Dear HCJ

I have decided that by the Verification Principle none of what HCJ is about can either be verified or falsified as it is all philosophical opinion and therefore it is meaningless!

Please may you excuse me from the test?! :)

Yours sincerely,
Claire

Seminar - Ludwig Wittgenstein

After hearing the seminar papers (which were both very good) we raised a few questions.

1. Would it really be possible for a logically perfect language?
Wouldn't this mean that everybody would have to start from scratch...and that would be near impossible. People would rebel. Modern technology such as social networking sites and mobile phones have caused a new wave of text language and abbreviations like 'LOL' for laugh out loud which would make it even harder for people to change their language when the technology some learnt it from is still around. Would it mean getting rid of our technological advances?

2. Pain.
We talked about pain - how do we feel pain? I know something hurts because I can feel it, it feels unpleasant...but how do we KNOW it hurts? WE WERE TAUGHT IT.
Through language and teaching we all know if something hurts or is going to be painful - but different cultures believe different things about pain.
For example women from Ethiopia when giving birth remain very quiet compared to women from Israel (and probably the rest of the world!) are particularly vocal. The Ethiopian women have been taught to deal with pain in a different way.




Here is my seminar paper:

Ludwig Wittgenstein has been described as ‘one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century’.[1] An Austrian philosopher who’s book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is concerned with the conditions which would have to be fulfilled by a logically perfect language.

The book was popular with the Logical Positivists as it spoke about the Verification Theory. This is a theory which says that if a sentence does not make logical sense then it is meaningless. I have found this mission statement from a university which I believe is nonsense as not all of it can be proven to be true.

‘We lead on strategic planning for the recruitment and progression of home fees students to the University of Westminster, we establish pre-entry mechanisms that contribute to the educational attainment of learners to and within the University and set in place a plan for awareness raising about opportunities at HE for all learners who have the motivation and ability to attain. Many of the activities under Widening Participation fall within its remit.’

Wittgenstein wants a logically perfect language. Is this even possible?! We would have to scrap everything we have ever learned at start again, but of course some people would disagree and fight against any change so it would be impossible to get everyone together. With the modern technology we have now such as social networking sites and blogs our language is ever developing faster than before with text language and abbreviations like ‘LOL’ for laugh out loud. We’re moving too fast to go back to the beginning.

Many people enjoyed reading Wittgenstein’s book and in particular George Orwell took his ideas of language and put them into his book 1984. About the USSR who removed certain words and letters from the alphabet to try and stop discrimination. Their theory; if there are no bad words in language then they cannot be used therefore stopping discrimination. They also thought that by having control over the language they would have control over people’s minds.

The preface begins with “this book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it—or similar thoughts.” I don’t think this is a good way to begin the book; for someone like me who has not already had such thoughts it deters me away from reading it. I want to be invited in to learn and understand as I read not be told that I will only understand if I have had previous thoughts about the subject. An example of how language can push people away.

5.621 The world and life are one. I do not really understand what he means by this statement but I thought it was beautiful.

According to Bertrand Russell ‘the essential business of language is to assert or deny facts’, I do not agree with this. The point of language is to communicate with people, to tell stories and to share emotions. I do understand that this does involve fact telling but I believe that the facts are secondary to the language. We don’t all think ‘I must speak facts or deny others in order to have a conversation’ we just have a conversation. However he does then say that facts are essential to be able to have interesting conversations.

---

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/

Lecture - Orwell

As always my mind was left a boggle of information after attending another History and Context lecture! We looked a little at the book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (as we're looking at for our seminars) and we talked mostly about the author George Orwell.

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus looks a little at the Verification Principle. It suggests that unless you can prove a statement to be true then it is meaningless.

'What is language? Language is everything. Everything is language.'

Orwell was a journalist, broadcaster and socialist who wrote three novels; most famously 1984. He has said to be of the same thinking as Hannah Arendt.

"Speech Act" -
1. Thought takes place in purely linguistic terms
2. Control language, and you can control thought
Therefore: mind control (may be) possible through manipulation of language

USSR = 'linguistic reform'

• Certain words were banned
• Certain letters were changed or removed from the alphabet
• In favor of a 'politically correct' language
• Theory that removing certain words would remove racial discrimination
• They invented new words such as 'agitprop'

Language is like plastic, it can be moulded and reshaped

Orwell said never to use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech and never to use long words where a short word would do.

An example of pure vocalisation:
'The school aims to be at the leading edge of interprofesional education, practise and research for health, social care and complimentary therepies'

QUACK QUACK QUACK!! It all means nothing!

Seminar- The New Journalism, Tom Wolfe

Tom Wolfe was the founder of the New Journalism movement. His book is a collection of articles; less newspaper style and more magazine. New Journalism is an artistic form of reporting.

