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.
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
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.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Lecture 1- Economics and the Keynesian theory
In this lecture we learnt about economics-delightful! so let me start by mentioning this blog may make no sense but here we go...
"Money cant buy you poverty" a strange statement to make but could be a completely relevant one. We use money to gain everything, for most people their whole lives revolve around making money to live an easy life. It is the object of peoples desires and some would do anything to recieve it. It can buy just about everything, except poverty. A person who has money can only choose to go into a less fortunate state of being, and leave their riches, they will never be in a full state of poverty. This is what I took Chris to mean with this statement.
The next issue would be of the individual, he emphasised in the lecture that we will all place a worth over ourselves. We will each have a price that we are willing to accept depending on each persons experience. However in economics, corporations will look at the mass and what the average person would spend on it, rather than think of the individual. This means that they will gain the most amount of money from the mass.
The Kantain system is all about the morals, it believes that certain morals in the universe shouldnt be broken or all will be lost. Keynes theory helped economics with the World wars and the depression because they told of how society should stay busy, meaning people will buy more things so they never got bored or started to think.
"Money cant buy you poverty" a strange statement to make but could be a completely relevant one. We use money to gain everything, for most people their whole lives revolve around making money to live an easy life. It is the object of peoples desires and some would do anything to recieve it. It can buy just about everything, except poverty. A person who has money can only choose to go into a less fortunate state of being, and leave their riches, they will never be in a full state of poverty. This is what I took Chris to mean with this statement.
The next issue would be of the individual, he emphasised in the lecture that we will all place a worth over ourselves. We will each have a price that we are willing to accept depending on each persons experience. However in economics, corporations will look at the mass and what the average person would spend on it, rather than think of the individual. This means that they will gain the most amount of money from the mass.
The Kantain system is all about the morals, it believes that certain morals in the universe shouldnt be broken or all will be lost. Keynes theory helped economics with the World wars and the depression because they told of how society should stay busy, meaning people will buy more things so they never got bored or started to think.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Lecture 5- Rise of the Nation-State
Defining nationalism you could say that it is the belief that one ethnic group has right of the state rather than any other, or citizenship over another. This belief can be dangerous at times noting how over the top people take this belief to be. Goebbels took this so far as to put up innocent lives who were unfit to fight in the last effort to win the war. The more the mass has been manipulated the more they will complete the commandments of nationalism. Totalitarionism is a key player sometimes in Nationalism, with examples of Nazi Germany where Hitler controlled the masses deciding to take nationalism to the extreme. Germany today could be so into the idea of nationalism because there countries borders have been forever changing.
Some countries for example the US believe in nationalism making the flag sacred, however they forget to realise that they in fact are made up of immigrants themselves. Great Britain have a good balance with nationalism because it is made up of four countries. These four countries have many different nationalities in them which means that nationalism is hard to believe in when there are so much ethnic groups that have rights in these countries. Muslims have no such thing as nationalism as they are divided from city to city with theological ideals. Whereas China is based on political allegiances being a very communist country. As you can see each state has its own ideas of nationalism and how there people have alliances with there state.
In the middle ages it was a different story it didn't fall with the modern belief of being completely loyal to your state. The politics of this time were different states were mostly controlled by religions, in Britain it was the Church. The church would often have to negotiate with land owners in politics which meant little wars were caused. Then we found 'civil society' in which we were protected from wars with education and health care given to us when we paid taxes which meant we were free to make our own choices with no influence from the state. Of course before this we were ruled by the King so the peoples loyalties lay with him, however when this collapses it makes way for a new era of loyalty to what the state is now. Nationalism at its worst can be unquestionably bad fighting for land and state because ethnic groups have the right.
Philosophers through time have wrote about nationalism of the state and most have come up with very different ideas about what nationalism is and what the state is.
Hobbes for instance believes that if people were left to their own devises they would become barbarians so they need the state to keep them in check. The idea of the 'artificial man', he believes that the state should be a 'war machine' where they fight people who rebel against the state and states who try to take over it. He believes that whatever the state decides should be law for the greater good no matter what this may be.
Rousseau however wrote the social contract in this he establishes that people already know what is right and what is wrong. They have the moral codes set in them from birth its whether they choose to listen to it. He believed the state should be where reigional differences aren't there having the state as a single voice. His opinions weren't religiously based but his argyment for this type of state means who would count? and who should be the single voice?
Hegel however believed solely in religion playing a big factor in the state saying that 'the state is God on earth'. He believed that the state was there to do Gods work, although stating that the state or nation weren't natural. He believed in the state having absolute power over the poeple because they were doing the job God wants them to do.
