A tale of two Revolutions

This period was defined by two revolutions, the French revolution and the industrial revolution. The French revolution changed the face of Europe and the Industrial Revolution changed the face of the world. Though history has been forever changed by the British Empire, it was a hairs breadth away from being the Scottish empire. The Act of Union in 1707 created the United Kingdom but it could’ve been far different. In 1698 Scotland attempted to set up a colony in Central America. They settled in a place called Darian and called it New Caledonia. It cost one fifth of the country’s wealth and was an utter disaster. It was malaria ridden and the natives chased them out. The whole venture left the country bankrupted. Britain ended up bribing the scots to join them. This was the start of the first Empire which consisted of Britain, Ireland and Scotland. Even though the Scottish were desperately beaten there was one last attempt at rebellion which was the battle of Culloden. The Jacobite rebellion was defeated by Bonnie Prince Charlie.

                Once this small empire was established the French revolution was in full swing. Throughout this the English stood back and calmly looked at what was going on, even going so far as hiring mercenaries to try and stop Napoleon. During this period the British navy became the dominant force in the world. No one could match it and it stopped French trade through domination of the seas. This meant that British exports were flooding out across the world. The industrial revolution was in full flow and British produce was going out all over the world. As a sign of how dominant the British power was, they were supplying the French Army with uniforms. With other armies occupied Britain concentrated on exploiting the lack of concentration by establishing colonies and trade with countries like India, Singapore, South Africa and Sri Lanka. The dominant navy ensured the Transatlantic Triangular Trade, which was enormously profitable for Britain. This was the Slave trade, in the 16^th century one million slaves were transported from Africa to America, by the 17^th century three million were transported and by the 18^th century it was seven million.

                The end of the Napoleonic war meant that the boom was over. There were falls in wages and rises in unemployment. In response to this the government brought in the Corn Laws (1815) which put a tariff on all the food coming into the UK. This meant that the food that was produced in the UK was cheaper than the imported produce. This was good because it protected the farming system but made it so that the food produced locally was almost unaffordable. The same debate is happening in America today as they wish to promote US made goods by introducing protectionist ideals. Thomas Malthus believed that the population was growing rapidly and that the farms would be unable to support them. He believed that there would be famine or war that would lower the population. He was dismissed for a long time but is having a resurgence now.

                Due to the industrial revolution, Manchester essentially became the centre of the world. The population rose from 17000 people in 1760 to 180,000 people in 1830. People came to marvel at the city because of all the wonders that were being produced. The price of this growth was terrible. The pollution was so bad that the buildings themselves were covered in soot, rickets and chest infections were common and the average height of people actually fell because of widespread malnutrition. This wasn’t just localised to Manchester, the conditions in most towns and cities in this period were uniform, with massive outbreaks of cholera being common.

                The politics of the time was changing because of the massive changes that were going on in the country. When the world around you starts changing people ask why there can’t be change for them as well. With the amount of people moving into the cities there was a concentration of working class people for the first time. People became very class conscious since they were all going through the same hardships.  The Governments response was brutal, people were often exported. For example, the Tolpuddle Martyrs were exported to either Australia or Tasmania for starting a union. The Peterloo massacre occurred in Manchester in 1819. People were gathered to express their dislike of the system and so the mounted police charged the crowd killing 11 people. The political system was completely corrupt, less than 2% of the population had the vote and rotten boroughs were common. One of the most famous rotten boroughs was Old Sarum, which had 11 voters and 2 MPs whereas Manchester had none.

                The Corn Laws were brought in because the government were scared that farming in Britain would fade away. Ricardo argued that the farmers would have to either get more efficient or give up and accept foreign dominance. The farming at the time was very different to how it is now, they produced very little and what they did produce was very expensive. The government wanted people off the land and into the city. The Enclosures Act did exactly this; it was introduced so that there would be a higher workforce in the cities and more space for bigger farms in the country. This created the countryside that is present around Britain today, dominated by enormous fields. The Enclosures act had a crippling effect on Hampshire, forcing almost the entire adult male population into the army.

