England Rich. . Ummm. . .How?

Empiricist Adam Smith questioned England’s sudden increase in wealth. Too right. If you don’t ask, you don’t know right? He questioned this in his book Wealth of Nations, the first book of economic theory and proclaimed “a manifesto for the private property, free trade and free markets”. The American Revolution in 1776 led to the American Declaration of Independence where the phrase: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." can be found. The English Civil war was based on freedom of people making their own fortune for themselves not the state, which came from this phrase. The English fought against taxation believing there should be no taxation; people should keep the wealth they earn. Before the Civil War there was a ship tax to build new ships. This meant each ship built was owned by the King and could only be used for his purposes e.g., transporting goods. This also meant these ships were big, heavy and slow. This, along with the fall of mercantilism, was abolished as a result of the English Civil War.

This then brings me back to Adam Smith, the founding father of capitalism. Smith argued that, just like in the Civil War that wealth created by an individual should be used by that said individual, rather than giving it to the King and the State. This could possibly be seen as selfish but Smith argued that the natural greed of people would cause the money to flow back into the economy and other parts of the community. He also argued that whatever the government do, no matter how well they mean to do, it never seems to have the public’s best interests at the centre. This applies today, especially with the student finance nonsense. So well said Adam Smith, for predicting to us how our government would be.

John Addison and the Spectator

Addison opens the article “method gives light” by explaining there are two different types of writing:

• ·         Those that have been planned
• ·         Those that have been thrown together with a few thoughts on one subject

The second kind of writing Addison calls ‘Essays’. He goes on to say writers Seneca and Michel de Montaigne use the second method for their writing and writer Tully and Aristotle use the first method to write. He explains that when he reads a piece that hasn’t been planned or is without method, he goes into some sort of state of confusion and disorder, too many thoughts grow from another. This can be found even now, with us when reading something with no structure or fluidity. We can become lost or distanced from the material in front of us. However, when reading a piece constructed with method he can clearly see all points addressed and confusion is never an occurrence. In a methodical discourse, your eye commands what you understand from it. Addison says men who do not write with method are men of high learning and knowledge. This can make them too exact, making them feel the need to throw down all their ideas at once rather than separate and organise them.

As well as discussing method in writing, he discusses the idea of method within conversation. A person can have a conversation without method as it mostly spontaneous. Addison however felt that a person who cannot or is unaware of how to organise their thoughts before conversation may as well be lost. I fully agree that to make a successful piece of writing, a structure or method needs to be announced and clear but conversation should stay spontaneous without a ‘plan’ as it is usually drawn from what is in our head. This article by Addison seems somewhat pointless because he has basically explained that it’s okay to write with two different procedures but its better if you plan it. 

Lecture 3 – Origins of the Press

Interesting is one word I will use to describe this lecture. I never realised how far back printing and publishing went. I knew it started because the need for bibles became too much for a few monks to sit and re-write it, but I had no idea that this spawned the birth of the “Guttenberg Printing Press” and journalism itself.

1440 was the definitive point in history; it was of course the year that the Guttenberg Printing Press was created. I was made up of wooden blocks in a frame with an alloy “type” on it. The alloy was made up of lead and tin. Something Guttenberg created himself, what with being a former goldsmith.  This was the best way to get a high quality print for the publications running through the press. This machine was of course made for the purpose of re printing bibles, as it was, and could be considered even now the most valuable book of the time. Before the press was made, writing was formed from the Chinese at round about 4,000BC. They used a system of pictograms that has possibly been developed from hieroglyphics used by the Egyptians in time before. A writing form called “cuneiform” developed from this in about 3,800BC.  This was established by the Sumerians in Iraq. It is created by scoring a variety of lines, all shapes and sizes, onto a tablet with a knife called a “cune”, which is where the writing form acquires its name.

The next big “book order” in history is that from The Reformation, in 1517. This is of course the birth of the Protestant religion and the puritans. The Reformation, of the Catholic Church that is, needed the mass production of books for the protestant religion, as they needed to be able to read the bible in their own dialect. Once the Protestant religion was formed, a new demand for “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” arose. This book contained images and explicit references to the sufferings of the Protestants due to the Catholics. When not reading the bible, Protestants would read this book as a reminder of what could happen if they lost faith.  Could be considered as a cruel way of teaching, but each to their own.

