Well, a bit of divergence this week, as the reading we're asked to cover includes Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Locke and more Locke, Berkeley and Hume.
However, the lecture concentrated almost exclusively on Spinoza and Locke, with a mention of Leibniz and a splash of Newton thrown in for good measure. I'll try and cover the essentials of both the reading and the lecture, if I should screw it up, please feel free to give (constructive) criticism...
Spinoza
Spinoza really interested me, what I took from reading about him in Bertrand Russell's book was the interchangeability of 'God or Nature'. The idea that any God out there is impersonal and simply the frame in which all tangible or intangible matter (however distant) can be known was thought-provoking for me. I certainly can't believe in a god that smites enemies or protects friends, but the idea that God=nature is certainly a harder to disprove theory. How would we know?
If my reading of Spinoza is correct, what he understands by 'God' is something that's outside of our knowledge that forms a part of everything that exists and is completely impersonal. This concept of what constitutes a 'God' is so different to the teachings of the Bible and other 'holy' books that I'm surprised that Spinoza wasn't stamped on more heavily by the church authorities of his time. Having said that, Bertrand Russell's book does state that Spinoza was excommunicated by the Jews and equally abhorred by the Christians (p459), so I'm exceptionally glad that his work has survived. In this light, the whole concept of 'God' changes away from being a caring paternal figure or smiter of evildoers, which, for me at least, has always been difficult to believe.
Spinoza's chief work was 'Ethics' which was published posthumously, but he also wrote Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus. Tractatus Theologico-Politicus was a combination of political theory and biblical criticism, while the Tractatus Politicus was pure political theory throughout.
Spinoza was originally from either Spain or Portugal, but came to Holland to escape the Inquisition. Unlike a large number of philosophers, he seemed uninterested in money, earning enough for his needs by polishing lenses for a living.
Spinoza's political theory had strong similarities to Hobbes 'Leviathan'. Spinoza (like Hobbes) believed that the Church should always have less authority than the state, and that once a sovereign was chosen, that they can do no wrong. He does not believe in rebellion, even against a ruler that abuses their power and does not govern in the interests of their people. However, he did not share Hobbes view that the people had to share their rulers point of view on all subjects, Spinoza believed in freedom of opinion on an individual level.
Spinoza and Hobbes also differed in their views on 'Nature'. Hobbes believed that if people were left in a state of nature (e.g. without government) that life would be a war of 'all vs. all' and would become 'nasty, brutish and short'. Spinoza however, believes that people in a state of nature will attempt to follow natural laws as a matter of course, and will only act outside of these natural laws in instances where they are forced to act in such a manner by circumstances outside of their own control.
Spinoza died early at the age of 43 of a condition called phthisis (a wasting disease, similar in nature to tuberculosis).
Leibniz
The next individual studied was Liebniz, who is either completely nuts, or I've misinterpreted what he was trying to get at, which is entirely possible. If I've understood what Liebniz meant correctly, he does not believe that a substance can have the attribute of extension, because extension is only applicable where there are a 'plural' number of substances. As such he believes that rather than there being a number of different substances that are then subject to extension, he believes that each and every substance that exists is unique, and that there are an infinite number of substances. Leibniz calls these substances monads, and believes (somehow) that each monad is a soul. I'm not clear how he got there, and I'm afraid I'm not personally willing to invest the time in reading his original work to find out.
Far more positively in regard to Liebniz, he actually produced a great deal of important mathematical work, which unfortunately he never published. If he had published this work, he would have been considered the father of mathematical logic. Unfortunately, he did not publish this work and another 150 years passed before mathematical logic was understood and used. His reason for not publishing this work, was that it provided evidence that Aristotle's doctrine of the syllogism was wrong on some points. Leibniz's respect for Aristotle meant that he could not accept that Aristotle may have been wrong, and that the errors must be within his own work.
Leibniz was a contemporary of Spinoza and the two met and discussed philosophy, although Leibniz hid the extent of his fraternisation with Spinoza from his peers, due to Spinoza being largely disowned by polite society of the time. Unlike Spinoza, Leibniz was keen to be associated with wealth and privilege and actively courted the attention of wealthy patrons.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Friday, 1 October 2010
HCJ Lecture 1 - 28/07/2010
The subject of this lecture was the Renaissance, a period that began in the 14th century in the Italian city of Florence, and spread throughout Europe (in a slightly modified form) over the course of the 15th Century.
