To readers, the difference in writing styles between the economist, Adam Smith, and the satiricist, Jonathan Swift, becomes immediately obvious. Whereas the former, as discussed last week, focuses on the academic interpretations of the world, the latter pokes fun at these interpretations, citing them as frivolous and pompous. This is the objective of a satire; to expose to the reader a sense of realisation at the pretence of other writers.
And Swift's short pamphlet, 'A Modest Proposal', provides the perfect example. He presents his argument for controlling the nation's population and at the same time, boosting its economy, (a direct satirical reference to the likes of Smith). He proposes, (modestly of course - another piece of satire), that parents of children at one year old, should slaughter their offspring and either provide a feast for themselves, or sell off the meat to rich landlords. He insists that such a method would also solve the Irish famine. Clearly, according to the narrative voice of the pamphlet, there are no drawbacks to his scheme.
However, reverting back to reality, it is obviously one of terrible cruelty and cannabilsm. But this is what the satire aims to achieve; a sense of disgust for an idea that is so mechanical, yet academically profound, thus encouraging us to reflect this negativity on those who propose other academic theories and solutions. In this way, Swift may be reaching out to the common man, the majority of society, unlike Smith, who appears to write for only the educated higher classes that may understand his ideas.
In my view, it is for this reason that Swift would probably have been the more popular of the two writers, having captured a much larger audience with his outrageous, yet albeit entertainingly written, pamphlets. Having said that, it is not impossible that at the time of publication, many may have been oblivious to the satirical elements of his writing, taking his proposal as a serious one. If this were the case, his readers would simply have disregarded his hidden messages and dismissed him as a madman. I had that trouble myself when first reading the essay, before picking up on the subtle aspects of satire, such as his abrupt, somewhat contradictive ending; disincluding himself and his children from his own proposal.
Today, both Smith and Swift are highly regarded in their own rights. Smith, for his calculated, logical theories, which still have some bearing on today's economic policies; and Swift, for his alternate, lively interpretations. This shows that there is room in today's society for many different views and political arguments, and perhaps, in my view, exemplifies the acceptance of an expanding social sphere in modern journalism.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Smith - The 'mechanistic materialist'
Adam Smith, to my mind, is something of an idealist, despite his empiricist views and his famously logical outlook on the world. He is the founder of modern economics, (certainly a very methodical subject), and became known also for his views on human nature. Smith was of a certain breed of writers during his time, whom often found their work ridiculed by satirists like Jonathan Swift, particularly for their pompous attitudes.
As was stated in the lecture this week, Smith's view of the world may best be compared to clockwork - everything and everyone works meticulously in tandem and the forces of nature will eventually balance out. This even goes so far as to apply to his theories on human nature; the human mind itself is a careful balance between good and evil, greed and charity. His most famous theory however, is that of the 'hidden hand'. Effectively, he states that the circulation of economy is inescapable; the forces of supply and demand will always be present and thus keep the population in a perpetual state of trading, to keep ourselves alive. For example, he disregarded any limits on foreign trade, believing that such laws would bring consequences for the entire country and only act as a temporary form of defiance, before inevitably being lifted.
This is a derivation of 'The Law of Unintended Clauses', another of Smith's theories that also worked on the basis of an holistic economy, i.e. one that is always affected by the actions of another economy.
However, these materialist beliefs I believe Smith to have justified in a rather idealistic fashion. His view that any given economy will inevitably grow, due to the 'hidden hand', and that in this way unemployment is essentially impossible, is somewhat optimistic to say the least, particularly when you look at today's Third World Countries. Similarly, his take on poverty may be seen as being slightly short-sighted, regarding it as relative only to a given era. My first impression here is that he sees the poor as simply complaining and that his reliance on his 'hidden hand' has led him into believing that one day, the economy will simply correct itself.
But although I see Smith, in this respect, as slightly naive, I think that the new theories he introduced had a radical influence on today's economy and he emphasised, for example, the inefficiency, (let alone the cruelty), of slavery and promoted division of labour. Thus, his influence in history should not be forgotten.
As was stated in the lecture this week, Smith's view of the world may best be compared to clockwork - everything and everyone works meticulously in tandem and the forces of nature will eventually balance out. This even goes so far as to apply to his theories on human nature; the human mind itself is a careful balance between good and evil, greed and charity. His most famous theory however, is that of the 'hidden hand'. Effectively, he states that the circulation of economy is inescapable; the forces of supply and demand will always be present and thus keep the population in a perpetual state of trading, to keep ourselves alive. For example, he disregarded any limits on foreign trade, believing that such laws would bring consequences for the entire country and only act as a temporary form of defiance, before inevitably being lifted.
