Right I have a major problem with trying to covert my radio bulletin into a Youtube video, but have found an alternative in the creative wizard which is Soundcloud. Here is the end product:
Radio News Final Bulletin by lobrien1
Hope you all enjoy and are not put asleep before the end of the bulletin!
Friday, 25 March 2011
The difference between County and District councils
There are many distinct differences between district and county councils within the United Kingdom. The single tier and two-tier system of local government in England was revised in the early 1990's. The two-tier system represents a city and is divided into a district and county council. An example of this within Hampshire is Winchester. Single tier councils are unitary authorities, which have the combined powers of both the district and county council. A prime example of a unitary authority in Hampshire is Portsmouth and Southampton.
There are 55 unitary authorities in England and 9 regional English European authorities. Each of the European Authorities are represented by a MEP (Member of the European Parliament), who will represent their local area within the European Union.
County councils are elected bodies who represent a wide area across a county They are responsible for wider-spreads services, such as education and social services. Within Hampshire County Council, they have an annual budget of £1 Billion. This is made up of 26% of funding from the British government, with the remaining 74% of the funding coming from payment of council tax from residents within Hampshire.
Hampshire County Council employ staff from a wide variety of areas across the public sector including teachers, social workers and the emergency services. The council is made up of 78 councillors who are elected every four years to represent the electoral wards within the county. The headquarters of the County Council is based in Winchester, but is also spread over various other locations across the county.
The main responsibilities of a County Council include; education services, emergency services, libraries, local transport, mental health services, road maintenance and waste disposal. These services are bound by law and must be offered by all County Councils.
A district council in comparison focuses around services in a much smaller area. Winchester City Council is made of 55 local councillors who will look after the interests of the local community. They are led by Kelsey Learney, a Liberal Democrat who is elected by the political party who has the majority within the council.
Their budget in comparison to Hampshire County Council is much smaller at £12 million. They focus on services in areas including environmental health, car parking, housing benefits and local council housing. Within district councils, there are smaller parish councils who will look after similar services, but with a reduced budget of between £10,000 and £100,000.
Within both county and district councils decisions will be made by the elected members. Each member will have a specific portfolio area that they specialise in, however the entire cabinet will vote on each specific decision, not the executive portfolio member. For example, when I attended the safer neighbourhoods meeting, decisions to what priorities the local police should focus their attention to could not be decided because the numbers of councillors needed to make the decision was not enough to carry the motion forward.
Some information from both county and district councils can not divulged to hide personal information or information that can used and spun by local newspapers. It is evident that it is hard to gather information from local councils, but it is always possible if you try hard enough.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
My Seminar Paper on the Communist Manifesto
Seminar Paper: Karl Marx and The Communist Manifesto
In 1848 “A spectre was haunting European, the spectre of Communism.” These are the words of Karl Marx who with the help of Fredrick Engels published The Communist Manifesto.
Karl Marx met Engels in Paris in 1843 with both of them known for their writings about communism. However, it was not until 1847 when Frederick Engels was inducted into the Communist League when he was asked to write a doctrine that would become the Communist Manifesto. Even though both Marx and Engels contributed their ideas to the manifesto, it is seen exclusively as the work of Marx.
The prologue to the Manifesto is where Marx admits that within Europe mass groups are trying to submerge communism into the ground before it can take effect on society. However, Marx suggests that two things have come from this struggle:
1. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
2. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, should publish, there views, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
Chapter 1: Bourgeois and Proletarians
Marx begins the manifesto by explaining that throughout history there has been oppression and struggles between the social classes. Throughout history one class has dominated the other and this constant struggle has always end in one of two ways according to Marx, either by revolution of the oppressed class or the ruin of the commanding dominant aristocracy.
If you were alive in The 19th Century, western society was rife in the rule of Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution where if you lived within the working class you were bound to struggle to live and support your family. These were the workers who would be paid a small amount to help flourish the economic venture of their rich powerful bosses.
Marx established this and expressed the differences between The Bourgeois (The boss) and The Proletarians (The labourer).
The failure of feudal system of industry is described by Marx as ‘in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new market: This brought upon the change in a series of revolutions in the modes of productions and exchange in the form of ‘Modern Industry.’
This was where “the place of the industrial middle-class” was taken “by industrial millionaires”, who were described by Marx as “The Modern Bourgeois.’”
What intrigued me about Marx’s explanation of “The Modern Bourgeois” is it has always been influential within revolution throughout history. It has always been linked with a change in politics within the social classes. It has “put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations” and has sacrificed all forms of pleasure of “personal worth” to be replaced by the means of making money in the form of free trade. This reminded me of the film wall street and that possibly Gordon Gecko could be seen as the modern day Bourgeois who lives off his motto’” Greed is good.”
The bourgeois has “torn away from the family, its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.’ It has taken every man from all walks of society and stripped them of their job, their identity and replaced them as his wage labourers.
The bourgeois is explained further as being one of the key factors in determining the development in productions by means of helping society progress and with the help of free trade between nations. Towns and cities have grown and prospered in these conditions and ultimately the country in turn becomes more dependant on them to produce the goods and services needed.
However, at the same time the bourgeoisie has caused these changes to enable the time to country to be dependant to “the rules of the towns” and as Marx explains, “over the course of one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal production forces than have all preceding generations together.”
At the same time there is a separate movement, which is trying to bring the movement of the bourgeois from within. The bourgeois has become too powerful and has started to lose control over society and has without knowing started to over-produce and trade beyond its means. This has resulted a revolt of the modern productive forces that are no longer working for the needs of the “modern bourgeois” and have decided that conquest is needed to benefit their own needs.
“The weapon the bourgeois forged the weapons that bring death to itself: it has also called into existence the men who will wield those weapons – the modern working class man- the proletariats.”
In contrast to the bourgeois who strive to make production advances in order to improve trade, the proletariat according to Marx are labourers “who live only as long as they find work only so long as their labour increases capitals.’ Marx goes on further to show how the proletariats have become second in the line of production to the machines that produce the products .He again explains how the Industrial Revolution has left “masses of labourers, crowded into a factory, are organised as soldiers.” They are treated as slaves by not only the ruling bourgeois state, but also the machines they operate.
Marx continues to explain how the proletariat goes through stages from where they are at war with the machines they are using to the point where they are destroyed by the labourers who are seeking reform back to the days of the Middle Ages. However, they eventually realises that as production grows and the quality of product improves, so will the machinery, as well as the wages of the labourers. Therefore, they should use the machinery to their advantage, because once they have become accustom to this way of living they revolt and riot until the bourgeois meets their demands.
This also formed the earliest examples of trade unions (known as combinations by Marx), which consisted of vast number of labourers fighting for their human rights against the bourgeois. These constant powers struggles, but the difference between the two groups are “the proletariat is without property” and therefore has nothing to lose in comparison to the vast empire built up by the bourgeoisie.
