Eastleigh FC

After a fairly promising season last year, Eastleigh looked to be picking up where they left off during the pre-season period, losing only twice out of the nine warm-up matches. They also picked up a couple of notable wins agains a Reading and Southampton XI. However, after an eight place finish last year, missing out on the play-offs by only four points, the start to their seventh successive campaign in the Blue Square South looks slightly bleak, with only two wins from a possible ten. It is still early days, but the next ten or so games will be crucial in defining how the season will pan out for Eastleigh; will it be a relegation battle, or another push for promotion.

Eastleigh were relatively quiet in the transfer market this season, with the main moves being out with Shaun McCauley signing for local rivals Basingstoke on a one year deal. This being said, there have been some new arrivals at the Silverlake Stadium, in the shape of ex-Bristol Rovers Goalkeeper Mike Green and Winger Ryan O'hara who has played for the likes of Scottish outfit Dundee United and Forest Green Rovers. They have also recently extended the loan spell of Norwegian utility player Henrik Breimyr. He is a midfielder by trade but he has proved his worth by filling in at right-back a few times, including the best spell of the season so far for the Spitfires towards the end of August where they were unbeaten in three an recorded back-to-back wins against Dorchester and Weston-super-Mare. It is still unsure as to whether Breimyr will return to Aldershot Town after his loan spell, or sign on a permanent basi with Eastleigh.

This weekend brings an early season 'six-pointer' against fellow strugglers Staines Town, with home advantage, it is key that Eastleigh take this opportunity and build from here onwards if they want any chance of promotion this year.

Ones to watch:

Tom Jordan (Defender) - Captain Fantastic! had a great season last year, the rock of the Spitfires defence. Only Eastleigh player to make it into the leagues team of the year.

Jamie Slabber (Striker) - averages over a goal every two games, and seems like he could be key to the Spitfires promotion hopes this year.

Richard Gillespie (Striker) - has proven prolific for previous clubs, and finished top scorer for Eastleigh in the 2009/10 season, with only injury thwarting his efforts last year, as long as he keeps fit and injury free, his partnership with Slabber could prove priceless

Champions League Final preview - Manchester United Vs Barcelona

With Wembley ready and waiting to host this years biggest club game in the World, the viewing public, the fans, the managers, and the players can do nothing but wait until the battle for the Champions League crown begins. Both Manchester United and Barcelona are worthy finalists this year and have huge experience in recent years at this stage. Barca in fact beat Manchester United at this stage two years ago, whilst Manchester United will be stepping out to their third final in four years.

Manchester United by no means had an easy route to the final, although they made it look so by not even conceding one goal away from home, and only conceding four in the competition so far. They overcame Valencia, Bursaspor and Rangers in the Group Stages, going on to shrugging off Marseille in the Round of the Last 16. They then were rewarded with a Quarter-Final against Premier League Champions Chelsea, with which they outplayed them over the two legs, finally demolishing German side Schalke in the Semi's.

Barcelona have also got an impressive record in the competition this season, only conceding three in the group stages and eight in total. Some may argue on paper they had a more difficult route, but again, they made it look quite easy. They eased past Panathinaikos, Rubin Kazan and FC Copenhagen in the group stages, and then followed by out-classing Arsenal in the last 16. They then faced Shaktar Donetsk in the Quarter-Final, easing past them with an aggregate score of 6-1 meaning they set up a dream tie with their 'El-Classico' rivals, Real Madrid. After and extremely controversial two legs, Barca's quality, and Lionel Messi's, shone through earning them their rightful spot in the season finale.

Barcelona will go into the game as the firm favourites boasting the quality such as 52 goal scored Lionel Messi, and the elegant Spanish midfielder Iniesta. However, Manchester United are hoping to welcome back their Scottish rock, Darren Fletcher, and have some well in-form players such as Antonio Valencia, Javier Hernandez and Wayne Rooney.

Likely Line Ups:
Man Utd -
Van Der Sar
Fabio Ferdinand Vidic Evra
Valencia, Fletcher, Carrick, Park
Rooney, Hernandez

Barcelona -
Valdes
Abidal,Puyol,Pique,Alves
Busquets,Xavi,Iniesta
Messi,Villa,Pedro

Cobbett and Dickens - Change in England

In this weeks lecture we discussed urban and rural England and how it developed; we also discussed the influential figures of the time (Cobbett and Dickens)

England’s economic stature grew after they became involved in the Napoleonic War in 1800. The implementation of income tax came in to affect in order to fund the war effort. The English inevitably succeeded ad the naval power became absolute in 1805 after all French Ports were blockaded which meant that the French were unable to export any goods. Therefore, England experienced a boom in exports and it came to a point where the British were actually supplying the French.

The Translantic Triangular Trade:

1) British ports send goods to Africa in return for slaves.

2) Slaves sent to America, and traded for cotton.

3) Cotton makes clothes that were then either sold on or sent to Africa for more slaves

This was beneficial to the British economy, but it became harder after the 1833 abolition of slavery act, although it did still continue.

The end of the war saw an end to the boom, and the British government had to do something in order to maintain and economic stability.

Corn Laws – A law, which put a tax on any, imported goods (grains)

What the Corn Laws done were protected the security of English farms, but for the poor who relied on cheap bread, it was bad, as it pushed many below the bread line. This led to extreme conditions in the slum areas of urban cities such as London and Manchester, and many people were falling victim to serious diseases such as Cholera. Anger began to mount against the lower class and this was something the government was fearful of, as they did not want to see a repeat of the French Revolution. They were therefore very brutal in putting down any from of revolt, and generally criminalized the poor. In most cases the government would have the revolting poor deported to places such as Australia, but their fear was shown at the Peterloo Massacre when 60,000 peaceful protesters were shown a barrage of violence after they criticized the fact that only 2% of citizens had the vote; 11 people were killed.


The government was seen as corrupt as it was made up of only the rich, who would have generally been happy with current situations; they were making money because of the Corn Laws and they were living in good conditions. The reform act of 1832 did set about changing this, but it only gave some middle class the vote, which meant it was still corrupt, as the working class still did not have a say. However, in fear of revolution the government had two choices: either pay workers more so they can afford bread, or repeal the Corn Laws so they could afford bread, the latter being the option they took.

Farming:

Cobbett was extremely passionate when it came to farming and the rural lifestyle. He was extremely un-happy at seeing the majority of the countryside empty and he even argued that the population of England could not be growing, as he cannot see any people, but in fact it had doubled from 8.3 million to 17 million.


Enclosure – when a field would be divided up into common land, cattle would graze.