Italy at the time of the Renaissance was divided into competing city 'states' that were in an ongoing state of war with each other. Over time, these states became ruled by families, such as the Visconti family in Milan, that ruled from 1277 to 1477, or the Medici family of Florence who gained control of Florence with Cosimo dei Medici. The Medici family helped to make Florence one of the richest and most powerful cities in Italy through a combination of political savvy and business nous.
In particular, they managed to find a way around the laws laid down by the church that prevented Christians from charging interest on any money lent to other Christians. To get around these laws, they would make a loan in one currency, but expect the loan to be repaid in a different currency. In this way, either by performing the currency conversion at a rate favourable to themselves, or charging an 'admin fee', for performing the conversion between currencies, they were able to continue to make a profit on money lent.
It was the power and independence of the families ruling these city states, as well as a short-lived humanist streak in the church where a number of humanist popes were chosen, that allowed and encouraged the study of texts outside of those that had traditionally been considered suitable or necessary.
Nicholas V (1447-55) is known to have given positions to scholars whom he respected, regardless of the orthodoxy of their teachings. This new found freedom allowed for the study of Greek texts that had long been neglected, and encouraged much discussion and argument on the subjects of Aristotle and Plato.
These ancient Greek philosophers had different areas of focus in their writings. Plato believed that the world that our limited senses could perceive was but a poor imitation of a perfect world, and the items contained within it were shadows of the ideal of each object.
Aristotle on the other hand was much more interested in the tangible, and while he retained Plato's desire to find a 'universal truth', he was also much interested by the physical world, devoting a large amount of time to study of the world about him as viewed through the senses.
An extract from Phaedrus (276c) that I find most interesting, given the understandable importance attached to Plato's works is the following:
Socrates - And shall we suppose that he who has knowledge of the just and the good and beautiful has less sense about his seeds than the husbandman?
Phaedrus - By no means.
Socrates - Then he will not, when in earnest, write them in ink, sowing them through a pen with words which cannot defend themselves by argument and cannot teach the truth effectually.
In particular, they managed to find a way around the laws laid down by the church that prevented Christians from charging interest on any money lent to other Christians. To get around these laws, they would make a loan in one currency, but expect the loan to be repaid in a different currency. In this way, either by performing the currency conversion at a rate favourable to themselves, or charging an 'admin fee', for performing the conversion between currencies, they were able to continue to make a profit on money lent.
It was the power and independence of the families ruling these city states, as well as a short-lived humanist streak in the church where a number of humanist popes were chosen, that allowed and encouraged the study of texts outside of those that had traditionally been considered suitable or necessary.
Nicholas V (1447-55) is known to have given positions to scholars whom he respected, regardless of the orthodoxy of their teachings. This new found freedom allowed for the study of Greek texts that had long been neglected, and encouraged much discussion and argument on the subjects of Aristotle and Plato.
These ancient Greek philosophers had different areas of focus in their writings. Plato believed that the world that our limited senses could perceive was but a poor imitation of a perfect world, and the items contained within it were shadows of the ideal of each object.
Aristotle on the other hand was much more interested in the tangible, and while he retained Plato's desire to find a 'universal truth', he was also much interested by the physical world, devoting a large amount of time to study of the world about him as viewed through the senses.
An extract from Phaedrus (276c) that I find most interesting, given the understandable importance attached to Plato's works is the following:
Socrates - And shall we suppose that he who has knowledge of the just and the good and beautiful has less sense about his seeds than the husbandman?
Phaedrus - By no means.
Socrates - Then he will not, when in earnest, write them in ink, sowing them through a pen with words which cannot defend themselves by argument and cannot teach the truth effectually.
The above, effectively arguing that the written word is of no use except when backed up by somebody who knows the true meaning of the words and can argue on their behalf, does make me wonder how well we know what Socrates, Plato and Aristotle actually meant. Especially when you consider both the risk of errors in translation as the original work was translated then re-translated from language to language. There is also the risk of words changing meaning over time as frequently happens in English,
For example, when Plato argues that the senses are imperfect, our science has already proven this to be true. Even with the senses we possess, we are aware that there are frequencies that cannot be heard by human ear and that there are creatures too small to be detected by the human eye. In addition there are forms of radiation and energy that we use, but simply do not have a mechanism to detect. Do any of us see, taste, touch, hear or smell mobile phone or radio signals that are all around us? (Unless it's actually us on the phone or listening to the radio)
However, his claim that tangible objects are shadows of an ideal object, seems fanciful and far-fetched. The object used for demonstration in the lecture I attended was a chair. The idea of there being a 'divine chair' somewhere seems comical and ridiculous when looked at in today's society, armed with the knowledge that we have now.
