Kant and Hegel

Kant (1724-1804) was educated to believe in Leibniz, but rejected Leibniz's teachings in favour of Rousseau and Hume.  Kant considered Hume an enemy, and it was in partly in order to be able to reject Hume's teachings that Kant worked to master his own philosophy.

Rousseau had a much deeper effect on Kant, inflaming Kant's liberal leanings and causing him to embrace the ideas of the Romantics when forming his own philosophy.

Kant's most important work is generally considered to be 'The Critique of Pure Reason', which was first published in 1781.  Of particular importance are Kant's views on space and time.  Kant argues that each object that exists, does so partly due to the external object itself, but partly due to our perceptive apparatus (eyes, ears etc.)  He holds that all of the qualities of an object are subjective.  Kant calls the act of perceiving an object a phenomenon, which he claims can be split into two parts.  First, is the part of the phenomenon that is due to the object itself, which he describes as the sensation.  Secondly, there is the part that is due to our subjective apparatus, which Kant describes as the form of the phenomenon.

Kant states that the form is not part of the sensation, and that as it is with us at all times, it is a priori as it is not dependent upon our personal experiences.  In fact, Kant argues that both time and space are a priori knowledge, which is an interesting viewpoint.

Personally, I am not certain that I was born with a pre-existing knowledge of time, though it must surely be one of the first things of which every sentient creature becomes aware.  If time and space did exist a priori in the human mind, how is it that among the many different disorders with which the human mind can be afflicted, there is no evidence of a condition which leaves the sufferer with a different interpretation of time to the norm?  I find it difficult to believe that this knowledge could be  in a part of the brain so resistant to injury that there is not one recorded case of a person becoming 'chronologically dislocated'.

The absence of any scientific evidence to support this theory, even after many years of detailed medical histories being recorded on the majority of psychiatric and head trauma patients, suggest that Kant is wrong on this point.  In fact the closest point of reference I can find to this idea is Old Mother Dismass in Witches Abroad.  (I apologise to those allergic to Terry Pratchett)

Moving from Kant to Hegel, Georg Hegel (1770-1831) was a critic of Kant, who nevertheless relied on Kant for a starting point in his philosophy.  Hegel believed that there was a 'whole' that was purely spiritual, and that Hegel calls 'the Absolute'.  In Hegel's view, nothing is real except 'the Absolute', and everything else is just a facet of the Absolute.  Given that nothing but the Absolute is real according to Hegel, everything that is can be determined by using Hegel's most famous contribution to modern philosophy, which is the dialectic.  Hegel stated that a dialectic consisted of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

For example, if you state 'the Absolute is a sister.', that becomes a thesis.  However, the fact that there is a sister implies that there is at least one sibling, so the antithesis of this would be to conclude 'The absolute is a sibling.'  As this antithesis contradicts the thesis, it is then necessary to form a synthesis that encompasses both the thesis and antithesis, such as 'The absolute is a sister and a sibling.'

The above is still clearly incomplete, as the existence of a sister and a sibling implies that there must be a Mother (and a Father) as well, so a new thesis must be formed.  In Hegel's view, if you carried this step by step through to its logical conclusion, you would have catalogued everything that exists within the Absolute.

Dialectics may be an OCD list-maker's dream, but is of little practical use as has been proven when used by Marx to formulate his political theories on what the future would look like, as it takes no account of the whims and desires of humanity.

It should also be noted that Hegel was fiercely nationalistic, glorifying Germany to the point of idolisation.  Despite this, Hegel contended that America was where the final embodiment of the 'Absolute Idea' would reveal itself, "perhaps in a contest between North and South America".  Hegel greatly admired conquering heroes, and spoke of the ability of individuals with the ability to shape world history.  Examples given by Hegel included Caesar and Napoleon, suggesting that Hegel valued military prowess over other thinkers.

Rousseau - Romanticism

Rousseau (1712-1778) was born in Geneva, but came to France in 1743, when after a quarrel with his employer (the French Ambassador to Venice) over unpaid wages, he travelled to Paris to obtain justice for himself.

His first literary work was not published until 1950, it was an essay on the question:  'Have The Arts and Sciences conferred benefits on mankind?'.  Rousseau argued that they had not, and did so with such success that he was awarded the prize.

Rousseau's argument was that science, letters and the arts were the enemy of morals, and that by creating desires in people, they led away from a peoples 'natural' state of being.  Believing that science and virtue were incompatible, Rousseau argued that the 'noble savage' was the closest to a human ideal, and that everything that made up civilisation was to be despised and deplored, as it led to great evil.