The landowners gave up enclosure, as they needed bigger fields in order to make way for new technology. This meant the farm workers had to go in search of other jobs that meant they had to migrate to the cities.

In 1830 Cobbett got into trouble for voting for the swing riots. These were riots that opposed the implementation of new technology on farms, therefore driving out the rural laborers.

Cobbett wrote the Rural Rides, which was first published at the political register. Cobbett went on horseback through the countryside of Southeast England and the Midlands in order to highlight the problems of rural England and how the relationship between landowner and worker had deteriorated. After the tax on newspapers meant that few people could afford them he created his works in to pamphlets, which were nicknamed 2-penny trash. It soon got a circulation of 40,000. In the majority of these pamphlets, Cobbett attacked the government and called for a reform, which he got into trouble for. He was tried and imprisoned in Newgate Prison for two years.

The rioting and opposition forced the government into a corner and again in fear of revolution, they implemented the Speenhamland system. This was a means tested system that offered some relief to the poor. It would work on the number of children to the price of bread. However, this was easily exploited by the idle poor and encouraged the poor to have more children. The government needed to implement something more full proof.

The Workhouse:

The Workhouse/Poorhouse was a stigmatized form of relief, which was offered as a ‘last resort’ for the poor. It came about in 1834 when the New Poor Law was implemented; meaning that no able bodied person was to receive any form of support from the government unless it was the workhouse. It would encourage the able bodied to find alternative work, as they made the conditions extremely vile. They would give you the bear minimum for food, money and health. It was divided into sections for children, men and women, and often children found themselves un-blocking heavy machinery, as their hands were the only hands small enough to fit. Jeremy Bentham, who we discussed in the first lecture, was fully supportive of this method, as he believed it to be the greatest good, for the greatest number.

The Andover Scandal:

The workhouse seemed to be a good idea, but it was often taken advantage of by the rich. The workhouse in Andover was put in the limelight when it was revealed that conditions were so poor that paupers were being starved, therefore eating peelings left for the pigs and sucking on the bones they were supposed to be grinding for fertilizer. Any body found misbehaving was also locked in the mortuary for punishment.

Dickens was somebody who attacked the New Poor Law reformation, something that we probably all know about from the famous ‘sir, can I have some more’ quote from Oliver Twist. Dickens was a fan of the life of a city dweller, and was also described as a Champion of the City. He loved the idea of a powerful and rich city, but he was appalled by the conditions of some of the slum areas. He believed that they were too overcrowded and ridden with disease and famine and by writing novels such as Bleak House, Oliver Twist and Little Dorrit he went about trying to influence the middle class into change, as it was this audience that had the power to change. Even though the lower classes would have agreed with Dickens a lot of them would not have the power to make changes, and the majority were illiterate anyway.

Super injunctions - are they needed? I cant Imogen why?!

For a few weeks now the United Kingdom has been in huge debate as to whether the super injunctions certain people get out to protect themselves from being reported in the media are actually needed in this day in age, when something as big as a footballer having an alleged affair, gets leaked on social networking sites, such as twitter, and other forums and blogs.

The super injunctions force media outlets such as newspapers and TV from reporting on the holder of the injunction, even to the point of being gagged from saying if they actually have an injunction or not. These laws only apply in the UK, and places such as America are allowed to publish whatever they please, as the injunctions do not take affect.

When watching the news, or reading a paper, they will either blank out the photo of the holder of the injunction, or they will blank out their name/s. However, today a Scottish newspaper (Scotland Herald), put a face to one of these holders of an super injunction, only covering their eyes with a 'censored' banner.

This all came about after a mysterious twitter account tweeted the name of a football star who was supposedly having an affair with previous Big Brother contestant, Imogen Thomas. The majority of the UK population knew who she was allegedly having an affair with, however, it had not been officially published. This then begs the question, what on Earth is the point in the injunction in the first place?

Public Affairs revision notes - Westminster

Westminster

Made up of House of Commons and House of Lords

Commons – elected
Lords – not elected

Lords – made up of peers. Hereditary peers (these are being slowly cut from the House of Lords but still around 90), bishops

Peers – can be elected by the government – scandals of buying peerages – life peers (doctors, judges, etc e.g. Lord Sugar)

Peers – not paid a salary, do not belong to a constituency
Journalists have a PRIVILEGE to know what happens in Westminster

Sub judice rules:

1) If something is being considered by court
2) Cant repeat or say anything that can be seen as contempt

House of Commons – not supposed to mention the Royal family

Voting in the commons is called a DIVISION

Whip – makes sure the members of their own party is voting for what they are supposed to be

Free Vote – whips cannot get involved – although free votes are rare

New laws have to be approved by both houses of Parliament (except tax raising)

If disagreement between the houses then the House of Commons has the power as they represent the people

Making a law:
Green to White
1) First reading – goes to parliament
2) Second reading – debate
3) Committee stage – experts from the field give opinions (fine tuning)
4) Report stage
5) Third reading – more debate (possible amendments)
6) House of Lords – whips go around as there will be a vote
7) Consideration of lords amendments
8) Royal assent – Queen signs it off

House of Lords was the final court of appeal until October 2009, now taken over by supreme court – distinction needed between government and law

Karl Marx

Karl Marx was a German philosopher, empiricist and economist. He began his life as a top law student and to the surprise of his family, friends and tutors; he switched to philosophy and journalism. He had many theories on how and why the problems of society existed, however his theories on solving these problems were somewhat naïve and a little un-realistic.

Marx believed that man is the productive animal, and was the master of the world basically because of his use of tools and the fact that he is able to co-operate and live. He also believed that if you managed to grasp the economy, then it would be the key to understanding the human life. This is the reason that he based most of his theories and conclusions on the collection of masses of statistics and evidence. Marx is notably known for going to the British Library every day collecting data such as demographics, wages, prices of commodities, price of housing and price of bread; this was similar to that of Darwin. He then drew out conclusions from this empirical data to how life would evolve, being the first economist to do so.

For someone who was interested in these sorts of things, he had a strong dislike for philosophy and he believed that philosophers done nothing to change the world, they only interpret it. You can actually read on his tombstone ‘philosophers have only interpreted the world – the point however is to change it’.

Marx was fond of Hegel’s theory of materialism in his dialectics. This was basically that Marx believed that in the future there would be a war between the two opposing ends of society: the bourgeoisie (rich) and the proletariat (poor). He believed that the poor would overcome the rich, introducing a socialist system where everyone was equal. What this meant for the economy would be that production would now benefit society as oppose to the market. Although this is a good theory on paper there were clear flaws with this sort of communist theory.