Civil war will usually erupt and if the proletariats are to win they must strip the bourgeoisie of all property, in order to abolish oppression between the classes. Marx concludes by stating, “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are it’s own grave-diggers.” This means that ultimately the product that the bourgeoisie produces turns into it’s own judge, jury and executioner.
Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists
Marx then starts to explain how the aim of the Communist Movement and how they are out to look out for the “common interests of the entire proletariat as a group, not as individuals in order to overthrown the supremacy of the bourgeoisie.”
The French Revolution, according to Marx was abolishing feudal property in favour of Bourgeois property. The aim of Communism is the “Abolition of private property.” However, the difference between the private property held by the bourgeois and the proletariats is the reiteration of the fact that the proletariat does not have property, only “wage labour.”
The “wage labour” then creates “capital”, which according to Marx not only create personal power, but also social power. This moves into the basis where Marx expresses the difference between bourgeoisie society and communist society. Whilst in bourgeoisie society the labourer wage is there to ensure that they survive, but within communist society the wage is there to enrich and improve the labourer prospects within society.
However at a sacrifice to ensure this, Marx is suggesting that private property must also be taken away. This may seem controversial, but before the ruling bourgeois society had control of the property and this was made possible by the work of the labourers, therefore communism is only taking away something that the labourers did not earn for themselves.
Marx goes on further to explain the communist plans to abolish the bourgeois family, but in one of the earliest example of human right answers the question; “ Do you charge with us wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.” Even though Mark is openly criticising his own doctrine, it is stating that for change to succeed, sacrifices need to be made in order to achieve this.
Marx goes on further to suggest that the proletariats have been brainwashed and been taken in by the “bourgeois claptrap” and that all families have become only a minor statistic in the line of production to progress and fulfil the needs of the bourgeois.
This all concludes in the ten points that Marx believes will help the proletariats escape from Bourgeois rule and staples out the ten commandments of the Communist Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
One point I found extremely controversial and cannot agree with is Marx opinion on political power, which he believes “is merely the organized power of one class to oppressing another.” I cannot agree with this view because without any form of democracy then society would be drawn into mass chaos and without laws then no one can be kept under control and then there is no justice system to keep the positive progression of society.
Chapter 3: Socialist and Communist literature
In this part it is clear to see that Marx is showing how the bourgeois is being conquered from every different social and political group. These groups expressed different types of Socialist and Communist literature and these groups included three main groups. The first, Reactionary Socialism included Feudal Socialists, Petty-Bourgeois Socialists, and True/German Socialists. Each of these groups had the same goal to destroy the bourgeois and to be rid of modern industry.
However the key difference with type of Socialists is that the first two sub-groupings had a part to play in forming or trying to become part of the bourgeois society, however because of the demands of the market they have not had the chance and have been left in a “vegetated” state. This left them with no alternative, but to accept and fight with the proletariats. Even though they are trying to be part of the solution, initially they were part of the problem and have now been affected by this.
Marx explains with the third type of reactionary socialists- true/German Socialists that they will fight against the rise of the bourgeois, but they will do it through philosophy and established the “true” socialists regime, which will strive to hold the traditions of German society, but to get rid of the liberalism and bourgeois culture which has threatened the “true” state, but at the same time they wish to stop Germany being taken over by the “revolutionary proletariat” and keep the “model nation” at peace.
The second type is the Conservative or Bourgeois Socialist. Marx explains how this group is made of economists and improvers of the condition of the working class, who aim is to establish “modern social condition without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefore.”
This form of socialism sees the bourgeois maintaining their power without the struggle and the revolt of the proletariats. However, the main difference is that every aspect of the bourgeois from free trade, protective duties, and prison reform will be done “for the working class.”
Marx sums up this form of socialism in one phrase:
“The bourgeois is a bourgeois- for the benefit of the working class.”
This brings me onto the third type of socialism: The Critical- Utopian Socialism and Communism. This group is looking at different way to protect the proletariat, but without any form of political or revolutionary action. However to do this they want to abolish everything that is sentimental and has value, in order to create their “utopian society” they want everyone to live in a gospel state, where every is treated equally and acts the same. This is very similar to Sir Thomas Mores Utopia, however this vision has no logic to it, therefore it will fail, and there are no laws for practical reason. This vision can be seemed more as a visionary dream, than a reality.
Chapter 4: Position of the Communist in relation to the various existing opposition parties
In the final part of the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx concludes on how the Communist party will fight and sets out their aims. He states “the Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class.” But also he wants to not only look at the present, but also to the future to establish the stability of western society in the communist vision.
Marx explains how the Communist movement will support every radical group in Europe in their fight against the bourgeois or any group that is inflicting pain and struggle against the working class. Marx then turns his attention to focusing the communists plan to Germany as he preludes that “the county is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution” and compares it the revolution of English in the 17th and France in the 18th century.
Marx declares the communists intention to support every revolutionary moments against the abolition of “the existing social and political order” and the removal of all forms of private property.
The last paragraph sums up the Communist Manifesto in a nutshell. They aim to overthrown all political and social condition of the ruling classes with help of the communist revolution. The final line refers to Rousseau and his General Will with Marx saying, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.” This is similar to Rousseau famous phrase “Man is boring free and everywhere he is in chains.”
Sunday, 13 March 2011
HCJ Seminar: Kant, Hegel and Why war is a good thing
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is seen by many as the most influential philosopher of the Romantic Movement. This notion is rejected by Bertrand Russell, however he could not deny Kant's importance during the movement.
Kant formulated the problem of "How synthetic judge a priori possible? The answer to this questions constitute the core theme of The Critique of Pure Reason. It explains how it is not possible to have unnatural assumptions when they come from knowledge derived from experience and is self-contradictory as a result.
In the concept of space and time, Kant believes both are subjective perceptions of apparatus. Both have a priori intuitions as they are included in our characteristics and their existence does not need to be proved through experience. Kant shows the fallacies in applying space and time to being empirical through experience. We find ourselves troubled by antinomies (paradoxes).
Kant explains this by giving example of four antinomies with explanation of the thesis (A unproved statement) and the antithesis (the counter proposition which is a complete contrast from the original ideas). This is one of the four antinomies Kant gave as an example:
Thesis: "The world has a beginning and is also limited in space."
Antithesis: "The world has no beginning in time and no limits in space, it is infinite as regards to both time and space."
These statements greatly influenced Hegel and his use of antinomies, but I come to Hegel later on.
Kant also believed there was only three ways to prove god's existence:
Ontological proof: Using A Priori proof as evidence that good exists if we understand this.
Cosmological proof: Argues for anything to exist than an absolute being must exist (God) and this is the only possible answer.
Physio-theological proof: This shows that everything that has been made and exists in this universe must have had a creator (God) because of the uniqueness of the designed. Only a supernatural being could have created this.
Kant holds ideas of object perception are due to our own perception of these objects and the external things around us. Our own perceptions are made of sensations and our own knowledge. Kant also believes that sensations have causes, which are "things in themselves" or "Nourmena" which appears to us in phenomenon. The second part does not need proof as our A Priori knowledge is not dependant upon experience.