Rousseau followed up his first essay with a second entitled 'Discourse on Inequality' which was published in 1754.  In this he stated 'man is naturally good, and only by institutions is he made bad'.  Rousseau sent the essay to his contemporary Voltaire, who responded 'I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it.  Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid.  One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours.'

Rousseau's belief in natural instinct over rational thought is still very much with us today and used frequently in advertising and by politicians, when making an appeal to the emotion, rather than logic.  Just as one example, watch this advertisement for a mobile phone, in which some overly photogenic young people frolic in a variety of settings, while the voice-over extols the virtues of impatience.  Do we believe that it was impatience that led to the development of that mobile phone?  Or is it possible that hundreds of years of scientific advance have contributed towards this particular device?

Rousseau's most important work was his 'Social Contract', published in 1762.  In which he speaks of 'general will' in relation to democracy.  Rousseau also speaks of 'The Sovereign', in this work, but does not mean an individual, such as a king or leader.  Instead he means that the people of a state, will form the sovereign and determine the general will.

Rousseau's democracy is a 'true' democracy, where all the people of the state come together to form the sovereign and determine what the 'general will' might be.  In Rousseau's world, this could lead to somebody who held a viewpoint that ran contrary to the general will, being 'forced to be free'.  E.g. being forced to act contrary to their own will and inclination.

Rousseau's argument for this system, was that if each individual is forced to vote alone, acting only for their own self-interest, then the result of such a vote, would be the best possible outcome for the state as a whole, as the majority of people would have their interests looked after.

The obvious downside of such an approach, would be that anybody who's viewpoint differed from the general will, would be forced to follow the general will, or presumably leave the state.  I do not believe that Rousseau himself offered any alternative to following the general will.

The Daily Mash

Just for fun this one, but I love the Daily Mash and try and spread the good word when I can.  This particular article is my favourite of the year and links in nicely with my thoughts on journalism in Britain at the present time.  It should be noted that the below are my personal thoughts and opinions now at the beginning of the course, and it will be interesting to see how they differ by the end....

As somebody on the first year of a course that will hopefully lead me into the world of journalism, what am I heading towards?  To be honest, the future seems bleak.  As far as I can tell, none of the broadsheets seem to have retained any appetite for real investigative journalism.  While this is almost certainly down to the cost of it (time is money and we're in an environment of falling sales and thus falling advertising revenue) you'd hope the proprietors would realise that a paper that doesn't offer anything meaningful to read is no longer fit for purpose.

Watching from the outside it almost seems as if investigative journalism is seen as 'bad form', and there's been a gentleman's agreement not to do any.

Nick Davies suggests in his 'Flat Earth News' that a large number of articles published today are rewrites or even verbatim reprints of items from the Press Association wire, printed without any serious checking or research taking place before being pushed out for the next edition.  Especially in the financial services and technical world, I often see the same 'article' reprinted verbatim on multiple sites, which is clearly just a press release being regurgitated.  As somebody hoping to enter the industry, it's a worry.  I don't want to earn a living copying and pasting other people's press releases.

TV news is also of quite a poor quality in the UK at present..  Channel 4 news is, in my opinion, the best of the current crop, while the BBC and Sky compete in their attempts to repeat the fewest possible number of articles the largest number of times across our screens, in headlines sized for the hard of thinking.

The BBC is (I suspect) actually a large part of why it's so difficult to make money from news in the UK.  As much as I love the BBC, how can any private enterprise compete against an organisation that is essentially funded by a tax on owning a TV set, and that is able to maintain such a strong news team and web presence?

So, should I look for a job at the BBC?  If Flat Earth News is correct, only if I want a job that is effectively typing.  Nick Davies alleges that on 9th December 2005, Rod Liddle wrote a memo to the online news team suggesting that breaking news should be up on the website within five minutes.  That five minutes was supposed to be enough time to write a one-liner for the website ticker, send an email to the news desk to alert them to the story, write a four paragraph 'stub' article to put on the website and perform any necessary checking.  (p69 Davies, 2008)

How much checking do you think you could do in those five minutes?  Unless the story was extremely straightforward , I couldn't vouch for a story's accuracy under those circumstances.  Given that part of the BBC's recent settlement under George Osborne's spending review is that they have to limit their local news reporting (sorry for linking to the Mirror) I'm not convinced that things will be getting any easier there either.