                Because of the Enclosures Act there was an even larger amount of people in the towns and factories. The Prime Minister at the time (Peel) was campaigning for the repeal of the Corn Laws. The reasoning behind this was that by removing the corn laws, the price of food in the country would go down and the factory owners, of which Peel was one of them, could lower the wages given to their workers. The Corn Laws were repealed and wages fell; the utter lack of money that people had led to the creation of the Workhouse, inspired by Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarian’s believe that there should be lots of happiness and no pain, Bentham said that they need to give a solution to the poor but that the solution needed to be so awful that they wouldn’t want to do it. They cared about the poor but they don’t want to support them. The answer to this was the workhouse. You give people just enough food so that they survive but will doubtlessly die because of the lack of nutrition. The alternative was to work in the factories and get enough money that you can afford bread. Work in a factory and live or work in the workhouse and slowly but surely die.

Rousseau

Here are my notes on Rousseau, sorry for the crazy delay, it's due to me leaving my notes at uni over christmas.. skill everywhere.

Rousseau was a contemporary of Hume; he was part of the circle of French intellectuals who created the encyclopaedia. He was born in a period of change and died a year before the French revolution. He lived between the static ‘Divine right of kings’ and the dramatic upheaval where the people took control. The Encyclopaedia was a high point in the enlightenment, almost a testament to Francis Bacon. It was important to people in the Enlightenment that people had a baseline of our knowledge from which we can build.

                Rousseau was originally part of the group of intellectuals but there came a dramatic break. There was an essay writing competition where the question was “Had the progress of the arts and sciences had a beneficial effect on morality?” Rousseau said no whereas all other philosophers said yes. This set him apart from everyone else. He is often seen as a founder of the Romantic Movement, certainly his late books are very important to the movement. They view the individual as essentially creative, believing that the individual can create his own destiny. The figurehead of the Romantic Movement is Prometheus, he was seen as a rebel but also fairly creative, which are their two guiding stars. Rousseau believed that humanity was naturally good but had been corrupted by society. He detested the high society of the 18^th century, “Society does not make us more moral, it is eroding our morality”. He compares the effects of history on us to the effects of the elements on a statue left out in the rain. In the end it would be barely recognisable as a person at all. Rousseau believed that the only person who was not affected by this would be the ‘Noble Savage’. This was at a time when exploration of the world was picking up and this fascinated Rousseau. He believed that the primitive, hunter-gatherer societies were the peak of humanity. The individual had been uncorrupted by society and therefore didn’t need society. Rousseau’s book was a clear attack on the Enlightenment; Voltaire called the discourse “a Book against the Human Race”.

                The Social Contract was his most important book. “Man is born free, and is everywhere in chains”. Hobbes and Locke came to the social contract with a different view. Hobbes believed that we needed an all-powerful being (the Leviathan) to protect us from the dangers of society. Locke was more sympathetic but believed in a monarch. Rousseau eventually had to flee because of the reaction to his book. He attacked Hobbes’ “War against all” state of nature; he said that war and such violence were very much a recent part of our society and that Hobbes hadn’t gone far back enough. If he’d gone further he would’ve found a calmer, peaceful state of nature. His attack on Locke was based on property “the first person who having enclosed a piece of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civilisation”. All of the violence could’ve been avoided if someone could’ve said they don’t need ownership of property.