Kant proves that space and time are A Priori in two ways:
* The metaphysical aspect is the philosophical study of being and knowing. Kant looks at space as a pure intuition as it is infinite.
* The epistemological (philosophical branch of nature) looks at the mathematics e.g. geometry
Kant with time believes is also an A Priori intuition, but it possesses another quality; the basis of precepts. This means that without the intuition of time we could not think or perceive, therefore the object and the subjective time must be the same.
This brings me onto the second German philosopher of the day, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
Hegel continued the idealism of Kant, but believed that nothing is complete except "the whole" as a complex system E.G. organism. Hegel calls this "the absolute", this is described as spiritual and rejects Spinoza's view of extension.
Hegel believes logic is the same as metaphysics, but not the commonly known logic. He believes it is self contradictory E.G. nothing can be spherical without a boundary to exist in reality.
The illustration of an uncle shows how nothing is true unless reality has proven this and shows the basis for logic. The illustration also illustrates the dialectic, which contains a thesis, antithesis and synthesis. E.G. The uncles shows a system outside "the absolute", which everything else works around, but only "the absolute" has no connection to the outside. Everything else is connected as it has to have it's existence proven. The underlying assumption, therefore shows that nothing is true unless it is whole and in theory shows the basis of traditional logic.
The thesis shows "the absolute" as the pure being, this is assumed as true without assigning qualities. The antithesis suggests that "the absolute" is nothing and does not exist. This leads to the synthesis and the union of becoming, therefore "the being is becoming."
Our reality develops by conscious correction of error. This leads to Hegel explaining the stages of dialect, which are essential to our understanding. The process begins with self-perception (our awareness of the object), this leads to the sceptical criticism of the object. Finally we gain a full understanding of the object and gain knowledge to the point where the subject and the object are one in the same. At this point our self-knowledge is established.
According to Hegel nothing is wholly true or false, but in philosophy the truth is a absolute being and nothing partial is true.
In Russell, Hegel explains that in both democracy and aristocracy that only some people and the monarchy are free. Hegel goes on further to says that there is no freedom without law, but for him freedom means the right to obey the law. Hegel praises Rousseau's distinguishing of general will and the will of all. Hegel believes in the general will of all, with the state acting on individual interests, not the interests of the masses.
Hegel believes everything important takes the form of wars. Hegel explains that there was no real state in America in the beginning of the 19th Century, meaning there is no class divide. Hegel emphasises how a nation can carry the world through dialect E.G. Germany. His emphasis on nations combined with his ideas of freedom explains the glorification of the state, which began with the reformation.
The church were above this test, but the Protestant movement put state before the church spirits and guiding to the climax. Kant and Hegel both believed that change was a good thing and helped for progression. The main concept to help further change in society is war. War allows progression of values within society and helps establish change for the greater good.
This moves me onto the "geist" or "zeitgeist", which is described as a spirit or the spirit of the time. The main spirit of the current time is revolution. from the student protests in London, to the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, it is clear that the spirit is suggesting it is time for change and that progression is needed to further establish a fair democracy in the western world.
I think that is enough philosophy for this time, but tune in for the next instalment of German philosophers weekly with our depiction of the communist philosopher, Karl Marx
Kant and Hegel are seen as the two inventors of German Idealism. This can be described as the creation of a safeguard of knowledge and virtue, which puts mind over matter. The earliest works of Kant focused upon science, rather than philosophy. However, his most influential work is The Critique of Pure Reason (1781) was the work, which projected his voice to the masses. It's purpose was to prove that our knowledge is not transcended completely from experience and is deduced from A Priori.
A Priori according to Kant embraces logic, but it is not included or deduced from logic. Kant suggested that there were four different types of knowledge:
Analytical knowledge: This is knowledge where the predicate is part of the subject and follows the laws of contradiction E.G. A bachelor is unmarried/. Saying that A bachelor is upset would be self-contradictory.
Synthetic knowledge: This is not analytical and is derived from our experiences of the outside world. E.G. If you say A Bachelor is angry, this is an example of synthetic knowledge as it brings out the concept of anger. Kant denies that all synthetic knowledge comes from experience.
A Priori knowledge: Does not need the notion of experience because it has the assertion of truth. However, Kant admits that experience is needed to grasp a concept E.G. A child using building blocks to add and subtract, but once they have learn this concept, then the blocked are not longer needed. Another example could be learning to ride a bike with the use of stabilisers, but once you have learnt to ride, they are no longer needed. All mathematics is seen as A Priori knowledge.
Emperical or "A Posteriori" knowledge: Knowledge that can only be proved through self perception or experience through observations of an objects existence.
Hume proved causality is not synthetic and these views are accepted by Kant. He still maintains his beliefs that it is A Priori. If you were to create Synthetic A Priori, then you would have a combination of knowledge derived from both assertion and truth and from experience. A prime example of this would be an infinite number of different worlds such as this one:
Kant formulated the problem of "How synthetic judge a priori possible? The answer to this questions constitute the core theme of The Critique of Pure Reason. It explains how it is not possible to have unnatural assumptions when they come from knowledge derived from experience and is self-contradictory as a result.
In the concept of space and time, Kant believes both are subjective perceptions of apparatus. Both have a priori intuitions as they are included in our characteristics and their existence does not need to be proved through experience. Kant shows the fallacies in applying space and time to being empirical through experience. We find ourselves troubled by antinomies (paradoxes).
Kant explains this by giving example of four antinomies with explanation of the thesis (A unproved statement) and the antithesis (the counter proposition which is a complete contrast from the original ideas). This is one of the four antinomies Kant gave as an example:
Thesis: "The world has a beginning and is also limited in space."
Antithesis: "The world has no beginning in time and no limits in space, it is infinite as regards to both time and space."
These statements greatly influenced Hegel and his use of antinomies, but I come to Hegel later on.
Kant also believed there was only three ways to prove god's existence:
Ontological proof: Using A Priori proof as evidence that good exists if we understand this.
Cosmological proof: Argues for anything to exist than an absolute being must exist (God) and this is the only possible answer.
Physio-theological proof: This shows that everything that has been made and exists in this universe must have had a creator (God) because of the uniqueness of the designed. Only a supernatural being could have created this.
Kant holds ideas of object perception are due to our own perception of these objects and the external things around us. Our own perceptions are made of sensations and our own knowledge. Kant also believes that sensations have causes, which are "things in themselves" or "Nourmena" which appears to us in phenomenon. The second part does not need proof as our A Priori knowledge is not dependant upon experience.
Kant proves that space and time are A Priori in two ways:
* The metaphysical aspect is the philosophical study of being and knowing. Kant looks at space as a pure intuition as it is infinite.
* The epistemological (philosophical branch of nature) looks at the mathematics e.g. geometry
Kant with time believes is also an A Priori intuition, but it possesses another quality; the basis of precepts. This means that without the intuition of time we could not think or perceive, therefore the object and the subjective time must be the same.