All this could potentially leave me a bit gloomy about future job prospects, but I'm not despairing just yet.  I've got two and a bit more years at university during which the situation will continue to change, and if nobody else has worked it out by the time I finish, then I'll have to find a financial backer and do something about it myself....

Happy New Year!


References:
Davies, Nick (2008) Flat Earth News, London:  Vintage Books

Jonathan Swift and Adam Smith - Biting Satire and Bean Counting

My turn for the seminar this week, so I am writing up the lecture and reading a bit earlier than usual.

First up, Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) and his extremely amusing 'A Modest Proposal', which is his tongue in cheek proposal of ridding Ireland of its surplus of beggar children by fattening them up and then selling them for slaughter as a foodstuff.  Swift expounds his theory at great length and seemingly in earnest, citing its benefits as ridding the country of papists, making husbands fond of their pregnant wives (and not beating or kicking them for fear of causing miscarriage) as well as introducing a new and delicious national dish.

His frustration with the current rule of Ireland is expressed when he lists the commonly discussed political solutions to Ireland's problems, and then says '...let no man speak to me of these and the like expedients, 'till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.'

Swift also rails against the import of foreign fineries that Ireland cannot afford (this has suddenly become topical again) and asks of critics of his proposal:

'I desire the author or authors will be pleased maturely to consider two points.

First, as things now stand, how will they be able to find food and rainment for a hundred thousand useless mouths and backs.

And secondly, there being a round million of creatures in humane figure throughout this kingdom, whose whole subsistence put into a common stock, would leave them in debt two million of pounds sterling, adding those who are beggars by profession, to the bulk of farmers, cottagers and labourers, with their wives and children, who are beggars in effect; I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food at a year old, in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through...'

This is a savage and direct attack on Ireland's ruling class, couched in humour, but with serious intent.

From my own experience in life, the closest I can find to a modern equivalent to this essay is the (un)popular magazine Private Eye, which is currently edited by Ian Hislop (previously edited by Peter Cook) and can often offer a similarly savage satirical outlook on real world problems.

From Jonathan Swift, we move on to the slightly less humorous topic of Adam Smith.

Adam Smith is widely considered to be the father of economics in Britain, opposing the prevailing economic theory of the day, which was mercantilism.  Mercantilism was effectively the idea that wealth was generated in order to be attributed to your king or state and existed to enrich the state.

Smith argued that wealth created by an individual should be attributed to that individual, and that although such self-interest would appear to be completely self-serving, in fact the natural greed of people so enriched would cause money to flow away from them and toward the larger community as a matter of course.

Smith argues that government intervention, however well meaning, usually ends in a skewed market and effectively works against the general population.  As such, Smith is very much a believer in true free market economics.  It should be noted that although there is a popular misconception that we have free market economics at present, this is not in fact the case.  America, Europe and others are all guilty of offering significant subsidies to what they consider key industries, therefore preventing fair competition between nations.

Smith divides the wealth of a nation into several different categories.  Firstly (and most importantly) Smith argues, are the raw materials created by farming (and implicitly mining although this is not specifically mentioned)  Smith argues that the surplus that is not required for feeding the farmers and their workers will go to the nearest town in order to be traded for manufactured goods that are produced in the town.  The second stage as far as Smith is concerned, is the trade of manufactured goods, whether that be back to the country that provided the raw materials, or to people within the town.  Lastly, is the export of surplus goods to other nations.  Smith argues that this is the least attractive of the three options, due to the requirement to entrust the goods to people at the other side who they do not personally know, and therefore whose character they cannot gauge.  This is less the case in modern times, due to the convenience of air travel and technologies such as email and web-conferencing.  However, it is still considered easier to determine the trustworthiness of your neighbour, than it is to determine the trustworthiness of somebody on the other side of the world.

Smith was also influential in pointing out that slavery was an inefficient form of labour, as it caused the slaves tending the land to do the absolute minimum necessary to ensure that they remained fed and housed.  Smith argued that unless those who tend the land have a vested interest in maximising its output (e.g. they profit from an increase in the lands productivity) then there is no incentive to develop the land to maximise its productivity.

As such, Smith was very much in favour of the idea of farmers being 'free men', as he believed that only by allowing the farmer to retain a proportion of the profit of his labour, could they be induced to work harder than the minimum, and take an active interest in how the land was cultivated and developed.  It should be noted that Smith made no moral argument for the abolition of slavery, his reasoning was purely pragmatic.