This is a derivation of 'The Law of Unintended Clauses', another of Smith's theories that also worked on the basis of an holistic economy, i.e. one that is always affected by the actions of another economy.
However, these materialist beliefs I believe Smith to have justified in a rather idealistic fashion. His view that any given economy will inevitably grow, due to the 'hidden hand', and that in this way unemployment is essentially impossible, is somewhat optimistic to say the least, particularly when you look at today's Third World Countries. Similarly, his take on poverty may be seen as being slightly short-sighted, regarding it as relative only to a given era. My first impression here is that he sees the poor as simply complaining and that his reliance on his 'hidden hand' has led him into believing that one day, the economy will simply correct itself.
But although I see Smith, in this respect, as slightly naive, I think that the new theories he introduced had a radical influence on today's economy and he emphasised, for example, the inefficiency, (let alone the cruelty), of slavery and promoted division of labour. Thus, his influence in history should not be forgotten.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Freedom versus Liberty
In my last post, I explored the core themes surrounding Rousseau's ideals. The seminar this week continued in that vain, and initially, my views on him seemed to be veering in the same direction, largely unchanged. Essentially, how can mankind live by Rousseau's social contract, in a state of nature, when it is actually human nature to want a leader amongst us, to guide us in the 'right' direction?
However, the discussion, for me, took a new turn when we began to think about the difference between 'freedom' and 'liberty'. For although similar in definition, there is a subtle difference. I would define freedom as the absolute right of a person to do what they want, when they want, without consequence for themselves, (or indeed for anyone else, if I look at it in a slightly more idealistic way). The difference comes when I define a liberty as only a particular right within society.
For example, I have the liberty within our own society to go to the shop at whatever time of day I choose fit. However, I am not free to take a loaf of bread without paying for it - that is not my liberty. Therefore, freedom may be seen as a web of liberties, without boundaries.
Liberties are also dependent upon society and even generation. Currently in the UK, weblogging is perfectly legal, (and hopefully always will be), whereas Nazi Germany refrained its people from voicing public opinions. This is an extreme example, but still illustrates my point of view.
These considerations led me to wonder; was Rousseau simply a poor communicator? When he described a world of total freedom, was he merely emphasising the need for a democracy; for certain liberties? Perhaps he simply wished to see society exist more happily; to repair itself after the blood shed of the Civil War.
Perhaps. Such assertions may be a little far-fetched and the fact remains that Rousseau still wanted to 'force' others to share his view. Perhaps we'll never know what he really wanted the world to be like, but it seems that he was not willing to accept any other world.
Nevertheless, it may be something to bare in mind when discussing Rousseau's mentality...
However, the discussion, for me, took a new turn when we began to think about the difference between 'freedom' and 'liberty'. For although similar in definition, there is a subtle difference. I would define freedom as the absolute right of a person to do what they want, when they want, without consequence for themselves, (or indeed for anyone else, if I look at it in a slightly more idealistic way). The difference comes when I define a liberty as only a particular right within society.
For example, I have the liberty within our own society to go to the shop at whatever time of day I choose fit. However, I am not free to take a loaf of bread without paying for it - that is not my liberty. Therefore, freedom may be seen as a web of liberties, without boundaries.
Liberties are also dependent upon society and even generation. Currently in the UK, weblogging is perfectly legal, (and hopefully always will be), whereas Nazi Germany refrained its people from voicing public opinions. This is an extreme example, but still illustrates my point of view.
These considerations led me to wonder; was Rousseau simply a poor communicator? When he described a world of total freedom, was he merely emphasising the need for a democracy; for certain liberties? Perhaps he simply wished to see society exist more happily; to repair itself after the blood shed of the Civil War.
Perhaps. Such assertions may be a little far-fetched and the fact remains that Rousseau still wanted to 'force' others to share his view. Perhaps we'll never know what he really wanted the world to be like, but it seems that he was not willing to accept any other world.
Nevertheless, it may be something to bare in mind when discussing Rousseau's mentality...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Rousseau and Romanticism
My views on Rousseau are perhaps shared by the majority of people on the course.