This brings me onto the second German philosopher of the day, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
Hegel continued the idealism of Kant, but believed that nothing is complete except "the whole" as a complex system E.G. organism. Hegel calls this "the absolute", this is described as spiritual and rejects Spinoza's view of extension.
Hegel believes logic is the same as metaphysics, but not the commonly known logic. He believes it is self contradictory E.G. nothing can be spherical without a boundary to exist in reality.
The illustration of an uncle shows how nothing is true unless reality has proven this and shows the basis for logic. The illustration also illustrates the dialectic, which contains a thesis, antithesis and synthesis. E.G. The uncles shows a system outside "the absolute", which everything else works around, but only "the absolute" has no connection to the outside. Everything else is connected as it has to have it's existence proven. The underlying assumption, therefore shows that nothing is true unless it is whole and in theory shows the basis of traditional logic.
The thesis shows "the absolute" as the pure being, this is assumed as true without assigning qualities. The antithesis suggests that "the absolute" is nothing and does not exist. This leads to the synthesis and the union of becoming, therefore "the being is becoming."
Our reality develops by conscious correction of error. This leads to Hegel explaining the stages of dialect, which are essential to our understanding. The process begins with self-perception (our awareness of the object), this leads to the sceptical criticism of the object. Finally we gain a full understanding of the object and gain knowledge to the point where the subject and the object are one in the same. At this point our self-knowledge is established.
According to Hegel nothing is wholly true or false, but in philosophy the truth is a absolute being and nothing partial is true.
In Russell, Hegel explains that in both democracy and aristocracy that only some people and the monarchy are free. Hegel goes on further to says that there is no freedom without law, but for him freedom means the right to obey the law. Hegel praises Rousseau's distinguishing of general will and the will of all. Hegel believes in the general will of all, with the state acting on individual interests, not the interests of the masses.
Hegel believes everything important takes the form of wars. Hegel explains that there was no real state in America in the beginning of the 19th Century, meaning there is no class divide. Hegel emphasises how a nation can carry the world through dialect E.G. Germany. His emphasis on nations combined with his ideas of freedom explains the glorification of the state, which began with the reformation.
The church were above this test, but the Protestant movement put state before the church spirits and guiding to the climax. Kant and Hegel both believed that change was a good thing and helped for progression. The main concept to help further change in society is war. War allows progression of values within society and helps establish change for the greater good.
This moves me onto the "geist" or "zeitgeist", which is described as a spirit or the spirit of the time. The main spirit of the current time is revolution. from the student protests in London, to the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, it is clear that the spirit is suggesting it is time for change and that progression is needed to further establish a fair democracy in the western world.
I think that is enough philosophy for this time, but tune in for the next instalment of German philosophers weekly with our depiction of the communist philosopher, Karl Marx
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Radio Story One: Broadband Tsar to be employed during budget cuts
Here is the script for my first radio story:
Broadband Improvements Story by lobrien1
Bosses at Hampshire County Council are planning to hire a "broadband tsar" after the application to improve the high-speed broadband system in the county was accepted.
The new project leader will earn an estimated £100,000 a year to improve high-speed Internet access to areas across the county. This comes in the midsts of the council planning to axe 1,200 jobs in a bid to save £55 million from the budget.
The director of economic development, Alison Quant said "At a time of significant budget reductions it could be seen as less of a pressing priority.
The scheme is due to begin later this year.
Broadband Improvements Story by lobrien1
Sunday, 27 February 2011
HCJ: Romanticism and the legend that is Prometheus
When you walk into a lecture room and have a classical symphony playing in the background, then you know it is time for another HCJ lecture. The choice of music for this week was ideal as it fitted in with the main theme of the lecture, Prometheus.
After enjoying a short piece of Ludvig Van Beethoven's, The Creatures of Prometheus (1801), we were introduced to our guest lecturer. Dr Gary Farnell is the head of English Literature at The University of Winchester, as well as a member of the British Association for Romantic Studies, therefore the perfect person to give us a lecture on Romanticism.
The core of this lecture was based around the story of Prometheus. Prometheus was famous for stealing fire from the Roman gods, which gave name to him being known as the bringer of fire. This theft enraged the king of the gods, Jupiter who sentenced Prometheus to be chained to a rock for 30 years. During this time he was tortured by a vulture, who tore out his liver, but this emphasises the lengths Prometheus would go to enable the renewal of humanity and freedom and based the foundations of the romantic movement. This recreation of mankind was not forgotten as Prometheus was bestowed as a god in the era of Romanticism.
Romanticism was described by Dr Farnell as a Euro-American movement that had arisen out of the end of the 18th and early 19th century, which was romantic as a sense of own self-differentiation from a preceding Age of Reason.
Prometheus was seen as a champion of oppressed human kind and was a god who embodies the spirit of "Liberty, Egality and Fraternity", this was a famous quote from The French Revolution of 1789. If we relate this to modern western society, Prometheus could still be seen as a champion of oppressed human kind because of the uproar that has been seen throughout the Middle East and the freedom that many of the Middle Eastern countries are trying to establish for the entire population. I will only touch lightly on this subject as it will explained further in a future blog posting.
Prometheus was portrayed in many poems and stories during the early 18th century, most notably in Lord Byron's Prometheus (1816), Mary Shelley's modern Prometheus in Frankenstein (1818) and her husband Percy Shelley's Prometheus Unbound (1820).
Percy Shelley in a letter to Lord Byron said that "the French Revolution is the master theme of the epoch of which we live". It is important because Percy Shelley was not born until 1792, three years after the revolution began, but it is clear that it had a major effect on the life of Percy Shelley.
Percy Shelley revolutionary spirit infused his 1818 sonnet and his version of Prometheanism in the character "Ozymandis". Ozymandis, was also known as Rameses II was an Egyptian ruler during 13th century BC. He was a proud, tyrannical rule, who named himself "The King of Kings". Shelley wrote this poem after he visited the British Museum in late 1817 where he saw the colossal busy of the Egyptian ruler. The poem was published in January 1818 in The Examiner.
This poem was written in the form of a Sonnet, which is usually used to elevate and celebrate a subject, however Shelley reversed this format and used the sonnet to track Ozymandias eventful fall from grace. In a start contrast, Shelley goes from the boastful and powerful pedestal statement; "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings', to the broken spectacle that is the statue in desert; "Nothing besides remains. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare."
I think that the ideas Shelley is trying to show is that nothing lasts forever, even if you are the most estbalished, powerful leader who has reigned for a very long time, eventually you will have to surrender your power because as we all grow older our "colossal" power will eventually "decay".
Shelley also plays the ideas of "Empires built on sand" and as sand is only grains of small particles, it also goes back to the theme that nothing will last forever. eventually the vast building structure will collapse because they are only made of sand. It can be compared to Karl Marx's quote from his book Capital 1 (1867); "Where there is nothing, the king has lost his rights."
Shelley also suggests the subversive role of the artist of the statue in the face of the tyrannical power of the society he lived in during the reign of Ozymandias. "Ozymandias" is Percy Shelley's "promethian" sonnet constructs the nature of imperial power in the face of revolutionary art, as well as alluding to the imperial power of the British empire at the time of him writing his sonnet.