Hume is a varied philosopher who said 'authority is based on nothing but opinion' which is very hard to decipher whether he thought anything at all about the state in general.
Some countries for example the US believe in nationalism making the flag sacred, however they forget to realise that they in fact are made up of immigrants themselves. Great Britain have a good balance with nationalism because it is made up of four countries. These four countries have many different nationalities in them which means that nationalism is hard to believe in when there are so much ethnic groups that have rights in these countries. Muslims have no such thing as nationalism as they are divided from city to city with theological ideals. Whereas China is based on political allegiances being a very communist country. As you can see each state has its own ideas of nationalism and how there people have alliances with there state.
In the middle ages it was a different story it didn't fall with the modern belief of being completely loyal to your state. The politics of this time were different states were mostly controlled by religions, in Britain it was the Church. The church would often have to negotiate with land owners in politics which meant little wars were caused. Then we found 'civil society' in which we were protected from wars with education and health care given to us when we paid taxes which meant we were free to make our own choices with no influence from the state. Of course before this we were ruled by the King so the peoples loyalties lay with him, however when this collapses it makes way for a new era of loyalty to what the state is now. Nationalism at its worst can be unquestionably bad fighting for land and state because ethnic groups have the right.
Philosophers through time have wrote about nationalism of the state and most have come up with very different ideas about what nationalism is and what the state is.
Hobbes for instance believes that if people were left to their own devises they would become barbarians so they need the state to keep them in check. The idea of the 'artificial man', he believes that the state should be a 'war machine' where they fight people who rebel against the state and states who try to take over it. He believes that whatever the state decides should be law for the greater good no matter what this may be.
Rousseau however wrote the social contract in this he establishes that people already know what is right and what is wrong. They have the moral codes set in them from birth its whether they choose to listen to it. He believed the state should be where reigional differences aren't there having the state as a single voice. His opinions weren't religiously based but his argyment for this type of state means who would count? and who should be the single voice?
Hegel however believed solely in religion playing a big factor in the state saying that 'the state is God on earth'. He believed that the state was there to do Gods work, although stating that the state or nation weren't natural. He believed in the state having absolute power over the poeple because they were doing the job God wants them to do.
Hume is a varied philosopher who said 'authority is based on nothing but opinion' which is very hard to decipher whether he thought anything at all about the state in general.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
John Carey 'Intellectuals and the Masses'- Seminar
When I read Intellctuals and the Masses for the first time I couldn't help but notice that Carey seemed to abuse the masses as being illiterate idiots. He seemed to think that intellectuals should have a class of there own. The masses respond to forced kindness according to Carey, they are unknowable and unforgetable. Also with the demeening words to the masses he also includes woman saying that the intellectuals don't find them worthy. You see that Carey is quit frankly belittling the masses as nothing, well this is the first impression you get anyway.
When you begin to read on you discover that he somehow manages to also abuse the intellectuals, saying they are selfish and stuck in the past. They are seen as damaging to relations, I think Carey is saying that intellectuals and the masses aren't any better than the previous.
I think that Carey tries to show the readers both sides of the argument, he sits on the fence wanting to show both viewpoints. The reader may at first jump to the conclusion that he is on the side of the intellectuals but once read further I don't think this to be the case, I think he wants to give the readers something to think about to come up with their own idea. He says the prejudice between the masses and the intellectuals could resort to mass homicide, I think what he is doing is trying to reach out and put this into a new perspective. To resolve the issues both groups have with one another. He believes very much individualism which connects with my idea that he was sitting on the fence. If he believes in indiviual thinking then he can't take a particular side. I think the book is written well in the way that it isn't to hard for a normal person to read so you wouldn't have to be particularly intellectual to be able to understand it.
When you begin to read on you discover that he somehow manages to also abuse the intellectuals, saying they are selfish and stuck in the past. They are seen as damaging to relations, I think Carey is saying that intellectuals and the masses aren't any better than the previous.
I think that Carey tries to show the readers both sides of the argument, he sits on the fence wanting to show both viewpoints. The reader may at first jump to the conclusion that he is on the side of the intellectuals but once read further I don't think this to be the case, I think he wants to give the readers something to think about to come up with their own idea. He says the prejudice between the masses and the intellectuals could resort to mass homicide, I think what he is doing is trying to reach out and put this into a new perspective. To resolve the issues both groups have with one another. He believes very much individualism which connects with my idea that he was sitting on the fence. If he believes in indiviual thinking then he can't take a particular side. I think the book is written well in the way that it isn't to hard for a normal person to read so you wouldn't have to be particularly intellectual to be able to understand it.