It was however, the renewed investigation of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, with the blessing of the wealthy families running the city states of Italy, in particular the Medici family in Florence, that allowed the Renaissance to occur.
The Renaissance itself did not bring any new important 'theoretical' philosophers to the foreground. Being concerned mainly with looking back at the work of the Greeks and combining that work with the teachings of the Church, meant that there was not a great deal of original thinking taking place, rather the bulk of effort appeared to be being made in reconciling the ideas of Aristotle and Plato with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. However, the freedoms granted by the Renaissance did allow a leap forward in art and literature. Art of the period still deals almost exclusively with religious subjects, but changes dramatically in style over the course of the Renaissance. Pre-Renaissance, art depicted holy figures and scenes in a symbolic style, with figures represented as icons. Post-Renaissance, figures were depicted as human, drawn with elaborate care and often showing the great beauty of their subjects. This change in artistic style is the first visual sign of 'humanism'.
It was during the Renaissance that Machiavelli wrote his seminal work, 'The Prince'. Intended as a 'How To' Guide for those who sought power, it has become famous as much for what it doesn't say as what it does. Historically it was considered shocking for not giving any moral instruction within its pages, it gave simple practical advice on how to obtain power and how to keep power without beseeching the reader to use their power for good. It is not averse to recommending action that could be considered morally dubious, but does offer advice on how to minimise the harm to yourself if you should take action that could be questioned morally.
Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' while effectively exiled to his country home by the Medici family when they came back into power in 1512. The book was dedicated to Lorenzo The Second, in an apparently vain attempt to bring himself back into favour with the Medici, who he had previously opposed. Machiavelli had held a minor position in the government that preceded the Medici's return to power, and so was viewed with suspicion.
While Machiavelli was in his twenties, a man named Savonarola, who railed against the lack of morality and religion in the Renaissance came to power. While Savonarola had a lot of popular support, he had no support amongst the army and was eventually imprisoned and executed. This is believed to have led directly to Machiavelli's line in The Prince that 'all armed prophets have conquered and all unarmed ones failed'.
Over time the teachings of the Renaissance spread to Northern Europe, although they were not associated with the same lapses in morality that occurred in Italy. Indeed over time the weakened moral and spiritual authority of the humanist Popes, caused a backlash, starting with Pope Leo X (1513-21) which in turn caused the beginnings of the Reformation.
Machiavelli died in 1527, the same year that Rome was sacked by Protestants. It is generally believed that the Renaissance paved the way for the next generation of philosophers, and that while Machiavelli's work could almost be considered in the light of a political work, rather than a philosophical one, it was nevertheless important in allowing future generations to speculate on possibilities that would previously have been considered completely taboo.
The philosopher who seems to have benefited most from the Renaissance and the ideas re-introduced and discussed during this time is Rene Descartes, who was not born until 1596, almost a hundred years later. Often considered the founder of modern philosophy. He was the first philosopher to take into account the advances in physics and astronomy, and more importantly the first philosopher to try and tear down everything that had previously been 'known' and start again from scratch.
His most famous phrase 'cogito ergo sum', translates as 'I think, therefore I am'. In discarding all of the things that Descartes had previously thought he knew, he had to start with the very basic building blocks of knowledge. One of the first questions that arose was 'How do I know that I exist?'. His answer to this question was that there was an 'I' that had had that thought, therefore he must exist. It should be noted that this only actually proves that the mind exists, it does not provide any proof that the body or external senses are not illusory or dreamt.
For me, Descartes is spoilt by his need to cling to the idea of a perfect being or a God, which he claimed remained in his mind after he had stripped out everything that he thought he knew.. He also appears to regard animals as automata and humans as somehow set apart, which again is a belief that doesn't really stand up to scientific scrutiny in the modern age, while being more understandable and forgiveable in the 17th Century.
Descartes system of stripping back knowledge is known as 'Cartesian doubt'. It is in essence, the practice of asking yourself 'What do I really know?' and stripping away anything that you do not know as cold hard fact. It should be useful to all journalists, although if you haven't already read Nick Davies excellent book 'Flat Earth News', it is worth doing so to see why you might not get as much opportunity to apply it as you'd like...