You have to remember that he saw this statue in the British Museum and that his writing forms the beliefs of a museum-imperial complex, which emphasises more on the post-tyrannical British forms over power in 1818, than the Egyptian power, which was the main subject of his sonnet.
The themes of this poem have resurfaced with the uprising in Egypt and the Middle East in the first few months of 2011. if you replace Ozymandias with former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, you can use Shelley's 1818 sonnet as a commentary to the eventful downfall of the now, former Egyptian president. This now infamous speech shows how a tyrannical leader can not accept that his time has come to a end and that the decaying empire that he once had control of, has now slipped from his hands and that the revolution of the Egyptian people shows that change is needed now, not six months down the line. This "colossal wreck" has now been taken from power and shows that the "promethian" spirit is still alive over a thousand years later.
This a profound example of Political Prometheus. Now we move onto Aesthetic Prometheus and the myth to do with the notion of making and creating things, which inspired many Romantic writers. The most notable example Aesthetic Prometheus is the creation of mankind and a prime example of early mankind creation is the Townley Vase, which was found at a villa at Monte Cagnolo, near Rome. The Roman urn can be dated back to the 2nd century and was placed again in the British Museum (I think we have a recurring theme here).
This is where British poet, John Keats came and saw the Townley Vase, which gave him the inspiration for his 1820 poem; "Ode on a grecian urn. This ode again is in form of a museum poem and was a way for Keats to celebrate his artistic, poetic skills with his ode to the Townley Vase. The ode forms a signified element of self conscious artifice in the art that is creation.
Keats celebrates the true artistry of the grecian urn and uses finely tuned phrases of personification and artificially changed the length of the lines to show off his creativity. He shows the true art of the urn and the supreme value as it will outlast all humanity beyond death. This is expressed in the words; "Thou, silent form! Don't tease us out of thought. As doth eternity."
Keats finishs his ode with shaping it in a way to end with absolute affirmation of the beauty of the true association with the supreme art value of the Townley Vase. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."Keats at a very young age has expressed how the true value and beauty of the urn and defines the true beliefs of Aesthetic Prometheus and the art of creation. The first part of the poem depicts the true beauty of the vase as Keats gives a detailed description of it's true beauty;
A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme
What leaf-fringed legend haunts about thy shape
of deities of mortals , or of both
Keats describes the sheer beauty of what he has seen within the museum and the immortal legend of the urn. "Ode on a grecian urn" expresses the human being true ability to create and make things is brought to the fore within western society by John Keats. It also expresses the true protest of the romantic movement of art and creation against the industrial revolution, which has devalued the art in the capitalist society that had been established.
Raymond Williams in his chapter of "The Romantic Artist" in his book Culture and Society (1958) describes the true meaning of Romanticism. Williams states that "The Romantic Artist is the proponent of an emphasis of the embodiment in art of certain human values, capacities, energies, which is the development of society towards an industrial civilisation was felt to be threatening or even destroying. Now it is the aestheticism of the Romantic critique of "industrial civilisation , that once again, the spirit of prometheus lives on."
Williams also describes how the superior reality of art is in obvious relation with the German school of philosophy. This brings me to the subject of the next seminar, which will be the chapters about Kant and Hegel in Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy. However, I will not dwell on this subject until next time when the seminar reviews the latest chapters within the Journalist's bible (If you have not realised by now, this book has become the most important tool I need to survive HCJ).
I will comment thought on Kant who Bertrand Russell feels "It is possible to interpret Kant's principle as meaning, not that one man is an absolute end, but that all men should count equally in determining action by which men are affected. So interpreted, the principle may be regarded as giving an ethical basis for democracy." It shows that men even as creative forces, should be able to help form a basis for democracy within society.
Therefore it shows a shift in Kant from aesthetic to political Promethianism. This shows the differences between the two types of Romantic writer in the Aesthetic Prometheus of Kant, to the Political Prometheus of Shelley. It is the legend of Prometheus that brings these two schools of thought and beliefs together to build a joint utopia of creation and thought in a far, democratic society.
This is the key reason why Prometheus has been adopted as a god of Romanticism. This is best described in Lord Byron's "Prometheus" (1816). Byron addresses Prometheus as a god of Romanticism;
"Thou art a symbol and a sign, to mortal of their fate and force."
Prometheus thou you are truly a symbol and a sign in western society and to mortals you are truly a god to all mankind and have help establish democracy finally which is starting to be more true within the western world, than it has ever been.
Until next time bloggers, Hazaaaarrrrrrr!
After enjoying a short piece of Ludvig Van Beethoven's, The Creatures of Prometheus (1801), we were introduced to our guest lecturer. Dr Gary Farnell is the head of English Literature at The University of Winchester, as well as a member of the British Association for Romantic Studies, therefore the perfect person to give us a lecture on Romanticism.
The core of this lecture was based around the story of Prometheus. Prometheus was famous for stealing fire from the Roman gods, which gave name to him being known as the bringer of fire. This theft enraged the king of the gods, Jupiter who sentenced Prometheus to be chained to a rock for 30 years. During this time he was tortured by a vulture, who tore out his liver, but this emphasises the lengths Prometheus would go to enable the renewal of humanity and freedom and based the foundations of the romantic movement. This recreation of mankind was not forgotten as Prometheus was bestowed as a god in the era of Romanticism.
Romanticism was described by Dr Farnell as a Euro-American movement that had arisen out of the end of the 18th and early 19th century, which was romantic as a sense of own self-differentiation from a preceding Age of Reason.
Prometheus was seen as a champion of oppressed human kind and was a god who embodies the spirit of "Liberty, Egality and Fraternity", this was a famous quote from The French Revolution of 1789. If we relate this to modern western society, Prometheus could still be seen as a champion of oppressed human kind because of the uproar that has been seen throughout the Middle East and the freedom that many of the Middle Eastern countries are trying to establish for the entire population. I will only touch lightly on this subject as it will explained further in a future blog posting.
Prometheus was portrayed in many poems and stories during the early 18th century, most notably in Lord Byron's Prometheus (1816), Mary Shelley's modern Prometheus in Frankenstein (1818) and her husband Percy Shelley's Prometheus Unbound (1820).
Percy Shelley in a letter to Lord Byron said that "the French Revolution is the master theme of the epoch of which we live". It is important because Percy Shelley was not born until 1792, three years after the revolution began, but it is clear that it had a major effect on the life of Percy Shelley.
Percy Shelley revolutionary spirit infused his 1818 sonnet and his version of Prometheanism in the character "Ozymandis". Ozymandis, was also known as Rameses II was an Egyptian ruler during 13th century BC. He was a proud, tyrannical rule, who named himself "The King of Kings". Shelley wrote this poem after he visited the British Museum in late 1817 where he saw the colossal busy of the Egyptian ruler. The poem was published in January 1818 in The Examiner.