Smith's arguments are by and large practical, and from the point of view of pure economy, one can see their persuasiveness.  However, they completely fail to take into consideration any subjective notions of quality, or allow for circumstances in which one or a few individuals have been able to amass enough wealth or influence to effectively control entire markets.

For example, if Smith's ideas were followed to their logical conclusion, the only eggs on sale in the UK would be battery-farmed eggs, as these would provide the maximum profit to landowners.  All farming would be intensive, with the land 'developed' to the maximum of its potential.

Smith also makes no differentiation between the farmer and those who work for him.  There is no intimation in Smith's works that wealth generated for the farmer would (or should) flow down to the labourers who enable the farmer to manage the farm and bring in the harvest.

Lastly, while it is pedantic to criticise an author for not having prescience, Smith did not foresee an era during which merchants were able to hold entire nations to ransom, based on their ability to move manufacturing from one country to another, based on whomsoever had the laxest labour protection laws or weakest unions.

It would be interesting to know how Smith would view our modern world of subsidised farming and multinational corporations.

For those who have never read it, I would recommend reading Robert Tressell's 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists', which gives the view from an individual without influence from the lower or middle classes.  It is clear from Smith's writings that he has had a privileged upbringing, and Tressell (in the form of a fictional novel) gives a view that helps to balance Smith's optimism in the free market model.

In the modern age there are many economists and journalists who specialise in economics and business.  However, it is likely that for those who do not take an active interest in such things, that Robert Peston may be the only journalist of this ilk that you have come across.  Robert Peston is the Business Editor for the BBC, and his coverage of the 'Credit Crunch' was some of the most viewed, read and analysed within the UK.  While there are specialist publications such as the Financial Times or CityWire available to those who keep an eye on the markets, Peston is the closest that the UK has to an 'economist for the rest of us'.

Enquiry concerning human understanding - David Hume (1711-1776)

David Hume (1711-1176) was an influential philosopher whose Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding continues to influence philosophers to this day.

One of the central tenets of Hume's work was 'Inductive Inference', the ability to take observed behaviour of the interaction between objects, and apply those observations to make assumptions on how those objects interact when unobserved.

Hume argues that cause and effect can only be known by experience, you could not look at match if you had never seen one before, and deduce that striking it against a matchbox would cause it to burst into flame.

Neither could you conclusively make that connection if you had only ever once seen a match struck against a matchbox.  There may have been something specific about that one match or one matchbox that could not be repeated.

Hume argues that it is only repeated experience of striking the match against the matchbox and a flame appearing that allows the mind to form a belief (based on experience) that a flame will form each time a new match is struck.

Hume wants us to examine whether we actually 'know' that when you strike a match against a matchbox, a flame will appear.  Hume argues that we don't.  We have an expectation that this will happen, and this expectation is caused by our having observed this behaviour multiple times in the past.

Hume argues that although we have this expectation that the previously observed sequence of events will occur the next time we strike a match, we do not actually have a reason to expect this.

Hume's arguments have been described as 'sceptical'  by Russell (1946, p528) but are still considered as worthy of argument in the modern day.  Certainly they have caused me to re-evaluate the difference between what I think I know, and what I actually know.  There's a depressingly large gap...

Joseph Addison and early journalism

The lecture (and presumably the seminar which I couldn't attend) focused on Joseph Addison and early journalism, a time during which philosophy and journalism as we know it today are joined.

The central technological advance that allowed the printed word to be disseminated widely, was the Gutenberg printing press,  This allowed copies of written work to be speedily and cheaply produced.  Prior to this invention, to copy a written work took a room full of monks (for it was almost exclusively monks who 'copied' works such as the bible)

Johannes Gutenburg (1398-1468) is credited with the creation of the printing press.  It took a long time for its usage to spread across Europe to the point of England having a daily paper though.

'The Daily Courant' was first published on 11th March 1702.  It lasted until 1735.  The Spectator, that still exists today was first published in 1828 and still exists today.

When reading Joseph Addison's works, the first thing that struck me was how similar they are to the 'opinion' columns of modern journalism.  You know the columnists who rarely deal in facts, but instead are tasked with putting their views across in a way that the majority find amusing.  Addison struck me as being in exactly this vein.

To me, this was interesting as I'd always assumed that this type of 'lifestyle' journalism was a fairly recent invention.  Instead it appears that it was there from the very beginning.

Locke'd out - HCJ Lecture 2

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.