                Rousseau believed that natural man (the Noble Savage) was virtuous. He loathed the fancy way in which people upheld themselves, such as in the Draughtsman’s Contract. He argued that we were more like animals. We are more guided by our feelings, the fact that we can cry and show compassion to someone we don’t know proves that we are happy. This was before society imposed set values, as in how we are viewed, whether or not we should own property and so forth. We become trapped in a system of self-esteem. He was, however, pragmatic enough to realise that once society had been established there was no way to take it back to the Noble Savage. This did not mean he didn’t want to change society. He wanted to find a form of association which will defend our rights while the person obeys himself/herself and remains free as all. With Hobbes and Locke it was all about where to draw the line between the public and the private divide. Rousseau wanted all of the protection of Hobbes’ system and more freedom than Locke’s. What he decided on was the general will. He believed that the people would come together and discuss what they think should be acceptable and the outcome, all opinions put together, would become law. Thereby by following the law, you’d be following your opinion. He thought that in order for this to work you would need direct democracy. No representatives or anything, just you having your say. This was in contrast with the liberal views of Hobbes and Locke. Locke wanted a very small state. With Rousseau, since the laws had been decided upon by us all, the laws would make us freer, since we would by following our own ideas. The danger of the majority rule is apparent though. What happens if you don’t agree with the general will, you would be ‘forced to be free’, each person obeys himself and then he remains as free as he wants to be. He believed that, since you couldn’t go backwards in society, you must go forwards and the way forwards was the general will.

                The French Revolution was a big moment for the Romantic Movement because they thought it’d be the start of a new age, where people would go back to being how they were, happy with an attentive state. The Declaration of the Right of man mirrored Rousseau’s social contract with “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights”. A law is the expression of the general will and each can take part personally. What started out as the Romantics dream revolution soon dissolved into mindless, psychopathic violence by the Parisian mob. Robespierre believed that there was a virtue in terror, the idea is that the word of a virtuous person should be enough proof to convict someone. The legacy of the terror is to create the association between political upheavals and appalling violence.

Here's the seminar paper..

Hume:

Hume is important because he developed empirical philosophy to its logical conclusion. He was a young genius, publishing his chief work, the “Treatise of Human nature”, while still in his 20’s. As such he kind of flew under the radar. This wasn’t what he wanted because he wanted to prove himself by providing brilliant retorts to any criticisms of his work. Since his first work fell flat he resorted to essay writing and tutoring. He re-released the treatise with much removed and under the new name of “Inquiry into Human understanding” which proved far more successful. The treatise is broken up into three sections, dealing with the understanding, the passions and the morals. He made the important distinction between ‘impressions’ and ‘ideas’. Ideas are what are formed from impressions. The example in Russell is that we can imagine a winged horse without having seen one, this is the idea, but the constituents of this complex idea are made up from impressions. You’ve seen a horse, and you’ve seen wings so you combine the two. Without the impressions your ideas would not be able to take form. This is kind of in agreement with Berkeley’s doctrine that “all general ideas are nothing but particular ones, annexed to a certain term, which gives them a more extensive significance, and makes them recall upon occasion other individuals, which are similar to them” which put basically, as far as I know, means that general ideas are made up of many particular ideas, which then draw in other related ideas to form the general mass. Hume contends that when we have an idea of a man, it has all the particularity that the impression of a man has. The mind cannot form any notion of quantity or quality without forming a precise notion of degrees of each, abstract ideas are in themselves individual, and however they may become general in their representation. This has two objections. The first is that this is only applied to things and not words. Calling a cat a cat is no more specific because the word cat could essentially mean anything. The second problem is that Hume doesn’t take into account vagueness. Hume stated that “the mind cannot form any notion of quantity or quality without forming a precise notion of degrees of each.” However this is not applicable to the real world. Again, the example given in Russell is that if you saw a man who’s 6ft 1, you’ll retain an image or idea of him, but it’d probably fit a man who is a couple of inches shorter. Here his exactness is his downfall.

                Hume believed that there was no idea of self, because whenever you thought of yourself, you inevitably drew upon other perceptions, by which you judge yourself. There is the problem of whether the self exists because of this. However, we can say that unperceived things can always be defined by referencing perceived things and occurrences. We cannot know whether there is a simple self, and can assume that if there is such a thing it cannot enter into our knowledge.

Hume also focuses on probability, this is different from the probability of mathematics but instead focuses on uncertain knowledge, for example all knowledge as concerned with the future. Hume begins his justification by establishing seven kinds of philosophical relation: resemblance, identity, relations of time and place, proportion in quantity or number, degrees in any quality, contrariety and causation. He then divides these into those that depend on the ideas and those that can be changed without any change in the idea. Only relations that depend on the idea can give us certain knowledge, everything else is only probable. Here rise Hume’s theories about causation. Basically he is saying that causation cannot exist, just because we see something happen does not mean that, by this happening, something else is made to happen. There’s the example of the billiard balls, but essentially, we cannot prove that because the ball struck another ball this caused the movement, we can simply say that the two will be forever linked. 