It can be argued that Marx did not understand human nature in that it would not be as smooth as everyone settling down in to this Utopian society, ready to be equals with each other, without any central government or religion. Firstly without a central government and rules, there would be huge amounts of disorder and the country would soon spiral out of control. Secondly, people just DO NOT give up religion, to a lot of people their religion is so important, it is worth dying for, so to eradicate religion for a communist world is virtually impossible.

Without the feel of personal gain and improvement, people would start to get lazy and start to feel un-motivated to pull their weight. This is another major flaw in the theory in that if one person sees another not working as hard as they are but reaping the same benefits, they are going to quickly follow suit, which in turn would result in the decline of the economy.

Prometheus and romanticism

Romanticism comes from the late 18th to the early 19th century, which involves the move away from the preceding age of reason, which focuses on liberalism and the belief that every person should be free to live how he or she want without being blinded by society. The Romantics loved the idea of nature and the natural life and as Jean Jacques Rousseau said ‘man is born free, but everywhere is in chains’.

Prometheus was seen as a titan in Greek Mythology; a titan is someone who is not human but is also not a God, he is a giant like creature. He was one who revolted against this Kings and stole fire from them and brought it down to Earth where he created the first humans from clay. He was then punished in a cruel way, having defied the Gods, he was chained to a rock and had his liver pecked out by a bird; everyday his liver would grow back, meaning never ending suffering and torture. He was the champion of oppressed human kind.

Prometheus is therefore seen as the founder or the God of romanticism. He is referred to in different names such as the ‘bringer of fire’. He was seen as the earliest form of opposition to society and the Kings in that he was a rebel to their world. Philosophers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau would have loved Prometheus in that he was fighting for the freedom of the naturalistic world, and to not have Gods rule over. It is clear that he was an influential figure in that so many works have been written because of him such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein that was sub-titled ‘modern Prometheus’.

Percy Shelley wrote a sonnet called ‘Ozymandias’:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said, ‘Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand
Half-sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

‘Ozymandias’ is seen as someone who has fought against a tyrannical power in the face of oppression, similar to that of Prometheus. ‘The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed’, so these are the oppressive rulers who have led to Ozymandias being defeated. We know he has been forced to suffer, just like a typical romantic would, ‘half-sunk, a shattered visage’.

The idea of Prometheus was that he stole the fire to create man, which is also seen as romantic, as the romantics have a notion of making or creating things, hence the creation of the bust of Rameses II, which inspired Shelley to write this sonnet.


John Keats wrote a poem called ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’

http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html (Link to the poem)

Straight away from the title of the poem we can see that the idea of romanticism was great, in that the poet is in awe of the urn, something that is created or made. This again links back to the idea that romantics loved the idea of creation. Staying with the idea of creativity, it is highly evident in the poem that Keats is trying to give across this romantic ideal in that the urn is personified as a bride, something you associate with beauty and elegance.

Final Cut Pro/TV Filming training

So after having camera training and editing training we were told to go out and film anything for criticism in this Thursday's lecture to make sure we were picking up the basics (at least). I decided to go to a local leisure centre where I interviewed a martial arts instructor about what they do and what it is all about.

Filming:

We were told certain things about filming, and rules that should be followed. For instance the 'rule of thirds' by which the person your interviewing's eyes must be a third in and a third down whilst looking to one side (not directly at the camera). We also ere told how to focus the camera, and complete a white balance so the colours dont come out dodgy. We were also advised to always use a gun-mic and not rely on the mic that came with the video camera, however due to high demand there were none available.

One of my flaws after watching back the video is that I done my interview in front of a window (not directly in front but the sun was so bright from the outside it creates a blur on the side of the picture.

After importing my video in to final cut pro, I was told that my video was not rendered. We hadn't come across this in any lectures or training sessions although after a quick look on google I managed to find out that it was easily remedied. Saying this, once the video was rendered the sound began to stutter slightly, i'm sure I will find out why and how this happened.

So here is my video, all other criticisms are welcome bearing in mind this is the first video interview I have made!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-McvCeMGjmI

J'Accuse - The Dreyfus Affair

Alfred Dreyfus was a man who became a scapegoat for the French Army in one of the biggest miscarriages of justice ever to be seen. At the time just before Dreyfus fell victim, he was in the French Army and was quickly moving his way up the ladder and becoming a more and more important figure. France had just lost the German/Franco war, although at the time there was no Germany, it was known as Prussia, made up of German states. This was a huge embarrassment for the French in that along with the loss they had to give up Alsace and Lorraine, two states, as well as part with a huge sum of money for the Prussians war efforts, and to rub salt into the wound, they had to sit back and allow the Prussians to hold a celebration parade throughout Paris. Consequently, France were out to get revenge, and began creating empires in Asia and Africa, to rebuild their respect and pride.

The Panama Canal Scandal - This is often pointed at as the reason for such anti-semiticsm in France. This was the event that saw up to a billion francs lost after the French government took bribes, supposedly from Jewish men, to keep quiet about The Panama Canal Companies financial trouble. Dreyfus was a Jewish man who came from Alsace, one of the states that were taken over by the Prussians, both of which led to him becoming this scapegoat.

The Scandal:

The scandal it self was that at the time of the French trying to mount this comeback, and to try and get their revenge there was somebody who was giving the Germans details of future plans. Secret documents were found in a waste paper bin detailing these future plans about the French Army. Somebody was getting paid to be a traitor. Straight away the French looked for someone to frame, and of course with all the anti-semitism, it was a Jew that would fall foul, Alfred Dreyfus. He was found guilty and sent to 'Devil's Island', in which they built him a cell, where all he could see was the sky, he was shackled whilst he slept, given poor food, and had no form of exercise. He was furthermore humiliated as he was stripped of all his medals and his sword was snapped. When it is looked at logically, it can be clearly seen that Dreyfus had no reason to be a traitor:

1) He came from Alsace, which meant he was even more obsessed with recapturing the place where he came from back off the Germans.
2) He was extremely wealthy, so he did not need the money.
3) He was a very smart and intellectual person, so he would have known that being a traitor would have got him killed. (Although in the court case he was criticised for being so smart anyway)

In France at this time there was a strong divide between Rich and Poor, and the left/right political divide were extremely separated over the Dreyfus affair; the left being socialists and intellectuals who did not agree with the decisions, and the right bring the Army, Church and monarchists who believed that Dreyfus was the guilty party.