One of the first words that comes to mind is 'unconventional', although in a slightly stronger context, maybe 'insane' would be more apt. Similarly to More, the basis of his ideas are perhaps understandable. Equality and freedom are two of the most important aspects in our modern society, although admittedly the former is really yet to be achieved. But in Rousseau's world, the cost of such surely far outweighs the benefits.
It is the exact world that Hobbes wished to avoid; one of chaos and non-conformity - such is what the state of nature openly brings to the table. And yet the irony in Rousseau's statement, where one, if necessary, should be 'forced to be free', seems to completely escape him. The way in which he attempts to sell his views to the general public is chillingly reminicent of Hitler's Germany. A society in which every single person is a part of a whole, working towards the same goals and ambitions, striving towards a better standard of living, while at the same time being free to do as you please, (provided it conforms to the general will - another paradox). It certainly sounds tempting, until you read the fine print. Certainly, there are shades of an Orwellian dictatorship within his version of the Social Contract; leading society to believe one thing, when you mean something entirely different - at this point, I refer to Animal Farm; 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'.
And similarly to Germany during the early twentieth century, left reeling by the impact of the First World War and vulnerable to Hitler's alienating beliefs, society at the time of Rousseau was very much anti-enlightenment, having become bored with the influences of science. Romanticism offered an ideal escape from the mundane lifestyles that people had begun to lead after the Civil War. I feel this in particular had much to do with both its and Rousseau's popularity during the latter part of the eighteenth century.
As a final thought, with regards to the state of nature, you need only study the Great Terror to understand that, although ideal in theory, it could only result in the total collapse of society.
One of the first words that comes to mind is 'unconventional', although in a slightly stronger context, maybe 'insane' would be more apt. Similarly to More, the basis of his ideas are perhaps understandable. Equality and freedom are two of the most important aspects in our modern society, although admittedly the former is really yet to be achieved. But in Rousseau's world, the cost of such surely far outweighs the benefits.
It is the exact world that Hobbes wished to avoid; one of chaos and non-conformity - such is what the state of nature openly brings to the table. And yet the irony in Rousseau's statement, where one, if necessary, should be 'forced to be free', seems to completely escape him. The way in which he attempts to sell his views to the general public is chillingly reminicent of Hitler's Germany. A society in which every single person is a part of a whole, working towards the same goals and ambitions, striving towards a better standard of living, while at the same time being free to do as you please, (provided it conforms to the general will - another paradox). It certainly sounds tempting, until you read the fine print. Certainly, there are shades of an Orwellian dictatorship within his version of the Social Contract; leading society to believe one thing, when you mean something entirely different - at this point, I refer to Animal Farm; 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'.
And similarly to Germany during the early twentieth century, left reeling by the impact of the First World War and vulnerable to Hitler's alienating beliefs, society at the time of Rousseau was very much anti-enlightenment, having become bored with the influences of science. Romanticism offered an ideal escape from the mundane lifestyles that people had begun to lead after the Civil War. I feel this in particular had much to do with both its and Rousseau's popularity during the latter part of the eighteenth century.
As a final thought, with regards to the state of nature, you need only study the Great Terror to understand that, although ideal in theory, it could only result in the total collapse of society.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Evolution of Reading
In my view, Joseph Addison intended his essays to be witty and humorous. His lively metaphors and analogies, (for example, Tom Puzzle and Will Dry), highlight this. However, an interesting discussion in last week's seminar arose, concerning whether or not Addison did intend to be funny.
The activity of reading is, and always has been, affected by modern views and beliefs, which shape our understanding of a text. Structuralism dictates whether we find a book funny, sad, or even offensive and this is largely down to the media. The death of Princess Diana was tragic, and although I acknowledge that it is human nature to feel such grief and sympathy at such a time, the media, to a certain extent, also enforced a sense of shock upon us, as the death was so widely reported for such a long time.
In this way, I find it interesting to wonder how Addison's essays were received by the public, when they were first published. Did people find them funny back then? Three hundred years have passed since that time, and so society's view of different issues will have changed radically.
My point being, it is possible that Addison could have been making some serious points in his essays, that were not merely to be taken as light-hearted and witty. Perhaps he was a fervent advocate of the lower classes learning to read and write, and was not just poking fun at their inability to understand what he was saying, describing them as blind 'moles'.