For example, when Plato argues that the senses are imperfect, our science has already proven this to be true. Even with the senses we possess, we are aware that there are frequencies that cannot be heard by human ear and that there are creatures too small to be detected by the human eye. In addition there are forms of radiation and energy that we use, but simply do not have a mechanism to detect. Do any of us see, taste, touch, hear or smell mobile phone or radio signals that are all around us? (Unless it's actually us on the phone or listening to the radio)
However, his claim that tangible objects are shadows of an ideal object, seems fanciful and far-fetched. The object used for demonstration in the lecture I attended was a chair. The idea of there being a 'divine chair' somewhere seems comical and ridiculous when looked at in today's society, armed with the knowledge that we have now.
It was however, the renewed investigation of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, with the blessing of the wealthy families running the city states of Italy, in particular the Medici family in Florence, that allowed the Renaissance to occur.
The Renaissance itself did not bring any new important 'theoretical' philosophers to the foreground. Being concerned mainly with looking back at the work of the Greeks and combining that work with the teachings of the Church, meant that there was not a great deal of original thinking taking place, rather the bulk of effort appeared to be being made in reconciling the ideas of Aristotle and Plato with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. However, the freedoms granted by the Renaissance did allow a leap forward in art and literature. Art of the period still deals almost exclusively with religious subjects, but changes dramatically in style over the course of the Renaissance. Pre-Renaissance, art depicted holy figures and scenes in a symbolic style, with figures represented as icons. Post-Renaissance, figures were depicted as human, drawn with elaborate care and often showing the great beauty of their subjects. This change in artistic style is the first visual sign of 'humanism'.
It was during the Renaissance that Machiavelli wrote his seminal work, 'The Prince'. Intended as a 'How To' Guide for those who sought power, it has become famous as much for what it doesn't say as what it does. Historically it was considered shocking for not giving any moral instruction within its pages, it gave simple practical advice on how to obtain power and how to keep power without beseeching the reader to use their power for good. It is not averse to recommending action that could be considered morally dubious, but does offer advice on how to minimise the harm to yourself if you should take action that could be questioned morally.
Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' while effectively exiled to his country home by the Medici family when they came back into power in 1512. The book was dedicated to Lorenzo The Second, in an apparently vain attempt to bring himself back into favour with the Medici, who he had previously opposed. Machiavelli had held a minor position in the government that preceded the Medici's return to power, and so was viewed with suspicion.
While Machiavelli was in his twenties, a man named Savonarola, who railed against the lack of morality and religion in the Renaissance came to power. While Savonarola had a lot of popular support, he had no support amongst the army and was eventually imprisoned and executed. This is believed to have led directly to Machiavelli's line in The Prince that 'all armed prophets have conquered and all unarmed ones failed'.
Over time the teachings of the Renaissance spread to Northern Europe, although they were not associated with the same lapses in morality that occurred in Italy. Indeed over time the weakened moral and spiritual authority of the humanist Popes, caused a backlash, starting with Pope Leo X (1513-21) which in turn caused the beginnings of the Reformation.
Machiavelli died in 1527, the same year that Rome was sacked by Protestants. It is generally believed that the Renaissance paved the way for the next generation of philosophers, and that while Machiavelli's work could almost be considered in the light of a political work, rather than a philosophical one, it was nevertheless important in allowing future generations to speculate on possibilities that would previously have been considered completely taboo.
The philosopher who seems to have benefited most from the Renaissance and the ideas re-introduced and discussed during this time is Rene Descartes, who was not born until 1596, almost a hundred years later. Often considered the founder of modern philosophy. He was the first philosopher to take into account the advances in physics and astronomy, and more importantly the first philosopher to try and tear down everything that had previously been 'known' and start again from scratch.
His most famous phrase 'cogito ergo sum', translates as 'I think, therefore I am'. In discarding all of the things that Descartes had previously thought he knew, he had to start with the very basic building blocks of knowledge. One of the first questions that arose was 'How do I know that I exist?'. His answer to this question was that there was an 'I' that had had that thought, therefore he must exist. It should be noted that this only actually proves that the mind exists, it does not provide any proof that the body or external senses are not illusory or dreamt.
For me, Descartes is spoilt by his need to cling to the idea of a perfect being or a God, which he claimed remained in his mind after he had stripped out everything that he thought he knew.. He also appears to regard animals as automata and humans as somehow set apart, which again is a belief that doesn't really stand up to scientific scrutiny in the modern age, while being more understandable and forgiveable in the 17th Century.
Descartes system of stripping back knowledge is known as 'Cartesian doubt'. It is in essence, the practice of asking yourself 'What do I really know?' and stripping away anything that you do not know as cold hard fact. It should be useful to all journalists, although if you haven't already read Nick Davies excellent book 'Flat Earth News', it is worth doing so to see why you might not get as much opportunity to apply it as you'd like...