J'Accuse

Emile Zola is said to be one of the best journalists that ever lived, and it was he who wrote J'Accuse or I Accuse, which accused all of the guilty parties in the Dreyfus affair and pretty much told it as it really was. He accused many army officers, and government officials of covering up the truth that it was in fact a man named Esterhazy who was the culprit. He was a well known traitor/spy, and when it was brought up, the Army officer's dismissed it and wanted it kept quiet, with Dreyfus left to rot on Devils Island.

In J'Accuse, Zola begins by addressing the President as a great man, he is full of praise for him ('you have conquered hearts'), aside from this one event or 'blemish' as he calls it. He even believes that the President could not have even known about this travesty, as it has been hidden from him. He speaks s strongly about Esterhazy's guilt 'a council of war, under order, has dared to acquit Esterhazy'.

He accuses firstly the man who was put in charge of the investigation, Lieutenant Colonel Du Paty de Clam. 'Forzinetti describes to us as armed with a dark lantern, wanting to approach the sleeping defendant, to flood his face abruptly with light and to thus surprise his crime'. The way in which he has described the blaming of Dreyfus by Du Paty de Clam, can be seen as to be mysterious or like he creeped up on him to plant this crime on him. Zola describes de Clam as 'inventing' Dreyfus for the crime, and he is extremely incensed with the way in which he has pinned the blame on the innocent. He publishes that Dreyfus was arrested in secret by Du Paty and that he forces Dreyfus' wife to keep quiet otherwise he would kill Dreyfus himself.

'Terrible denial of justice from which France is sick.' This is another strong quote as to how Zola feels about this miscarriage of justice. He may blame Du Paty for the birth of the affair but he also blames General Mercier, General De Boisdeffre and General Gonse for letting it happen.

Zola then questions why the case was behind closed doors, and how Du Paty had him found guilty, causing the public to whisper and talk of treason, causing them to be behind the public degradation of Dreyfus. Zola describes Du Paty's accusations as 'lunatic imaginations'. 'Hunting for the '"dirty Jews", which dishonours our time', here we can see that Zola disagrees with the anti-semitic views of the French Army and the right.


Zola often refers to the ones he accuses of having disturbed consciences, and that he knows that they know what they are hiding is wrong. He then begins to talk of the document that was found that pretty much guaranteed Esterhazy's role as the spy, and begins explaining how it was covered up and by whom: General Gonse, then General De Boisdeffre, then General Billot, were all there and did not want the truth getting out as Zola believed that 'the condemnation of Esterhazy inevitably involved the revision of Dreyfus's trial; and this, the High Command did not want at any cost.' So the Army and Du Paty would do just about anything to stop Esterhazy becoming known as the real traitor as it would inevitably prove Dreyfus' innocence. Major Picquart was the name of the person that stumbled across the truth and Zola praises him for doing all he can to convince his superiors to tell the truth about what really happened. To stop Picquart from revealing the truth Zola explains how he was sent on a mission that led him as far away as Tunisia. It is further explained how Esterhazy managed to escape the trial without being found guilty; and once again Zola feels it to be the work of Du Paty. He says that evidence that was held against Esterhazy was stolen and returned to the High Command.


Zola finishes with a final list of people that he accuses for what he describes as an abomination:
. Major Du Paty de Clam
. General Mercier
. General Billot
. General De Boisdeffre
. General De Pellieux
. 3 Handwriting experts: irs Belhomme, Varinard and Couard
. Offices of the war
. First council of war

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/J%27accuse - J'Accuse

Kant and Hegel

Immanuel Kant

Kant is the founder of German idealism. All German idealists have set characteristics; they believe in mind over matter, which supports previous empiricist philosophers such as Descartes (‘I think, therefore I am’). They reject the utilitarian way of life: the greatest good for the greatest number.

Throughout the majority of his life Kant lived in East Prussia, living through some historical events such as the Seven Years’ War (Russians occupied East Prussia), the French Revolution and part of Napoleon’s career. He was an extreme liberal who supported the French Revolution; there can be nothing more dreadful than that the actions of a man should be subject to the will of another’ – here he is saying that there is nothing worse than one mans actions being influenced by a force of another man and not being allowed to act out of own free will.

He began writing scientific works, such as a theory of earthquakes, but his most important scientific writings were his ‘General Natural History and Theory of the Heavens. It is not supported by any scientific proof but it sets an interesting hypothesis to the origins of the solar system, and suggests that each planet is in fact inhabited.

‘The Critique of Pure Reason’ is Kant’s most important book. The main purpose of the book is to prove that none of our knowledge can not be traced back to earlier memories, but is in fact a priori, so it rejects the ideas of people like Locke and other liberalists such as Mary Wollstonecraft, in that we are born with a blank slate, and all knowledge gained is purely gained from experience and knowledge. Kant does not agree that different types of knowledge are gained differently, where others believe that some knowledge gained, is via experience but this is in a synthetic proposition and analytical propositions are gained a priori. The examples that Russell gives in his book for analytical proposition is that ‘a tall man, is a man’, or ‘and equilateral triangle is a triangle’. On the other hand, a synthesised proposition is something like, a human plus a bird equals an angel. It was believed by some philosophers that the human and the bird are both a priori ideas that we are given, but the idea of the angel is a something we gain from experience and knowledge. Kant would have rejected this idea, and believed that all of our experiences are gained through an a priori proposition.




Immanuel Kant was the last influential philosopher in the theory of knowledge, following on from people we have covered such as Locke, Berkeley and Hume. Kant was a liberal thinker and his ideas on noumenal objects were supportive of those same ideas that Hume and Berkeley had. Kant believed that when you looked away from an object, or stopped perceiving it, it stayed there, but was not the same; when you begin perceiving the object it becomes phenomena. So if you were in a room with no windows and no doors, then Kant would have believed that anything outside of that room was different to what it would be if it were being perceived through a window. Berkeley had a similar notion in that he believed when you do not perceive something it does not exist, or that it flashes in and out of existence, Berkeley believed that God was to blame for this. This would have been because at the times of his philosophy, anything un-explainable was considered an act of God. Hume, however believed that there is no causation in nature, only in our minds the objects are there; anything that you can see is in one’s eyes only. In Kant’s morality something is only good if it can be legislated as a universal law. This was in opposition to utilitarianism, which is the greatest good for the greatest number. Kant would believe that making all the money would bring all the pleasure. However, utilitarianism would reject this notion, as not everyone can be rich. The morality by which Kant lived by also included the theory that any kind of lie is bad, and that the whole World ending would be better than someone telling a lie. So telling an axe murderer where your friends are so he can kill them would be better than lying to save them. Regardless of the outcome, the intent one has is most important. Kant believed that if you were doing something morally right in order to gain respect than it was wrong, but if you were doing something morally right, just because you know it is morally right than it is a good thing.


