lot more taken from what he doesn’t say. Camus takes this idea from Heidegger as he declares, “silence, is the authentic mode of speech”.
The last chapter when the chaplain goes to Meursault in one last attempt for him to see God, Meursault goes into a fit of rage. This last part of the story, you finally see the real essence the existentialist view on life. The rejection of God, humans are condemned from birth to die so God has no importance in life. The idea that the body and soul have no connection, they believe that once they are dead the ideas stop and that’s it. So he argues, why, not do what you want in life? Live for the present because the future is filled with dread of death, the past filled with guilt. He states to the Chaplain if he even knows if he is alive because he is not living in the present, always worrying about the afterlife.
After this he starts to think himself about how he lived his life in the last paragraph. He sees that people don’t make any difference to him, they have no influence or hold over him, and so all his decisions were his own. So in theory he would make the same decisions as he had already made because they were his own. Being sentenced to death he realises he is happy and content with his life, other prisoners facing the same fate are unhappy because of the outside influence. They feel guilt about their past, so dread their condemned future, being influenced but the chaplain they now believe in God and their afterlife, all of this makes them feel sick in the present. Meursault re-looks on his life and realises he has been happy and still is happy so then life to him is worth re-living. Quote by Rachel Bespaloff, “A book without hope, or rather against hope, it ends on a promise”.
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
Lecture 2- Albert Camus, Husserl and Heidegger
In this lecture we were taught about philosophical ideas that explore the consciousness and how people use this. Two philosophers who discuss this issue are Husserl and Heidegger I will review what I have been taught.
Husserl believes that consciousness is intentional, people observe things subjectively with an intentional outlook on whats happening. He believes that subconsciously we prioritse our knowledge depending on our intention, in a sort of structure. Husserl thinks that we ourselves only see what we want to see, objects are all in the mind so we consciously decide on what we want to know and prioritise these to see the importance.
Heidegger accepts Husserls theory of the consciousness and its structure of importance. However he rejects Descartes 'I think therefore I am' stating that there are ideas already, this doesn't mean you exist because you have them. He develops the idea of the structure in the consciousness believing there is a cobweb of decisions in our minds e.g. intentions, moods, ambiguity. These structures of decisions come from social interaction, he believes that for social beings your life is generally inauthentic because the people become a part of you and take away from your soul. Generally he believes that because of peoples interation with one another there decisions and souls are no longer their own because they have been influenced so much. Heidegger believes that the connection between the mind and the soul are not there, he believes once you die that is it.
He completely rejects the ideas of other philosophers such as Kant, Locke, Smith. Kant and the equality of people,'the categorical imperative', he rejects this completely as he believes that he knows that if people are taken away from social interaction and sense data they lose thereselves, experiments in isolation tanks have proven the disallusion of the individual.
He rejects Nietzsche calling him the 'last romantic'. The hermunetic philosophers who see meaning in text that isn't obvious, Heidegger doesn't understand, these are Marx the ideolist, Freud the subconscious and Nietzsche for morality.
Heidegger believes that existence is 'Dasein' a structure which enables people to cope with their lives. Heidegger is very interested in time as a structure of being. He believes that the past is too feel guilt, future is too feel dread having both of these means that people will feel sick and bored with their lives. Having neither past nor future means people are more authentic as they live for the future appreciating life. This is an existentialist view philosophy of life which is rather extreme.
In this lecture we also discussed Camus and his story- 'The Outsider', it is about a man called Meurssault who is a non-romantic existentialist hero. He seeks authenticity in his life refusing to be influenced by other people so if his dasein if not authentic is less inauthentic than others. He doesnt dread the future nor look at the past so as an existentialist he is the perfect role model.
Husserl believes that consciousness is intentional, people observe things subjectively with an intentional outlook on whats happening. He believes that subconsciously we prioritse our knowledge depending on our intention, in a sort of structure. Husserl thinks that we ourselves only see what we want to see, objects are all in the mind so we consciously decide on what we want to know and prioritise these to see the importance.