This poem was written in the form of a Sonnet, which is usually used to elevate and celebrate a subject, however Shelley reversed this format and used the sonnet to track Ozymandias eventful fall from grace. In a start contrast, Shelley goes from the boastful and powerful pedestal statement; "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings', to the broken spectacle that is the statue in desert; "Nothing besides remains. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare."
I think that the ideas Shelley is trying to show is that nothing lasts forever, even if you are the most estbalished, powerful leader who has reigned for a very long time, eventually you will have to surrender your power because as we all grow older our "colossal" power will eventually "decay".
Shelley also plays the ideas of "Empires built on sand" and as sand is only grains of small particles, it also goes back to the theme that nothing will last forever. eventually the vast building structure will collapse because they are only made of sand. It can be compared to Karl Marx's quote from his book Capital 1 (1867); "Where there is nothing, the king has lost his rights."
Shelley also suggests the subversive role of the artist of the statue in the face of the tyrannical power of the society he lived in during the reign of Ozymandias. "Ozymandias" is Percy Shelley's "promethian" sonnet constructs the nature of imperial power in the face of revolutionary art, as well as alluding to the imperial power of the British empire at the time of him writing his sonnet.
You have to remember that he saw this statue in the British Museum and that his writing forms the beliefs of a museum-imperial complex, which emphasises more on the post-tyrannical British forms over power in 1818, than the Egyptian power, which was the main subject of his sonnet.
The themes of this poem have resurfaced with the uprising in Egypt and the Middle East in the first few months of 2011. if you replace Ozymandias with former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, you can use Shelley's 1818 sonnet as a commentary to the eventful downfall of the now, former Egyptian president. This now infamous speech shows how a tyrannical leader can not accept that his time has come to a end and that the decaying empire that he once had control of, has now slipped from his hands and that the revolution of the Egyptian people shows that change is needed now, not six months down the line. This "colossal wreck" has now been taken from power and shows that the "promethian" spirit is still alive over a thousand years later.
This a profound example of Political Prometheus. Now we move onto Aesthetic Prometheus and the myth to do with the notion of making and creating things, which inspired many Romantic writers. The most notable example Aesthetic Prometheus is the creation of mankind and a prime example of early mankind creation is the Townley Vase, which was found at a villa at Monte Cagnolo, near Rome. The Roman urn can be dated back to the 2nd century and was placed again in the British Museum (I think we have a recurring theme here).
This is where British poet, John Keats came and saw the Townley Vase, which gave him the inspiration for his 1820 poem; "Ode on a grecian urn. This ode again is in form of a museum poem and was a way for Keats to celebrate his artistic, poetic skills with his ode to the Townley Vase. The ode forms a signified element of self conscious artifice in the art that is creation.
Keats celebrates the true artistry of the grecian urn and uses finely tuned phrases of personification and artificially changed the length of the lines to show off his creativity. He shows the true art of the urn and the supreme value as it will outlast all humanity beyond death. This is expressed in the words; "Thou, silent form! Don't tease us out of thought. As doth eternity."
Keats finishs his ode with shaping it in a way to end with absolute affirmation of the beauty of the true association with the supreme art value of the Townley Vase. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."Keats at a very young age has expressed how the true value and beauty of the urn and defines the true beliefs of Aesthetic Prometheus and the art of creation. The first part of the poem depicts the true beauty of the vase as Keats gives a detailed description of it's true beauty;
A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme
What leaf-fringed legend haunts about thy shape
of deities of mortals , or of both
Keats describes the sheer beauty of what he has seen within the museum and the immortal legend of the urn. "Ode on a grecian urn" expresses the human being true ability to create and make things is brought to the fore within western society by John Keats. It also expresses the true protest of the romantic movement of art and creation against the industrial revolution, which has devalued the art in the capitalist society that had been established.
Raymond Williams in his chapter of "The Romantic Artist" in his book Culture and Society (1958) describes the true meaning of Romanticism. Williams states that "The Romantic Artist is the proponent of an emphasis of the embodiment in art of certain human values, capacities, energies, which is the development of society towards an industrial civilisation was felt to be threatening or even destroying. Now it is the aestheticism of the Romantic critique of "industrial civilisation , that once again, the spirit of prometheus lives on."
Williams also describes how the superior reality of art is in obvious relation with the German school of philosophy. This brings me to the subject of the next seminar, which will be the chapters about Kant and Hegel in Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy. However, I will not dwell on this subject until next time when the seminar reviews the latest chapters within the Journalist's bible (If you have not realised by now, this book has become the most important tool I need to survive HCJ).
I will comment thought on Kant who Bertrand Russell feels "It is possible to interpret Kant's principle as meaning, not that one man is an absolute end, but that all men should count equally in determining action by which men are affected. So interpreted, the principle may be regarded as giving an ethical basis for democracy." It shows that men even as creative forces, should be able to help form a basis for democracy within society.
Therefore it shows a shift in Kant from aesthetic to political Promethianism. This shows the differences between the two types of Romantic writer in the Aesthetic Prometheus of Kant, to the Political Prometheus of Shelley. It is the legend of Prometheus that brings these two schools of thought and beliefs together to build a joint utopia of creation and thought in a far, democratic society.
This is the key reason why Prometheus has been adopted as a god of Romanticism. This is best described in Lord Byron's "Prometheus" (1816). Byron addresses Prometheus as a god of Romanticism;
"Thou art a symbol and a sign, to mortal of their fate and force."
Prometheus thou you are truly a symbol and a sign in western society and to mortals you are truly a god to all mankind and have help establish democracy finally which is starting to be more true within the western world, than it has ever been.
Until next time bloggers, Hazaaaarrrrrrr!
Sunday, 13 February 2011
Introduction into Romanticism: Rousseau, The French Revolution and FREEDOM!
After nearly two months of being away from Winchester it was time for the usual Tuesday after HCJ lecture. After having a heated argument with the Creative Writing lecturer over who had been allocated the right room for their lecture (note to self don't ever try and argue with Brian Thornton), we sat in our seats eager for the next topic in the HCJ timeline: The Romantic Movement.
Before we begin I just want to make it clear we are talking about The Romantic Movement that occured in the 19th Century and not the movement of boy bands who were dressed like women in the early 1980's. So, before we get into any arguments, here is a brief distraction before we return to our normal scheduled blogging:
Now we have got that out the way I will get back to The Romantic Movement. Romanticism occurred during the end of the 18th Century and brought an end to the Enlightenment and the end of the creative force of Christianity, which had near enough vanished. There was one main whose creative force and opinion would drive and base the foundations of The French Revolution; Jean-Jacquees Rousseau.
Rousseau was disowned as a child by his father and uncle and made his living through many jobs throughout France and Italy, including being a servant to being the secretary of the French ambassador to Venice. However, it was not until Rousseau returned to his native Switzerland that his influence over western society began to take shape.
Rousseau would spend countless days in the mountains of Geneva or on a small island off the coast of the Austrian capital, Vienna where he would just listen to the waves. He suggested that when he listened to the waves that his mind was wiped clear of all of the painful memories of the past and the anxieties of the future were lost. All he felt was the sense of being. Rousseau disowned all of his previous beliefs, including those of the church and denounced them all as lies and that you could find the divine truth in human nature.
