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.

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'.

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.

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...