Hegel

Russell portrays Hegel as an extremely important figure when it comes to the movement of German philosophy. Although this is true, he also makes it extremely apparent that his success is a lot due to previous works of Kant. He states that Hegel had an extreme influence in Germany, and also producing ‘Hegelians’ throughout the world. Hegel is definitely a romantic, and is against the ideas of previous empiricists. ‘What to the empiricist appear to be facts are, and must be, irrational’.


He believed in the unreality of separateness, so the world was not a collection of ‘hard unit’ but more a real as a whole. He believed the whole, or the world, to be a more complex system or organism, as oppose to a simple substance, which previous philosophers such as Spinoza had argued. He believes that each component that the world is made up of is not an illusion but each holds its own value of importance. These were some of his earlier views, and this could have something to do with the fact that he had an early interest in mysticism.

The whole – ‘The absolute’ – Hegel

Logic and metaphysics to Hegel is the same thing, but the word ‘logic’ means something different to him, then it commonly means to anyone else. Russell uses a quite confusing example to explain Hegel’s philosophy of reality: ‘Mr A is an uncle; but if you were to say that the universe is an uncle, you would land yourself in difficulties. An uncle is a man who has a nephew, and the nephew is a separate person from the uncle; therefore an uncle cannot be the whole of reality.’ This again links back to his idea of the unreality of separateness.

Knowledge is a triadic movement (three fold):
1) Sense perception – awareness of the object
2) Sceptical criticism – becomes purely subjective
3) Self knowledge – subject and object are no longer distinct

Hegel believes that ‘falsehoods’ and ‘truths’ are not as clear-cut opposite as we are led to believe. Nothing we know is either wholly true or false, ‘we can know in a way that it is false’. This is done when we attach truth to a piece of information, which is true in a sense but not in a philosophical sense, for ‘truth is a whole’ and nothing partial is therefore true.

Hegel’s philosophy is extremely unique in that it is quite contradictory: He argues that communal living is a good thing, or the communist lifestyle, however, he also argues that free will can only be granted if you own your own property. He, like Kant, is against the utilitarian approach supported by philosophers such as J.S.Mill (grandson of Jeremy Bentham, creator of utilitarianism). They instead promote this more independent type of freedom. Hegel does however criticise some aspects of liberal freedom in that he believes the needs of one person can harm another, so therefore certain freedoms should not be granted.

There are differences between Kant and Hegel. Kant supports previous ideas put forward such as that of Descartes, in that the human minds are not able to understand certain subjects, similarly to that of an ant not being able to understand a human, whereas Hegel believes that although this is the case now, there may be a time when the human brain has complete understanding.

Mary Wollstonecraft

Mary Wollstonecraft had a very hard early life, her father was obsessed with public standing, which led to his inevitable downfall, and she was forced to work as a governess in Ireland for extremely poor pay. She had an extreme passion for education and most importantly, giving women the same education as men. She believed that women were only given this education by which they were taught superficial things such as how to cook, clean or sew; the things that were expected of a woman in those days. She believed that women ere entitled to a freedom of knowledge and that they should be given the equality of opportunity. In Mary's opinion, women were too quick to accept this education, and she was in general critical of women as a whole, and not men, who may have been seen as the people to implement this method of education.

Wollstonecraft would have supported John Locke's theory that the human has nothing in their mind to start off with, and that everybody starts with this 'blank slate'. The majority of men at the time would have believed this applied only to men, whereas Locke and Wollstonecraft believed it to be all humans. She published her first book, 'Thoughts on the Education of Daughters', this was described as a 'self-help' book that gave women advice on not only how not to accept the conventions of education, but also gave etiquette and morality advice, as well as guidelines on how to care for infants.

Another philosopher who intrigued Wollstonecraft was Jean-Jacques Rousseau; even though she was in awe of him she was also critical of him; Mary was fully supportive of the French Revolution and the tearing down of the old regime, which was mainly driven by Rousseau, however, she had previously pleaded with the leaders of revolutionary France to ignore Rousseau's views of women and to grant them full equality.

Wollstonecraft's most famous publication was the Vindication of the Rights of Women; this was diagnosis of the current state of female manners, and was not an attack on society for treating women the way they did, but rather aimed at middle class women to ask them why they were accepting these conventions. It metaphorically put a mirror in front of the female population, and was seen as a well needed wake up call. The vindication was given a very warm response.


• Wollstonecraft argues that men are given a ‘birthright’ to fight oppression whereas women are not given the same birthright but they instead despise the freedom that men have. Saying this she also says that ‘they (women) have not sufficient virtue to struggle to attain’ – so she is saying that even though women want this given right to be able to considered equal to men, they are reluctant to fight for it.

• ‘Men have, probably, been led by viewing education in a false light’ – she goes on to say that men see education as something to prepare you for life, whereas it should be seen as a step towards perfection and it is for this reason that women in Wollstonecraft’s opinion are not given equal education. They are taught to cook/clean/sew etc.
• Wollstonecraft describes women as ‘slaves’.

• She believes that, what she describes as female ‘folly and vice’, stems from people being narrow minded. The government produce obstacles, which prevent female understanding and therefore leave them to remain inferior to the male species.

• She describes women as ‘weak beings’ – she blames not just men and society for bringing down the female species but more the women in the world for adhering to these beliefs therefore not giving themselves a chance.

• She even seems to become frustrated in her writing: ‘Ah! Why do women, I write with affectionate solicitude, condescend to receive a degree of attention and respect from strangers.’ She is asking why is it that women are forced to give even strange men their attention and respect even though when a man and a man meet this is not the case. She is angry it seems at all females for making themselves this way.

• To me it seems as though Wollstonecraft sees women as these robotic beings that a controlled or used as a puppet by men. It is as if they are born from a machine or that they are man made, so much so that they are not willing to break the mould. This is what Wollstonecraft sees women as, in that they are all forced to be the same sort of character and she wants them to break out and stop complying with the in-equalities.

• I think that Wollstonecraft is annoyed by the way in which women are also treated in society when it comes to things like men opening doors for women: ‘I scarcely am able to govern my muscles, when I see a man start with eager, and serious solicitude to lift a handkerchief, or shut a door, when the lady could have done it herself, had she only moved a pace or two.’ So basically she thinks that if a woman is shown to need the man to do such things for her, she is allowing herself to become a lesser figure. What she wants is for a woman to act exactly the same as a man, and open doors for herself, or pick up a hander kerchief for herself.

• Wollstonecraft sets her main wish to be that she wants there to be no distinctions between a man and a woman in society unless it is shown via love or a relationship; only then can we see who is the ‘male’ and ‘female’.