The media, in those days, was a new phenomenon, and so people's reading of the texts was most likely uninhibited by previously enforced ideas, (with the exception of the bible). Therefore it is possible that the essays were all received in different ways by different people. Crossing into media studies momentarily, it may be said that society took on either an alternative or oppositional reading, rather than Addison's preferred reading.
Perhaps we will never know what he truly, originally intended to say, as structuralism has reshaped our way of thinking since his day. We have become 'moles' ourselves in this sense. Nonetheless, his articles would have played an important role during the 1700s, regardless of the reading, as they introduced to society a means by which people could both receive and transmit ideas and views themselves.
The activity of reading is, and always has been, affected by modern views and beliefs, which shape our understanding of a text. Structuralism dictates whether we find a book funny, sad, or even offensive and this is largely down to the media. The death of Princess Diana was tragic, and although I acknowledge that it is human nature to feel such grief and sympathy at such a time, the media, to a certain extent, also enforced a sense of shock upon us, as the death was so widely reported for such a long time.
In this way, I find it interesting to wonder how Addison's essays were received by the public, when they were first published. Did people find them funny back then? Three hundred years have passed since that time, and so society's view of different issues will have changed radically.
My point being, it is possible that Addison could have been making some serious points in his essays, that were not merely to be taken as light-hearted and witty. Perhaps he was a fervent advocate of the lower classes learning to read and write, and was not just poking fun at their inability to understand what he was saying, describing them as blind 'moles'.
The media, in those days, was a new phenomenon, and so people's reading of the texts was most likely uninhibited by previously enforced ideas, (with the exception of the bible). Therefore it is possible that the essays were all received in different ways by different people. Crossing into media studies momentarily, it may be said that society took on either an alternative or oppositional reading, rather than Addison's preferred reading.
Perhaps we will never know what he truly, originally intended to say, as structuralism has reshaped our way of thinking since his day. We have become 'moles' ourselves in this sense. Nonetheless, his articles would have played an important role during the 1700s, regardless of the reading, as they introduced to society a means by which people could both receive and transmit ideas and views themselves.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Birth of Journalism
I've never really appreciated just how important the printing press is to modern society. The foundations of all our understanding of the world around us, which effectively govern the way in which we live, derive from the birth of such a simple, but groundbreaking concept; standardized copying.
It can be no surprise that so few advancements were made in society during the Dark Ages, when there was no means of transmitting ideas to the masses. But the press, as was stated in the lecture, 'empowered' mankind to record their discoveries and findings. People could read and learn and pass on that learning to the next generation. It inspired us to go out into the world and actually try to understand; something that has become human nature.
Addison's essays underline the freedom of airing one's views. Their wit and humour exemplify the enjoyment in simply communicating with the rest of society, rather than just a small community. And from such works, has blossomed a means of knowing what is happening on the other side of the planet, every day. Journalism's importance to us should certainly not be forgotten.
Einstein said the printing press was the most important invention of all time. And from it, we gain one of our most important assets; knowledge.
It can be no surprise that so few advancements were made in society during the Dark Ages, when there was no means of transmitting ideas to the masses. But the press, as was stated in the lecture, 'empowered' mankind to record their discoveries and findings. People could read and learn and pass on that learning to the next generation. It inspired us to go out into the world and actually try to understand; something that has become human nature.
Addison's essays underline the freedom of airing one's views. Their wit and humour exemplify the enjoyment in simply communicating with the rest of society, rather than just a small community. And from such works, has blossomed a means of knowing what is happening on the other side of the planet, every day. Journalism's importance to us should certainly not be forgotten.
Einstein said the printing press was the most important invention of all time. And from it, we gain one of our most important assets; knowledge.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Locke: The First Modest Philosopher?
An interesting seminar which largely touched on the points I made in my last post. But one discussion which really caught my attention was the one on humbleness and modesty.
Locke, in his Epistle to the Reader, acknowledged that many of his beliefs and views may be flawed or indeed, utterly wrong. But he goes on to explain to his readers that every man has the right to his own beliefs, and that he should not be criticised for publishing his own, which may be in conflict with others'.
I think this is rather significant. Locke may well be one of the first philosophers to publically acknowledge the possibility of flaws in his ideas. Previously, I think they tended to see themselves as almost 'Divine Beings', acting rather like prophets and spreading their views as the views of God Himself. Inevitably, contradictions would occur in their workings, but I get the impression that they would simply try to gloss over these inconsistencies, perhaps citing them as the complexities of the universe that God created.