The style, first used in the 60s and 70s was very detailed. The journalist often needed to see an event first hand before writing an article; characters needed to be built from the people involved, an atmosphere needed to be created - the writing was so descriptive it can be compared to novels. Journalists writing in this style wanted their readers to feel the emotions of the people involved and feel connected to the story.

How did it all begin?
The war. Journalists started writing in more detail during the war, it was important for everyone to know exactly what it was like. It was a way for some people to express their individuality.

In the 21 century people want to know everything - it's celebrity culture. We now have bloggers which use pictures; people want every detail, they even want to SEE what journalists are talking about now. Blogs have become free New Journalism as there is little censorship.

Blogged.

Blogged about Barry M's new nail varnish...

http://allthingsfashionablyme.blogspot.com/2011/03/nail-effects.html

Semester 2, Lecture 3

This week was about Heroin, mostly...although Existentialism did make an appearance.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In1c5O3bNeg

This was the image we were first presented with. Edie Sedgwick, actress, socialite and heiress posed for one of Andy Warhol's 'screen tests' which were mostly filmed at the Factory between 1964 and 1966.

Andy Warhol was a major influence of 60's culture and because of his work at the Factory 'Heroin Chic' was born. Characterised by thin bony women with a pale complexion and dark circles around the eyes it was a stark difference to healthier looking models. During the time 'Heroin Chic' emerged the price of Heroin was decreasing and its purity increasing; the stigma around it changed which meant that the middle-class and the wealthy began using it.

When taking Heroin one has no sense of the past or future, their mind and bodies become numb - only being in the moment of now, the present. Heroin removes the pain and pleasure neurons from the body which is what gives the numb feeling, so when the body comes off Heroine it is particularly unpleasant as these senses return.

The rest of the lecture was hard to write down in a sensible 'making sense' fashion so apologies for the bullet points of what seems to be random notes.

• Existentialism was a movement in post war arts and culture, especially in France and the USA, and especially in music (jazz), theatre and literature.
• The state of mind described in The Outsider (Albert Camus) is similar to that of someone on Heroin
• Simone de Beauvoir - The Second Sex described being female as a narrative. It challenged prejudicial thinking
• The new left - very French and Existential. All for personal oppression, freedom, racism, gay rights, disabled rights (rather than focus on class, trade etc)
• LSD slows down our perception mechanism and turns off short term memory
• LSD slows down our perception mechanism and turns off short term memory
• (sorry had to be done)
• Merry Pranksters poisoned the water supply in America with LSD to try and stop the Vietnamese War
• Gonzo Journalism
• Existential literature - you cannot write for slaves because they do not have the freedom to have their own thoughts

According to Philosophical Idealism existence itself is made up of three things that exist.

1. Things in themselves - these are things which are alive, they decay and change but they're just there
2. Things for themselves - these are self determining and self creating free people such as white educated men (not women or children or uneducated people at this time) they can do something about their existence such as end it - commit suicide
3. Things for others - Slaves or even wives. It is anyone who lives for someone else, Existentialists believe that they are living in bad faith

New Blog.

 I have decided to create another blog; a separate one from 'Claire's Cosmos' which I can use for whatever I like!

Check it out...and follow! :)

http://allthingsfashionablyme.blogspot.com/

Semester 2, Seminar 2

Albert Camus - The Outsider

These are the notes I made whilst hearing the two seminar papers;

• Camus was about the absurd and seemed to have strong Existential themes although he rejected this idea
• Absurd means that as humans we have no meaning to our lives
• The character of Meursault is not romantic at all (Camus did not like Romanticism) he sees not feels
• He makes no real effort to connect with the people around him. Even his 'lover' Marie is just there - there are no feelings of love
• He is free of guilt - has no focus on the past, only the immediate future

These are the things that we discussed as a class;

Existentialism means that the mind and body are connected.
When someone dies that is it, the end. Whereas Christians for example believe that there is an afterlife with Jesus and even though the body will die on Earth, the sole will be with Jesus.
Existentialists believe that there is no point in having a relationship with God because of their belief that their minds will die along with their body.

The Outsider was written just after WW1 and before WW2, during a war in Spain and Algeria - there were a lot of Existential ideas floating around, it was common.

Live, eat, do. Live in the present.

We discussed that if you live totally in the present then surly you cannot relate to anyone because you cannot delve into past experiences and feelings.
Perhaps this is why Meursault did not communicate with others, not because he was a miserable isolated man but because his way of life would not allow for it.

We were not sure whether it is even possible to live in the present. The people we are today is because of the people we were yesterday and the experiences we had.