Lecture-Hannah Ardent, Totalitarionism
In lecture we were told about WWII, the communist movement that took place at this time and Hannah Ardent.
The communist movement wouldn't work without slave labour so to do this they must fighten the people. They set up death camps around the villages and sent people in as though it was normal, to be killed. They either burnt them in a room or gassed them whichever was more convenient for them. There was a secret speech by Khrusev's who discussed Stalinism, Marxism and western intellectuals. He said that Stalinism wasn't communist enough for the party, he believed that he needed to take control of the people more, to make sure that they don't get their own ideas or thoughts.
Hannah Ardent was a philosopher during the war and after she wrote also whilst the war was on saying it was too horrible to write about. She believed in freedom of speech that everyone should think for themselves. She believed that everyone had their own mind and shouldn't just fall into place and let other people tell them what to do. 'Think don't just obey' were her famous words. She believed that everyone was responsible for the war and what took place because people didn't think about what they were doing. Eichman a train driver who took the prisoners to the camps, she believed he was guilty or murder because he just obeyed his orders and didn't think about where he was taking them. She believed this of everyone even from the cooks who fed the officers. She wanted people to see how wrong it was just to let somebody else run our life.
Phenomonolgy- 'Why is there something and not nothing' this expression means that before people think about a set of ideas they must think the ideas are and what makes them. This phrase could interpret what kind of philosopher Hannah was, she believed in fully thinking through your ideas, seeing what they are what they mean before doing something.
The communist movement wouldn't work without slave labour so to do this they must fighten the people. They set up death camps around the villages and sent people in as though it was normal, to be killed. They either burnt them in a room or gassed them whichever was more convenient for them. There was a secret speech by Khrusev's who discussed Stalinism, Marxism and western intellectuals. He said that Stalinism wasn't communist enough for the party, he believed that he needed to take control of the people more, to make sure that they don't get their own ideas or thoughts.
Hannah Ardent was a philosopher during the war and after she wrote also whilst the war was on saying it was too horrible to write about. She believed in freedom of speech that everyone should think for themselves. She believed that everyone had their own mind and shouldn't just fall into place and let other people tell them what to do. 'Think don't just obey' were her famous words. She believed that everyone was responsible for the war and what took place because people didn't think about what they were doing. Eichman a train driver who took the prisoners to the camps, she believed he was guilty or murder because he just obeyed his orders and didn't think about where he was taking them. She believed this of everyone even from the cooks who fed the officers. She wanted people to see how wrong it was just to let somebody else run our life.
Phenomonolgy- 'Why is there something and not nothing' this expression means that before people think about a set of ideas they must think the ideas are and what makes them. This phrase could interpret what kind of philosopher Hannah was, she believed in fully thinking through your ideas, seeing what they are what they mean before doing something.
James Joyces Ulysses
I looked at this book and found it oddly written, its written through the mind of Leonard and we see his imagination and thoughts, its modernity was suprising to see. The book took alot of Freuds ideas with the mind structure of Id, Ego and Superego. You can see through the book that Joyce believes the mind to be complex but working with these structures in mind he finds it to help with his character. I also think the way in which he portrays the different relationships in the book is very similar to Freuds theory, the son resenting his father is a key example of this. He talks of different religions a lot in the book not really believing in any, he seems not to like religion very much with the way he attacks it. To Leonard the Catholic Church is old fashioned so he doesn't believe it so he belittles it. You can see that he cares about what people think very much in the book and is careful about how he acts in public, the Ego is being used.
I think the main message of Ulysses is the human mind and how it works. I believe that the human mind is a complex thing and Leonard is just a usual man. The book seems so hard to read because you are reading it as though you were in the mind of someone else, so their thoughts baffle you because each person thinks in a different way. Our imaginations are also something that happen everyday so from reading this, when it goes from abstract to reality is hard, but the sheer modernity of this book is genius. Not everyone will get the book or particularly like it but it is something to be admired, it broke the line into being creative with your writing allowing the reader to take on a new role. I believe the book works really well as a text doing its job to keep the audience guessing.
I think the main message of Ulysses is the human mind and how it works. I believe that the human mind is a complex thing and Leonard is just a usual man. The book seems so hard to read because you are reading it as though you were in the mind of someone else, so their thoughts baffle you because each person thinks in a different way. Our imaginations are also something that happen everyday so from reading this, when it goes from abstract to reality is hard, but the sheer modernity of this book is genius. Not everyone will get the book or particularly like it but it is something to be admired, it broke the line into being creative with your writing allowing the reader to take on a new role. I believe the book works really well as a text doing its job to keep the audience guessing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)