For example, I could point to George Berkeley's theory in primary and secondary qualities. He effectively described these as being our perception of the senses, relating them to 'perceived space'. But where he becomes vague, is in his explanation of 'perceived space' itself. How do we define his definition?
At this point, I would return to Locke, himself not being altogether consistent with his ideas. For example, the four metaphysical proofs in which he believed can contradict each other, such as the ontological proof, (the theory in physicality and being), opposing the eternal truths, (the truth of essence, rather than existence).
And yet one of the fundamental differences between these two philosophers, is Locke's confession as to such imperfections in his ideas right at the beginning of his book. Does this make him the first truly modest, modern philosopher? It is true to say that he may have only stated this to cover his own back, having originally only intended the book to be read by close friends, but I think there is more to it than that.
To conclude, I would quote my favourite statement in the Epistle; one that epitimises what I believe to be his humble nature:
'The commonwealth of learning is not at this time without master-builders, whose mighty designs, in advancing the sciences, will leave lasting monuments to the admiration of posterity:... it is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little'.
Locke, in his Epistle to the Reader, acknowledged that many of his beliefs and views may be flawed or indeed, utterly wrong. But he goes on to explain to his readers that every man has the right to his own beliefs, and that he should not be criticised for publishing his own, which may be in conflict with others'.
I think this is rather significant. Locke may well be one of the first philosophers to publically acknowledge the possibility of flaws in his ideas. Previously, I think they tended to see themselves as almost 'Divine Beings', acting rather like prophets and spreading their views as the views of God Himself. Inevitably, contradictions would occur in their workings, but I get the impression that they would simply try to gloss over these inconsistencies, perhaps citing them as the complexities of the universe that God created.
For example, I could point to George Berkeley's theory in primary and secondary qualities. He effectively described these as being our perception of the senses, relating them to 'perceived space'. But where he becomes vague, is in his explanation of 'perceived space' itself. How do we define his definition?
At this point, I would return to Locke, himself not being altogether consistent with his ideas. For example, the four metaphysical proofs in which he believed can contradict each other, such as the ontological proof, (the theory in physicality and being), opposing the eternal truths, (the truth of essence, rather than existence).
And yet one of the fundamental differences between these two philosophers, is Locke's confession as to such imperfections in his ideas right at the beginning of his book. Does this make him the first truly modest, modern philosopher? It is true to say that he may have only stated this to cover his own back, having originally only intended the book to be read by close friends, but I think there is more to it than that.
To conclude, I would quote my favourite statement in the Epistle; one that epitimises what I believe to be his humble nature:
'The commonwealth of learning is not at this time without master-builders, whose mighty designs, in advancing the sciences, will leave lasting monuments to the admiration of posterity:... it is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little'.
Friday, October 16, 2009
A New Age of Belief
Hello again everyone,
Another interesting lecture, I thought. It has to be said, it's easy to see why Mr Locke was such an influential philosopher. And not just in his time, but even today, some of his ideas have formed the foundations of our modern outlook on society.
For example, I share his belief that ideas are primarily born out of experience. We each view the world differently to one another and this is because we have all experienced life in, sometimes similar, but ultimately different ways. As an empiricist, his rejection of innate ideas I believe to be one of great significance, as it symbolised that religion, (and its omnipresent teachings), was beginning to face a battle against the fresh, new discoveries of science; a battle that to this very day has continued - Dan Brown's Angels and Demons sums this up rather well.
The Social Contract, a view that Hobbes is most asscoiated with, I see as being a rather extremist one. Dictatorships are surely to be avoided at all costs, on the basis that effectively selling your rights as a human being can be no good decision - Locke's proposal that you still have a right to rebel against government is really obsolete, considering that a man with absolute power is likely to be the winner of the outcome.
But then again, the state of nature is really the other extreme, and if it were adopted, surely mankind would be moving backwards towards the stone age and a state of chaos. To this degree, I can understand Locke's point of view, but surely a meeting point somewhere between the two extremes would be the ideal - exactly where between the two is up for debate, but in all honesty, I would probably lean towards the Social Contract, favouring a structured, organised society, that still embraces people's freedom.
Again, the fact that people at the time feared the Catholic Kings and their disregard for the Contract altogether, seems to me to suggest that religion's grasp was slowly weakening, as the idea of Divine Rights began to be widely rejected.