• She believes that certain women have received this ‘masculine’ education, and therefore gone on to acquire great courage and resolution, therefore proving her point that females are not inferior to males if given the right tools to succeed. If they are not given the opportunity, and they are forced to abide to the stereotypical ideals, then they are not able to show the equality.

News Agenda

News Agenda

The I paper:

The ‘I’ is a new paper, which comes from the same people that produce the Independent. It has been introduced to give a more condensed version of its ‘mother’ paper, for the people who have little time during the day to get their news, such as commuters or businessmen and women. It has been described as a better alternative to the free newspapers, such as the Metro. The first edition was published on the 26th October 2010, so it is yet to have any exact figures of circulation or it’s audience.

It seems to be more interested in the economy and money judging by the order of news. On the 18th November the front page story was that of a ‘boom’ in auction houses, and it explained that even though the world is in recession, there is still millions being spent. Similarly, the next day, the front page was that of how tax money was being spent. The Royal engagement was set back as far as page six, like the Independent, showing its lack of interest in the Royal family. In contrast, the Daily Mail thought it was important to put information on the Royal wedding on the front page.

Another one of the main stories in the ‘I’ was that of the UK’s ‘bailing out’ of Ireland financially, again showing its interest in the economy. In comparison, the Daily Mail set this story back on page four, which is still high up the order, however it chose to publish a story about benefit thieves before.

Radio Breeze:

Radio Breeze is a local radio station in Hampshire, with three different stations covering 3 different areas: Portsmouth, Chichester and Isle of Wight; Southampton and New Forest; and Winchester and North Hampshire. The type of music is the ‘feel good’ kind. The type of artists you would find would be Michael Buble, Gloria Estefan or Matt Monro. The tag line of Breeze is ‘the smoothest sounds in the South’ which gives you an idea of the genre of music to be expected.

There is some information on the website about Breeze’s target audience, explaining that it targets 35-64 year olds, and that it has a slight female bias. Like the ‘I’ paper, it claims to be targeted at those who lead a busy life, so they can come home at the end of a busy day and ‘chill-out’.

The news on Breeze is very brief and is generally local. Stories found ranged from people being jailed around the area, to robberies and local sport. It also takes some time to discuss news from all over the United Kingdom, such as the Royal wedding – although it was more about the hope of an extra days bank holiday. There were on average 6-7 stories in each bulletin, lasting around 3-4 minutes. The main story would last around the one minute mark, and then the rest ranging from 15 seconds – 40 seconds, depending on whether or not they have a piece of audio to go with it.

HCJ - Semester One - Lecture Four

Reading:

An enquiry concerning human understanding.

In lecture four of our HCJ module we were lectured on David Hume, and were asked to read 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' for the seminar that followed. In the first part of this post I will discuss my ideas and thoughts on the reading set, giving some direct quotes from it and making my own judgements.

Firstly the book begins to describe the term 'moral philosophy' and the ways in which different people treat it and how it can be perceived. Firstly it discusses moral philosophy in the terms of mankind in that the man is first and foremost 'born for action' and I think that it is trying to say that men are the most important beings, it believes that they are perfect and not to be discussed or questioned. On the other hand moral philosophy can be treated as a reasonable being, meaning that human nature can be speculated or questioned. It perhaps even asks us to study what makes mankind 'tick' - what makes us feel happiness, sorrow and excitement? This can be linked to the way in which some philosophers we have discussed believed in that they saw the human being as a 'ticking' object which was run like a mechanism, or a clock (such that can be seen on the cover of Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' book).

The next part of the reading that stood out to me was the description it gave of a philosopher: 'a philosopher...little acceptable in the world...lives remote from communication with mankind, and wrapped up in principles and notions equally remote from their comprehension.' This is intriguing, as it seemed to describe the philosopher as someone who has no contact with the 'outside world', or anyone outside the four walls he sees everyday. His ideas also never leave the four walls as they are completely rejected by anyone that they are met by. I think this is a contradiction of what we have already studied so far this year, as it is clear that philosophers like Descartes, Newton and More all wanted their notions heard and had them published in some cases, and although they were stil rejected in some regions, they must be important ideas else we would not be studying them, up until the present day.

David Hume

Causation is the production of an effect by a cause, or something 'causing' something else. This was one of Hume's biggest ideas, in that he totally rejected it. Hume believed that nothing in the world caused anything else to happen, and that anything that seemed to be a cause is in fact 'all in our head' so to speak. I find this completely barbaric that Hume rejects causation and he thinks that it is just a coincidence that the red billiard ball with move upon the white billiard ball touching it. He says that there is not enough evidence for it to be true, to me the evidence is right there, clear as day, and I think science proves that. The force that the billiard que hits the whit ball with is passed on to the white ball, which then hits the red ball with a decreasing force, which then causes the red ball to move. I can see where he is coming from, but I think it is completely far-fetched to believe that somewhere in the world there is a sort of magnet that is causing the red ball to move at precisely the same time the white ball comes into contact with it. On the other hand, I do believe that Hume is correct in saying that just because I am hear typing this blog right now, does not mean I will be in 5 second. Well firstly I could punch in a 'secret code' into my laptop that results in all of my life's work being completed, but in fact that has not happend, but something more likely is that the world could be hit by an asteroid or one of the huge nuclear weapons on the planet could be set off.

Another aspect of David Hume that interested me somewhat was 'The Verification Principle' - so unless something can be verified or falsified it was 'un-important'. This again in my opinion is slightly barbaric, but it is his own opinion and not something he is stating as fact. In Hume's opinion God is not real as he could not be proven and therefore even discussing him was totally pointless (hence Hume being an extreme atheist). So because God can not be verified he is not real, therefore not important. On the other hand saying that a glass will break when thrown on the floor is important as it can be verified, or proven. Even though Hume has these ideas I personally feel he contradicts his atheism slightly in saying that God is not real because he can not be proven, but in the same breath it can't not be proven, so therefore can not be 'falsified', therefore there is no evidence to say that God is in fact a myth.


So that was my brief notes on Lecture/Seminar four. A bit of a tricky subject for me it has to be said, but I think my head is some of the way around it!

Haye Vs Harrison!

The eagerly anticipated boxing match between the World Champion, David Haye, and the one time Olympic gold medalist Audley Harrison took place last night. What was supposed to be the fight of the year turned out to be quite a disappointment, with the first two rounds providing little, if any action, and the third seeing Haye defeat Harrison by 'technical knock-out' (TKO) after a series of heavy blows. Even though it was a great victory for Haye, I am sure that some controversy will come out of the post-fight interview.