Heidegger accepts Husserls theory of the consciousness and its structure of importance. However he rejects Descartes 'I think therefore I am' stating that there are ideas already, this doesn't mean you exist because you have them. He develops the idea of the structure in the consciousness believing there is a cobweb of decisions in our minds e.g. intentions, moods, ambiguity. These structures of decisions come from social interaction, he believes that for social beings your life is generally inauthentic because the people become a part of you and take away from your soul. Generally he believes that because of peoples interation with one another there decisions and souls are no longer their own because they have been influenced so much. Heidegger believes that the connection between the mind and the soul are not there, he believes once you die that is it.
He completely rejects the ideas of other philosophers such as Kant, Locke, Smith. Kant and the equality of people,'the categorical imperative', he rejects this completely as he believes that he knows that if people are taken away from social interaction and sense data they lose thereselves, experiments in isolation tanks have proven the disallusion of the individual.
He rejects Nietzsche calling him the 'last romantic'. The hermunetic philosophers who see meaning in text that isn't obvious, Heidegger doesn't understand, these are Marx the ideolist, Freud the subconscious and Nietzsche for morality.
Heidegger believes that existence is 'Dasein' a structure which enables people to cope with their lives. Heidegger is very interested in time as a structure of being. He believes that the past is too feel guilt, future is too feel dread having both of these means that people will feel sick and bored with their lives. Having neither past nor future means people are more authentic as they live for the future appreciating life. This is an existentialist view philosophy of life which is rather extreme.
In this lecture we also discussed Camus and his story- 'The Outsider', it is about a man called Meurssault who is a non-romantic existentialist hero. He seeks authenticity in his life refusing to be influenced by other people so if his dasein if not authentic is less inauthentic than others. He doesnt dread the future nor look at the past so as an existentialist he is the perfect role model.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Seminar- The New Industrial Estate by John Kenneth Galbraith
In this seminar we discussed the New Industrial Estate and what Galbraith thought about economics. It was Jenni's turn to do her seminar paper which I thought helped clear up a lot of confusion I had.
She mentioned in her paper that high industry corporation leaders control everything including the Government. J K Galbraith believes that corporations are souless and only care about the mass consumers rather than trying to please the individuals. Galbraiths book talks about business and planning to gain the most profit.
We discussed the issue about the technology taking over from workers. We discussed how Galbraith says that by replacing employers with technology it saves money and is twice as fast. He says that using technology you only need to use one specialist to do a ten man job. This saves the company money, this also means that they can produce twice as much products in less time which is useful for profit. He also states that 'machines cant go on strike' unlike workers.
Although Galbraith does mention that the blue collar workers are the force behind the company, these are the people who do all the hard work making and distributing the product, this should make them invaluable. We decided that it was unfair to fire the workers to replace them with this new technology but it was necessary as a big corporation.
We had the thought that there was no way in which the smaller companies could compete with larger corporations. We thought that Galbraith somehow believed that people were the real force behind the corporations and the only way we were to help things out was to spend. Shopping seemed the only evident necessity for people to help keep the companies in business, and the only logical thing to do with money.
She mentioned in her paper that high industry corporation leaders control everything including the Government. J K Galbraith believes that corporations are souless and only care about the mass consumers rather than trying to please the individuals. Galbraiths book talks about business and planning to gain the most profit.
We discussed the issue about the technology taking over from workers. We discussed how Galbraith says that by replacing employers with technology it saves money and is twice as fast. He says that using technology you only need to use one specialist to do a ten man job. This saves the company money, this also means that they can produce twice as much products in less time which is useful for profit. He also states that 'machines cant go on strike' unlike workers.
Although Galbraith does mention that the blue collar workers are the force behind the company, these are the people who do all the hard work making and distributing the product, this should make them invaluable. We decided that it was unfair to fire the workers to replace them with this new technology but it was necessary as a big corporation.
We had the thought that there was no way in which the smaller companies could compete with larger corporations. We thought that Galbraith somehow believed that people were the real force behind the corporations and the only way we were to help things out was to spend. Shopping seemed the only evident necessity for people to help keep the companies in business, and the only logical thing to do with money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)