Finally, a quick word on perhaps the greatest of all influential scientists. As was emphasised in the lecture, Newton's hypotheses were truly ground-breaking. I think he epitimises the sudden surge forward that mankind made, with regards to understanding the world and indeed the universe around us. Many believe that we will never see another like him - such a genius as he was - but I myself would not be altogether surprised if sometime, maybe years and years into the future, another will take up the mantle, and make the next leap forward.
Another interesting lecture, I thought. It has to be said, it's easy to see why Mr Locke was such an influential philosopher. And not just in his time, but even today, some of his ideas have formed the foundations of our modern outlook on society.
For example, I share his belief that ideas are primarily born out of experience. We each view the world differently to one another and this is because we have all experienced life in, sometimes similar, but ultimately different ways. As an empiricist, his rejection of innate ideas I believe to be one of great significance, as it symbolised that religion, (and its omnipresent teachings), was beginning to face a battle against the fresh, new discoveries of science; a battle that to this very day has continued - Dan Brown's Angels and Demons sums this up rather well.
The Social Contract, a view that Hobbes is most asscoiated with, I see as being a rather extremist one. Dictatorships are surely to be avoided at all costs, on the basis that effectively selling your rights as a human being can be no good decision - Locke's proposal that you still have a right to rebel against government is really obsolete, considering that a man with absolute power is likely to be the winner of the outcome.
But then again, the state of nature is really the other extreme, and if it were adopted, surely mankind would be moving backwards towards the stone age and a state of chaos. To this degree, I can understand Locke's point of view, but surely a meeting point somewhere between the two extremes would be the ideal - exactly where between the two is up for debate, but in all honesty, I would probably lean towards the Social Contract, favouring a structured, organised society, that still embraces people's freedom.
Again, the fact that people at the time feared the Catholic Kings and their disregard for the Contract altogether, seems to me to suggest that religion's grasp was slowly weakening, as the idea of Divine Rights began to be widely rejected.
Finally, a quick word on perhaps the greatest of all influential scientists. As was emphasised in the lecture, Newton's hypotheses were truly ground-breaking. I think he epitimises the sudden surge forward that mankind made, with regards to understanding the world and indeed the universe around us. Many believe that we will never see another like him - such a genius as he was - but I myself would not be altogether surprised if sometime, maybe years and years into the future, another will take up the mantle, and make the next leap forward.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Late Comer!
Hi guys!
This is a bit of a late blog, considering it concerns last weeks seminar discussions, but I thought I'd just give a brief account of my thoughts.
Firstly, of the philosophers that I found most interesting to read about, I'd have to say that More's idea of a utopian island was a great read, albeit somewhat mad. The basis around which he formulated his idea is, I believe, understandable. A society that emphasises equality can be no bad thing, but to the extent that communism (and indeed More himself) suggests, it would simply make life monotonous and mundane. You would be stripped of your very identity.
I thought that Bacon's more open and scientific approach to philosophy was an admirable, if not brave one, as of course religion was still very much a prominent aspect of society during the late sixteenth century. Having said that, his idea for man to become 'masters of the universe' may be said to be slightly ambitious...
As I said during the seminar, I think that religion has slowly become more and more detached from philosophy, as science has advanced. For this, we have, for the most part, Newton's work in the seventeenth century to thank. But then there is no reason why both religion and science can't each have an outlook on the shaping of philosophy in the future.
Again, sorry for the late blog. I'll post something far more substantial in the coming days...
This is a bit of a late blog, considering it concerns last weeks seminar discussions, but I thought I'd just give a brief account of my thoughts.
Firstly, of the philosophers that I found most interesting to read about, I'd have to say that More's idea of a utopian island was a great read, albeit somewhat mad. The basis around which he formulated his idea is, I believe, understandable. A society that emphasises equality can be no bad thing, but to the extent that communism (and indeed More himself) suggests, it would simply make life monotonous and mundane. You would be stripped of your very identity.
I thought that Bacon's more open and scientific approach to philosophy was an admirable, if not brave one, as of course religion was still very much a prominent aspect of society during the late sixteenth century. Having said that, his idea for man to become 'masters of the universe' may be said to be slightly ambitious...
As I said during the seminar, I think that religion has slowly become more and more detached from philosophy, as science has advanced. For this, we have, for the most part, Newton's work in the seventeenth century to thank. But then there is no reason why both religion and science can't each have an outlook on the shaping of philosophy in the future.
Again, sorry for the late blog. I'll post something far more substantial in the coming days...
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)