Being a bit of a gambler myself I was shocked to hear that David Haye claimed that he 'knew' he would KO Harrison in the third round and bragged that he had piled on the money in the expectation that he would do this. He also said that his friends and family had put a lot of money on Haye finishing Harrison in the third.


I don't exactly know the ins and outs of match fixing and fraudulent gambling, but I am pretty sure that something isn't right there. Boxers notoriously brag about their capabilities and expectations so it could well be a case of 'I told you so', when in fact it was just a coincidence. This will probably be brushed under the carpet and forgotten about, but to me this was more controversial and shocking than the fight itself!

Peter Cole's view on newspapers

Cole discusses two mid-market papers: The Daily Express and the Daily Mail. From what I understand a mid-market paper is not too much of a serious paper (broadsheet) nor is it a red-top (tabloid) but it is in-between the two. Cole mentions a few statistics of which I will not go into detail, but it is important I think that we recognise the Express sells less than a quarter of what it did in 1955 than what it does today. Cole explains that the Express seems to like its controversy and conspiracy stories, for instance he talks about it's obsession with Princess Diana, and Madeleine McCan. It seems to find advancements and 'new evidence' all the time where as none of the other papers do. The Daily Mail is the other mid-market newspaper, and it's stories are evidence for this. A lot of it's stories are aimed negatively towards the welfare state and criticise it for draining tax payers money, the tax payers being the main bulk of it's readers. They often do free giveaways such as CD's and DVD's and are almost always directed at a family audience.

Tabloid newspapers are often called 'red-tops' , because they always have a red top. They are associated with the working class, and The Sun, is Britain's number one selling newspaper. They re famous for their quick read stories and they offer a lot in the form of crime, sex, sport and stars. The main target audience is that of C2DE and a more younger audience, with red-tops dominating under 35 year old readers. On the other hand, we have broadsheet newspapers which are seen as the complete opposite to the tabloids. They used to be printed on large paper, but other than The Telegraph, they have all averted to the smaller easier to manage, smaller papers. They have a lot more text and reading in them, as oppose to the red-tops. This is because the readers of the broadsheets are generally more educated and more affluent. They are often doctors, teachers or lawyers who do not have a lot of time to watch television so they get their information maybe on the train on the way to work in the morning, or on the way home. Broadsheets, like the mid-markets do adopt the scheme of giveaways, consisting of CD's, DVD's and posters. The majority of the broadsheets appeal to an older audience, however papers such as the Guardian have introduced the G2 which attracts a younger demographic.

WINOL - 3/11/2010

A brief overview of my opinions an criticisms of this weeks WINOL bulletin.

Overall I thought this week's bulletin was done to a very high standard, with the first presenter Jake, doing his part to an exceptional standard, he seemed vert confident and did not stutter at all, similarly all the reporters seemed to be the same.

The first criticism that I have is minor, but I thought it may have been better to pick a quieter road at the end of the second report on prisoners being able to vote. It seemed that the reporter was being drowned out at times, but nothing too major.

The story about parking I thought was very good overall, and I thought that the interviews and the shots away at the car parking signs and parked cars really hit home with the issues that we are having, the one thing I would say is that Chiz could have sounded a bit more enthusiastic, sorry mate haha!

During the sports, Mikey Smith impressed with his reporting as did Will and Karen, personally I could not fund anything to fault them on.

Obviously when the second presenter came on she had a slight stutter at the start and seemed a little bit nervous, but slowly seemed to get more confident. The only other issue I had was when the camera angles seemed to confuse her, or maybe they were shooting from the wrong camera.

Overall, a good bulletin, but a few things that need ironing out. It does seem like they are getting better week by week!

HCJ - Semester One - Lecture Three

These are my notes from the reading from lecture three.

Joseph Addison - The Spectator No. 476

Addison discusses method in speech and writing throughout this piece. He firstly discusses the difference in writings: firstly writings that have regularity and method are set out to stick to a certain topic, and perhaps follow certain guidelines, therefore not straying off topic creating a clearer understanding. On the other hand, he describes the second form of writings as 'essays'. Maybe these pieces run on too long and have not set guidelines, and the meaning off these writings are often lost.

Addison points out that the writings of more methodical kind can be seen in works from Tully and Aristotle, whereas the more essay forms are found in Seneca and Montaigne.

What I also got from Addison was that people who question, or want an answer are men of great learning and genius. So what I think he was trying to say here was that people who wrote in methodical ways are not. If I am right in thinking this then he somewhat contradicts himself by saying that such work can be seen from the likes of Aristotle, someone who was clearly a man of genius.

Method writing gives an advantage to the reader and to the writer in that its is not complicate and it is easier to understand. A quote to support this from the reading was 'his thoughts are at the same time more intelligible, and better discover their drift and meaning, when they are placed in their proper lights, and follow one another in a regular series, than when they are thrown together without order and connection'.

Addison also discusses how thoughts and conversations are used in the same way. He argues that many people who have arguments or disputes do not talk in methodical terms as they steer away from the original subject quickly.

Addison gives Tom Puzzle as the prime example of the 'immethodical' man - I think what he is trying to say is that his opinions are not clear enough to make us believe in them, but they certainly plant a seed of doubt in our minds. Maybe his writings get too confusing for the reader to fully comprehend.

The Royal Exchange:

The writer of The Royal Exchange to me was discussing his love and admiration for the way that the whole world comes together to form one. It explains how we get one part of our clothing from one part of the world and another part of our clothing from another. It also discusses how we could not live without trade from around the world, and that fruits from one part of the world compliments food that we are eating from another part.

Well, I don't think anyone predicted that

Despite England having a dreadful World Cup (aside from a refereeing perspective) there was one thing that could put a smile on our faces: The German's secret weapon was an octopus named Paul, who could apparently predict the results of games.

Paul would pick a box with the right countries flag on it and get inside, and this box would be the team that would win that particular match. Seems a bit far-fetched, but shockingly, Paul predicted 100% correctly in the entire tournament. Well for Germany matches and the final, still pretty impressive!

After the World Cup it became known that Paul was in fact English born and not German, and the Germans had stolen him from us. Pretty much like they did with their entire national squad. To name a few Podolski (Polish), Klose (Polish), Ozil (Turkish) and Boateng (Ghanaian). Finally, something for us patriotic Englishmen to be proud of!

However, on October the 26th, the Weymouth born octopus was found dead in his tank in Germany. He will be remembered throughout the world for his predictions that left many stunned, and I think i speak for everyone when I say he will be sorely missed.