I decided I wanted to put Rousseau theory into practice and listened to the waves to see if my wind escaped all of the painful memories and could escape all conceou thought except the sense of being.
Now I did not listen to the waves for the whole ten minutes, however even a couple of minutes of listening to them can help your mind relax and escape some thought.
Rousseau believed in the beauty and innocence of nature and that it could be extended to man. He believed that the natural man was virtuous and reacted against the corruption that was profound in 18th Century society. Rousseau glorified the noble savage, who without any form of civilisation was pure and natural. This followed the concept of Locke who believed that people were good in the sense of being pre-civilised.
Now I can understand Rousseau's concept that a person who has had no contact with modern civilisation will be pure, but even in modern western society, that concept is near impossible due to the social democracy we live in and the nearest we become to the noble savage is through out first few years of life when we are learning about the world as a child.
Rousseau was intelligent enough to accept the fact that his vision of the noble savage was near impossible due to the influence of society that has chained us in and made us naturally civilised. The French philosopher Voltaire argued against this opinion saying, "No one has such intelligence to persuade us to be stupid. After reading your book one feels as if we should walk on all fours.
Even though we are descended from Primates, I can not believe that Voltaire can suggest that Rousseau is suggesting that the noble savage is in fact a pig. Rousseau suggests that the social statue has left us alienated and has us trapped in the competition of self esteem and the personal wealth and the competition that we keep up with our peers. Personally, I feel that self esteem will always be profound because it constructs a personal self belonging and places people within the structure of civilised society. This would be profoundly argued by Voltaire that this is wrong and everyone should act as individuals and should only worry about themselves, not everyone else around them.
Rousseau constructed a document that would base the foundations of the French Revolution in his Social Contract. Rousseau believed in "taking men as they are and law as they might be. Rousseau identified the main problem within society in the late 18th century and stated "Find forms of association which defends and protect with all the common force, the person and good of each associate and by means of which each one while united with all only obeys himself as remain as free as before."
Rousseau is stating that we should as individual find forms of association with each other and protect all our common human rights as a group, but at the same time have our own free will and rights as individuals.
He went on to describe about the general will of a individual or a group. As a group we all contribute to shaping our own general will in society and that we should only obey laws, no more than we obey ourselves. Rousseau goes on to say that our general will is driven by appetite alone and that as slaves within a dictatorship, they must abide to and follow the laws laid down by the dictatorship .
Therefore, Rousseau believes that a free society is one where all the laws and laid down and agreed upon by the people and for the people (I think I have been watching the Egyptian protests a little too long). This means for example that you must not do anything that interrupts or goes against your own free will, however if it is something that is a law you must follow this law because you have all agreed to follow it.
This does contradict Rousseau as he says that we should only do things that we are happy to do, however the system suggest that we may have to do thing we do not want to do. For example if the law dictates that everyone has to play Football on a sunday morning, then everyone must abide and follow this rule and if they is someone who objects to this rule, then they are excluded from the group and hazed until they accept this law and abide by it. This is the danger of a new kind of dictatorship that even though it has been agreed upon by the people, there is a risk of people refusing to obey and then these individuals being "forced to be free", until they conform.
Rousseau says that freedom exists only free the laws begins. Now I agree with Rousseau's concept of free will and that everyone should only do thing that make them happy, but I feel that the social contract and the declaration of general will is contradict and we must conform to law that are set out by everyone, even if they do not make us happy. This does not make any sense, but I understand within society there will be people who will confirm and abide by the rules and then there will be others who will objects and fight laws to establish their freedom. This reminds me of one the iconic films scenes of the last twenty years.
This scene in Braveheart sees William Wallace rallying up his troops in the fight to secure the freedom of Scotland. You can compare this scene in Braveheart to the night of the 14th July 1789 and the storming of the Bastille, which brought upon the beginning of The French Revolution.
The French government at the end of the 18th Century were bankrupt and during May and June 1789 King Louis XVI held meetings of the three estates. The three estates comprised of the Clergy (the church), The Nobles and The peasantry. They met to reform the financial stability of France, however the King had the clergy and nobles on the right of the assembly hall and the peasantry on the left, which initially formed the basis of what we know today as left-wing and right-wing politics.
The peasantry rebelled against the monarchy and formed the national assembly. They based their constitution on the ideas of Rousseau and declared that the right of men are born and remain free and are equal in rights and that law is the expression on general will. It also expressed that every citizen has the right to represent themselves personally. The initial beginning of the revolution was pedantic and the constitutional phase belongs in the realms of the age of reason.
The assembly denounced everything that happened before in time and started again, even to the point where they started from the year 0 and changed all the months of the year to months of emotions. Word of the revolution has crossed over to the shores of Great Britain and the British philosopher Wordsworth said that the revolution had brought upon Rousseau's ideas of natural man into reality and therefore the romantic movement had begun.
The Monarchy were not at pleased with the formation of The French Assembly and wanted to stop this power vacuum, before it could gain momentum. The advantage was that no one in the assembly knew who was in charge, leaving everyone to run round like headless chickens, not knowing who to follow and what to believe. At the same times the Prussians were fuming about the uprising in France and wanted to stop this rebellion once and for all. The potential invasion sparked fear throughout France and the paranoia led to the country giving all of it's citizens weapons to protect themselves.
They did not know that the paranoia would get to the point where the citizens would turn on each other and in September 1792, the September Massacre began with the search of counter-revolutionaries brought upon by the profound paranoia that had been embedded in the minds of the French population. This eventually led to the execution of King Louis XVI in 1793 and the invention of the guillotine, which was created as a simpler way of executing people seen to be counter-revolutionists.
The government were seen as deliberately using violence to create a reign of terror and to stop the revolution in it's track. It only created a counter-affect and added more fuel to the fire and spurred on the revolution, as it changed the landscape of western society forever.
One of the key figures of the revolution was Mary Wollstoncraft and her writings majorly influenced the role of women within society and helped shape the revolutions as a whole. Her readings, including A vindication of the women are the subject of this week's seminar. I will leave this subject until next time, but until them I leave you with one strong message.
You have come to fight as free men and free men you are. What will you with that freedom, will you fight. This strong statement makes me realise that freedom is a precious thing to have and that historical events, such as The French Revolution has given society such freedom. So until next time I only have one thing to say FREDOM and I think I may have just gave myself a splitting headache!
Before we begin I just want to make it clear we are talking about The Romantic Movement that occured in the 19th Century and not the movement of boy bands who were dressed like women in the early 1980's. So, before we get into any arguments, here is a brief distraction before we return to our normal scheduled blogging:
Now we have got that out the way I will get back to The Romantic Movement. Romanticism occurred during the end of the 18th Century and brought an end to the Enlightenment and the end of the creative force of Christianity, which had near enough vanished. There was one main whose creative force and opinion would drive and base the foundations of The French Revolution; Jean-Jacquees Rousseau.