The next significant point in history for journalism of today was the release of the Daily Courant, the first, what we’d consider to be a newspaper. This paper was created for commercial purposes, much like those of today, as we know journalism is the business of taking information and turning it into money. It was clearly the same in the 1700’s. This newspaper contained and was used for trading opportunities for locals; adverts. From these adverts, the need for insurance for the ships making the trade arose. This therefore led to the creation of the first insurance policies. We can hope they were a little cheaper than they are today.

John Locke

John Locke (1632-1704) believed that Experience is the true way to gain knowledge, an idea that compared to the farfetched theories of Aristotle, sounds relatively believable. He believed that these “experiences” shaped the people we are or become. Well, again, surely that’s relatively straight forward. As is virtually everything Locke has said in his essay. . .  Finally, a philosopher I can actually understand!

The perceptions we have of many things are due to how our mind conveys them. Locke named these “sensations”. These are only one part of the process we go through to gain knowledge but our sensations contribute to everything we experience on a day to day basis. Locke is basically telling us here those things we experience shape our lives but how we react to them shapes our personality and who we are. I believe Locke is definitely talking sense but I think he is missing something rather crucial. I believe that we gain some of our knowledge and traits from what we see and hear from our parents during our upbringing.

Locke disagreed with Hobbes, particularly his theory or idea that god chose one person to be a “leader” and that person can do whatever they want, a dictatorship.  Locke suggested the concept of ‘Government’. That the country has a collection of people, voted for by the community, to make decisions for the country together, with the King present to lead, protect and rule. He suggested there be laws to dictate how much power the Government have mainly to stop them doing something the people disagree with and to stop them exploiting their power. Locke also established that the citizens can rebel against their government if they let them down or don’t respect the set laws. He suggested this mainly to prevent conflict over property.

One of Locke’s ideas that particularly stood out to me was his theory that when we are born, we are born like a clean slate, a tablet of innocence. This idea however conflicted with that of the church. The church believed everyone was born with an imprinted ability to sin. I sort of think this could be true, everyone has the ability to sin but when you’re young or new born you are unable to determine what is right and what is wrong. Locke was okay with this belief but felt that it was wrong for the church to pressure people to believe it as well. He believed that individuals should be guided by a private belief system, possibly made up of several religious beliefs not just from Christianity. He said what you want to believe is okay and entirely down to the individual, have it as a personal guide and don’t try to make everyone else believe it too. This phrase, I feel, also applies today.

I will end on what I believe is the most important idea that Locke established; ‘everyone as the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to property, each never conflicting with the other’. 

Lecture 1 - Philosophy?

For the first Journalism lecture of my three years at Winchester an Introduction to Philosophy was the last thing I expected. Philosophy is a subject I have never previously studied, therefore creating a sense of confusion mixed with intrigue. The lecture and the reading of “History of Philosophy by Betrand Russell” that followed I found slightly difficult to comprehend. At the same time, I found it weirdly interesting.

After the initial shock of being in a philosophy lecture I asked myself “What the hell has this got to do with Journalism?” But after a lot of consideration the answer became pretty apparent. . . A LOT!

As future journalists we are expected to write fluently and with consistency, perhaps even asking the unsolvable. This we can learn from this brilliantly interesting period that is the Renaissance.

One thing that became clear to me was that there are two types of Philosopher, idealists, those who base their opinions on what they believe and empiricists, who base their opinions on facts. Journalists investigate and show the facts using knowledge and existence therefore making them empiricists. This may be why the theory Empiricism really stood out to me. It seemed the only theory that I could truly believe. The concept of using experiences and evidence to find new knowledge.

A key Philosopher that is frequently mentioned in philosophy is 'Plato'. He was a key philosopher of the time and even now. His unusual way of thinking led to disagreement from other philosophers, even his own student ‘Aristotle’. Plato believed that the world we live in is actually heavily flawed and is full of 'appearances', meaning everything is just a mere imitation of the perfect version of itself. However brilliant Plato is, the one philosopher that really stuck in my mind was Rene Decartes. This French philosopher, similarly to Plato, believed that there is a perfect version of everything; he did however believe God was ultimate perfection. 

The reason Decartes really inspired me, is the way he questioned every little detail. For example, my mother is my mum. But how do I know she is? Well, because she told me. But what if she was lying? Then there is a possibility that she isn’t my mother.  This got me thinking “oh my gosh, you know what, he’s right!” Decartes always believed in putting the individual at the centre.

If you think, then you exist.

Nic South :)

Heyy. I'm Nicola South (most people call me Nic), studying BA Hons Journalism and Performing Arts at Winchester University. I'm 18 and from Essex(don't giggle at the stereotype!)!! Music Journalism and P.R are my main interests in the Journalism field.