Journalism Now - The history of major wholesale news reporting agencies

News agencies are organisations that provide news coverage to newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations. Some examples of news agencies are Reuters, the Press Association (PA) and Agence France-Presse (AFP).

Reuters is one of the most important news agencies to be formed. It is a London based agency and was opened by a German man called Paul Julius Reuter. It began by transmitting stock market quotations between London and Paris via the new Calais-Dover telegraph cable. The organisation continued to grow, soon extending to the whole of Britain and parts of Europe. It also began transmitting economic and general news. The reputation of Reuters was rapidly increasing, and in 1865 it had it's most important scoop. The story was that of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. It was the first agency in Europe to provide news of this development, and it is believed that this story is one of the major reasons for Reuters' success. In 1883 it began to transmit messages electronically to all London newspapers, making the distribution of news even faster. Reuters are famously known for objective reporting, but during the two World Wars it was subject to pressure from the British Government to serve national interests. This went against the objective view that it had, but in 1941 it managed to avert this pressure by making itself a private company with the new owners forming the 'Reuters Trust'. This effectively safeguarded the organisations independence and neutrality.

The Agence France-Presse is one of the most important news agencies. It was originally founded under the name Agence Havas, by Charles-Louis Havas, and was the first international news agency in the world. It provided information to many French newspapers, periodicals and magazines. It was this agency that influenced the formation of other agencies such as Reuters in Britain. It originally began distributing news via traditional methods, such as carrier pigeons and horse-drawn carriages. In 1842 France's railroad system was built, meaning distribution was made easier and quicker. Three years later the telegraph was invented meaning the AFP were able to distribute their news around Europe. It was all going very well for the organisation, until it was stripped of it's distribution service during World War Two. Just before the end of World War Two it was reborn under the new name Agence France-Presse. Journalists in the resistance seized the Paris headquarters as France was liberated from Nazi occupation. Like other news agencies, the organisation had a strong belief to be objective, and in 1957 it formed a statute that defined the independence and freedom of it's journalists. Article two from this statute reads 'Agence France-Presse may not under any circumstances take account of influences or considerations that would compromise the accuracy or objectivity of the news; it must not under any circumstances pass under legal or de facto control of an ideological, political or economic group'. It wanted the reporters to be fast, fair and accurate, and under no circumstances be influenced otherwise.

The Press Association (PA) is another example of a news agency that is committed to providing fast, fair and accurate news. It was founded in 1868 by a group of newspaper owners. The aims of the Press Association was to produce a more accurate and reliable alternative to the telegraph companies. One man who joined the Press Association, Chris Moncrieff, has written a book on the history of the organisation, 'Living on a Deadline'.

HCJ - Semester One - Lecture Two

John Locke is a very important figure when discussing empiricism. He had many ideas about the social contract, or the way in which people agreed to be ruled.

During the lecture it was put across that Locke's work and opinions are only key to his time, and that the context of his work and findings were extremely important. Others do believe that Locke would maintain the same beliefs even in todays world - personally I do not feel that the time in which Locke lived played an important role in his beliefs. Locke's 'state of nature' can be seen as an example; 'everyone enjoys a natural freedom and equality but obey natural laws' - We do live in this sort of environment today, in that we obey laws put out by the government, and everyone does have the freedom to do as they please within the laws. Even though this outlines some of Locke's ideals, he may not be happy with it all together when he sees it put into practice.

Descartes was one for thinking that we were born with set ideas imprinted onto our mind, however, Locke disagrees with this notion and I would have to agree with him. In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding he outlines that all of our knowledge comes from experience: 'All our knowledge is founded'. It was also mentioned in the lecture that there is test where by you can think of anything you know in your brain and it can be traced back to an earlier memory or experience where you learned this piece of information, I do not know about anybody else, but I certainly do not have anything in my brain by which I cannot recall how it was learned. For instance a baby is not born with the ability to talk or walk; hence it learns from parents or others around it, this is why an English baby with English parents will learn English, on the other hand a Spanish born baby with Spanish parents will not automatically talking English! The way by which Locke says we get this knowledge is through sensation, using our God given senses to take the information we are given. Locke is not a man who dismisses religion as he does believe that God has given us a brain which is capable of reasoning, but not given us ideas before we are born. 'I think, it will be granted easily, that if a child were kept in a place where he never saw any other but black and white till he were a man, he would have no more ideas of scarlet or green' - a quote from Locke outlining his belief that if you were only exposed to certain things like colours of black and white, you would not know of any other colours at all, thus backing up the point that we are not born with imprints or ideas already in our heads.

Locke: 'To ask, at what time a man has first any ideas, is to ask, when he begins to perceive' - you can only have ideas once you can perceive, you can only begin to perceive once you are born - you are born with no ideas. 'foetus in the mother's womb differs not much from the state of a vegetable' - This is a quote from the reading which I found quite amusing but at the same time quite important. He likens the baby in the womb as a vegetable, something that cannot perceive or think, therefore it will have no thoughts or impressions, how can it be then that we are born with ideas in our heads?

Locke begins to question the soul and the body and if they are two separate things. He asks himself if the soul is still thinking whilst the man is sleeping; and if so doe this mean that the soul is experiencing joy, happiness, sorrow and pain whilst the man is non the wiser. 'For to be happy or miserable without being conscious of it, seems to me utterly inconsistent and impossible' - this could back up his claims that the soul and body are two persons in that he believes that the soul does think whilst you sleep and therefore does experience feelings but the person is not conscious of it. Locke then goes on to discuss even further possibilities of the soul leaving the body whilst we sleep and taking up someone else's body to do its thinking. He even goes on to suggest that two people could share a soul - At this point in the essay I find it hard to grasp the concept that Locke is getting at although I can see why he may think that. Personally, I believe that any thought made whilst asleep is conveyed as a dream and is a reflection on previous days events and this is the reason as to why we may not remember the dreams, because we have already lived them. The reason why Locke believes we do not remember the souls thoughts when we wake is that the soul does not have organs or body for the thoughts to leave an impression on.

Locke seems to like playing with the idea of dreaming and is it the soul that makes us dream. He describes dreaming as irrational and frivolous, therefore making it insignificant, so he concludes that this is the reason why the brain may forget to remember it.' And I say, it is as possible that the soul may not always think; and much more probable that it should sometimes not think, than that it should often think, and that a long while together, and not be conscious to itself, the next moment after, that it had thought.' What I think Locke is trying to say here is that he believes the soul to be thinking on some occasions but not on others, even though he does argue that it is impossible to prove. What I also get from this is that he believes the soul to not be aware of its thoughts.