Rousseau was disowned as a child by his father and uncle and made his living through many jobs throughout France and Italy, including being a servant to being the secretary of the French ambassador to Venice. However, it was not until Rousseau returned to his native Switzerland that his influence over western society began to take shape.
Rousseau would spend countless days in the mountains of Geneva or on a small island off the coast of the Austrian capital, Vienna where he would just listen to the waves. He suggested that when he listened to the waves that his mind was wiped clear of all of the painful memories of the past and the anxieties of the future were lost. All he felt was the sense of being. Rousseau disowned all of his previous beliefs, including those of the church and denounced them all as lies and that you could find the divine truth in human nature.
I decided I wanted to put Rousseau theory into practice and listened to the waves to see if my wind escaped all of the painful memories and could escape all conceou thought except the sense of being.
Now I did not listen to the waves for the whole ten minutes, however even a couple of minutes of listening to them can help your mind relax and escape some thought.
Rousseau believed in the beauty and innocence of nature and that it could be extended to man. He believed that the natural man was virtuous and reacted against the corruption that was profound in 18th Century society. Rousseau glorified the noble savage, who without any form of civilisation was pure and natural. This followed the concept of Locke who believed that people were good in the sense of being pre-civilised.
Now I can understand Rousseau's concept that a person who has had no contact with modern civilisation will be pure, but even in modern western society, that concept is near impossible due to the social democracy we live in and the nearest we become to the noble savage is through out first few years of life when we are learning about the world as a child.
Rousseau was intelligent enough to accept the fact that his vision of the noble savage was near impossible due to the influence of society that has chained us in and made us naturally civilised. The French philosopher Voltaire argued against this opinion saying, "No one has such intelligence to persuade us to be stupid. After reading your book one feels as if we should walk on all fours.
Even though we are descended from Primates, I can not believe that Voltaire can suggest that Rousseau is suggesting that the noble savage is in fact a pig. Rousseau suggests that the social statue has left us alienated and has us trapped in the competition of self esteem and the personal wealth and the competition that we keep up with our peers. Personally, I feel that self esteem will always be profound because it constructs a personal self belonging and places people within the structure of civilised society. This would be profoundly argued by Voltaire that this is wrong and everyone should act as individuals and should only worry about themselves, not everyone else around them.
Rousseau constructed a document that would base the foundations of the French Revolution in his Social Contract. Rousseau believed in "taking men as they are and law as they might be. Rousseau identified the main problem within society in the late 18th century and stated "Find forms of association which defends and protect with all the common force, the person and good of each associate and by means of which each one while united with all only obeys himself as remain as free as before."
Rousseau is stating that we should as individual find forms of association with each other and protect all our common human rights as a group, but at the same time have our own free will and rights as individuals.
He went on to describe about the general will of a individual or a group. As a group we all contribute to shaping our own general will in society and that we should only obey laws, no more than we obey ourselves. Rousseau goes on to say that our general will is driven by appetite alone and that as slaves within a dictatorship, they must abide to and follow the laws laid down by the dictatorship .
Therefore, Rousseau believes that a free society is one where all the laws and laid down and agreed upon by the people and for the people (I think I have been watching the Egyptian protests a little too long). This means for example that you must not do anything that interrupts or goes against your own free will, however if it is something that is a law you must follow this law because you have all agreed to follow it.
This does contradict Rousseau as he says that we should only do things that we are happy to do, however the system suggest that we may have to do thing we do not want to do. For example if the law dictates that everyone has to play Football on a sunday morning, then everyone must abide and follow this rule and if they is someone who objects to this rule, then they are excluded from the group and hazed until they accept this law and abide by it. This is the danger of a new kind of dictatorship that even though it has been agreed upon by the people, there is a risk of people refusing to obey and then these individuals being "forced to be free", until they conform.
Rousseau says that freedom exists only free the laws begins. Now I agree with Rousseau's concept of free will and that everyone should only do thing that make them happy, but I feel that the social contract and the declaration of general will is contradict and we must conform to law that are set out by everyone, even if they do not make us happy. This does not make any sense, but I understand within society there will be people who will confirm and abide by the rules and then there will be others who will objects and fight laws to establish their freedom. This reminds me of one the iconic films scenes of the last twenty years.
This scene in Braveheart sees William Wallace rallying up his troops in the fight to secure the freedom of Scotland. You can compare this scene in Braveheart to the night of the 14th July 1789 and the storming of the Bastille, which brought upon the beginning of The French Revolution.
The French government at the end of the 18th Century were bankrupt and during May and June 1789 King Louis XVI held meetings of the three estates. The three estates comprised of the Clergy (the church), The Nobles and The peasantry. They met to reform the financial stability of France, however the King had the clergy and nobles on the right of the assembly hall and the peasantry on the left, which initially formed the basis of what we know today as left-wing and right-wing politics.
The peasantry rebelled against the monarchy and formed the national assembly. They based their constitution on the ideas of Rousseau and declared that the right of men are born and remain free and are equal in rights and that law is the expression on general will. It also expressed that every citizen has the right to represent themselves personally. The initial beginning of the revolution was pedantic and the constitutional phase belongs in the realms of the age of reason.
The assembly denounced everything that happened before in time and started again, even to the point where they started from the year 0 and changed all the months of the year to months of emotions. Word of the revolution has crossed over to the shores of Great Britain and the British philosopher Wordsworth said that the revolution had brought upon Rousseau's ideas of natural man into reality and therefore the romantic movement had begun.
The Monarchy were not at pleased with the formation of The French Assembly and wanted to stop this power vacuum, before it could gain momentum. The advantage was that no one in the assembly knew who was in charge, leaving everyone to run round like headless chickens, not knowing who to follow and what to believe. At the same times the Prussians were fuming about the uprising in France and wanted to stop this rebellion once and for all. The potential invasion sparked fear throughout France and the paranoia led to the country giving all of it's citizens weapons to protect themselves.
They did not know that the paranoia would get to the point where the citizens would turn on each other and in September 1792, the September Massacre began with the search of counter-revolutionaries brought upon by the profound paranoia that had been embedded in the minds of the French population. This eventually led to the execution of King Louis XVI in 1793 and the invention of the guillotine, which was created as a simpler way of executing people seen to be counter-revolutionists.
The government were seen as deliberately using violence to create a reign of terror and to stop the revolution in it's track. It only created a counter-affect and added more fuel to the fire and spurred on the revolution, as it changed the landscape of western society forever.
One of the key figures of the revolution was Mary Wollstoncraft and her writings majorly influenced the role of women within society and helped shape the revolutions as a whole. Her readings, including A vindication of the women are the subject of this week's seminar. I will leave this subject until next time, but until them I leave you with one strong message.
You have come to fight as free men and free men you are. What will you with that freedom, will you fight. This strong statement makes me realise that freedom is a precious thing to have and that historical events, such as The French Revolution has given society such freedom. So until next time I only have one thing to say FREDOM and I think I may have just gave myself a splitting headache!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)