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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)