In the end it seems that Meursault accepts his death, we thought that this could be because as an Existentialist he just takes each day in his stride. Today is the day he dies...it's okay because this is what happens, life!

We also discussed whether he was in a way sacrificing himself for society, he may have realised what he had done to society and finally felt guilt for it so he was okay with his death. He could have also thought him self as Jesus. Jesus was killed because he was different, like Meursault?

I do not think that today we could live like Existentialists. So much of our lives are focused on the past - good and bad. As human beings we are always striving for the best quality of life and living, to better ourselves we must look to the past in comparison. We also like to remember the past for good and bad memories, I think that as beings we like to feel - it's part of being alive. To feel sad or happy confirm that I'm here, I'm living and experiencing life.

Semester 2, Lecture 2 - The Outsider

Here are my notes from the lecture;

Husserl
Consciousness is intentional and meaning is fixed subjectively.
Knowing is a structure, with some ideas having more priority than others - depending on intention.

Heidegger
'Objects to hand' - don't think about them. When we do think about them they become odd, strange.
'Being' is making choices about what is important.
There is no pure thought - always an agenda.
Ideas are structures of intentions.
Existential problem of choosing is a curse of life!
The source of our decisions is our social interaction and habit of mind.
'Hell is other people.'
There is no self - only a temporary structure of ideas. There is 0.1% of other people within our structure.
Existence is Dasein (ordinary) - a way of coping of being alive, a way of being. It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

Anthropology
Everything you think is relative to the culture you're from

Hermeneutic
This is when you see meanings in things.
I.E. a cup of tea...NO I SEE CAPITALISM!
What you see is not what you see.
Freud said that we are unreliable witnesses to our own lives.

Time
What is time? Kant was the first to realise that there are different types of time.
Einstein said that time itself is a dimension of the universe. We can only see three dimensions; length, depth and width. Time is the fourth dimension. (Not uniform or regulated.)

Heidegger on time:
our structure of being.
Time is a function of perception;

1. The past - guilt
2. The future - unknown
3. The present - dread

Existential Morality aims to reduce feelings of guilt about the past and promote indifference towards to future.
Existence proceeds essence. We exist not because we're born, we don't know, it's not important.

Where does guilt/dread come from?
OTHERS!

Camus - The Outsider
He refuses to be determined by other people, he strives for authenticity.
Nobody is writing your life - strive to gain control, can lesson guilt and fear, widen choices.
All in present tense, the main character feels no guilt about his actions in Nazi Germany.
Bad things happen to society and individuals when you don't live your life authentically.
Why are we here now? We're thrown into the world.

Semester 2, Seminar 1

Despite the fact that I still don't understand economics this seminar was really interesting and we got into a good discussion about our reading; The New Industrial State by John Kenneth Galbraith.

These are the notes I made after reading chapter 7 'The Corporation' and doing some research.

• The United States is no longer a free-enterprise, Galbraith believes that the state is controlled and structured by large corporations.
• Advertising is the means by which these companies manage demand and create consumer 'need'.
• The goal of these corporations is not to better society but to gain the highest earnings.

• The corporation's purpose is to do business - they use capital from several other persons as this allows them to undertake tasks beyond the financial reach of any single person.
• Persons who share capital with larger corporations are given an element of power. It ensures them a vote on significant affairs and defines responsibilities.

Jenni wrote her seminar paper on the book, here are the notes I made from her paper and our discussion afterwards:

• Corporate leaders control everything
• A techno-structure is a group of specialised workers
• Corporations are soul-less unlike individuals
• Larger companies can ask small businesses to match their prices or lose their jobs!
• Competition is good

There are three parts to a successful company:

1. Machines/technology should replace workers
2. People are needed who understand the technology so that it works
3. Co-ordination and communication is needed between specialists to find out whether every one's skills are relevant, if they're not then they are fired (not needed)

We discussed how parts one and two contrast each other. First Galbraith says that the machines should replace the workers (one machine is better than ten workers) but then he continues to say that however people are needed to ensure that the machines work! Does he want people or not!?
Although I do suppose having people there to work the machines does not mean you have to have ten of them - it would still work with one which does mean that he is eliminating the nine workers not needed.

The goals of a corporate company is most importantly to survive - to have security. Security becomes before growth and profit.

Large companies and the Government decide for us through advertising (the bigger the company the more power) - small companies are not counted. They're often so small in comparison to the large companies that they cannot afford to change the market - only survive in it.

We finished the seminar talking about the control that large companies have over society and how they also have a huge influence on the media. I do not think it's fair that large companies have so much control and do not think about the affect their having on individuals. Recently I heard the saying that if big corporate companies stay with individuals through the lean times, you will be remembered in better economic times. I think this is a good ideal - to stick with your customers through tough times.