There was some stuff about Addison but it's basically the same as what's in my lecture notes. Enjoy!

History of Western Philosophy week 9

James Addison was an essayist, who wrote for the spectator magazine. This is far different from the spectator magazine today and Addison wrote about fashion, travel and life in general in the era. He was one of the first real journalists, what he wrote was a mixture of fact and fiction about special events at the time. He would attend functions and just observe the people there, describing them in his very objective style, which gave no emotional depth to those described. Addison wrote in the Restoration, the period of British history just after the English civil war and, along with Locke and Steele, became the iconic writers of the period.

                The restoration is marked by toleration, compromise and politeness. This was shown by Addison with his description of the laboured methods of greeting and so forth. Addison also created Sir Andrew Freedport, who was the embodiment of people at the time, and a tool with which he could poke fun at society which he did in his usual dry, witty tone. He described people as only being motivated by pleasure and pain. The greatest value or aim in Addison’s world is pleasure, in every aspect of life. This was most likely a deliberate response to move away from the chaos and terror of the civil war.

                The economy of Europe that fuelled the gentlemanly exterior was funded by much darker means. The conquest of the Americas provided gold and slavery, as well as far increased trade. This market was originally dominated by the Spanish, which meant that the Spanish monarchic, catholic state went from strength to strength. Conversely, Holland becomes a protestant, free thinking republic and therefore a safe haven for intellectuals, where anything could be published. By 1680 70% of all books in the world were being published in Holland. Due to technological advances which made them an impressive military power, Holland waged war on Spain, all the time allied with England. English privateers, who were basically pirates, refused to sail under the Union Jack and therefore chose to fly the skull and crossed bones.  With their far more advanced ships, Holland and Britain brought down the Spanish empire and gained control over the Atlantic, which of course meant that far more trade would come and along with it ridiculous wealth. This newfound wealth actually formed the base from which the industrial revolution in England would spring.

                Adam smith asked himself why one country is wealthier than another. Previously religion had provided the answer for this, people believing that one country was more in Gods favour than another and would therefore prosper. Smith tried to liberate people from this supernatural reasoning and said that it was due to the level of economic freedom that a country has. He said that wherever you find a state controlled system, as Spain was at the time, the people will end up ruined. This is because the state will control every feature of production and demand a cut, leaving the people with nothing. Wherever you find a system with less state involvement, where people are free to be entrepreneurs then they will end up being wealthier.  He brought about the idea of “The hidden hand of the market” where people stick to what they’re good at and trade off with people who are good at other things to end up with the best result possible.

                David Hume believes that the mind synthesises ideas from various other senses and predetermined sensations, which is called synthetic reasoning. Humans have a pre-disposition to synthesise; your mind is a machine that synthesises complex abstract ideas from simple sense sensations. Causation is the problem with reasoning. The mind tricks you into believing that one event leads to another. Place a cannon ball on a cushion, when you remove the cannon ball there will be an imprint on the cushion. Hume argues that these are completely unrelated. Similarly, when pool balls are struck, the fact that when the white ball hits a red ball the red ball moves, doesn’t mean that it moves because of the white ball. You have not seen the cause of the movement; you’ve only seen the constant conjunctions. He believed that there was no guarantee that if you did it again, the same result would be achieved, just because the sun rose this morning doesn’t mean that it’ll rise tomorrow. This is well described in a quote “You cannot derive an ought from an is”, meaning that because something has happened before, there is no reasoning that it’ll happen again. The reasoning that because something has happened, it should happen again is called inductive reasoning and all science is based upon it. Based upon an inductive reasoning by seeing what happens and translating what will happen into other circumstances. Assuming that the world will still be there, even when you cannot see it is inductive reasoning with a degree of probability. With this vein of thought, nothing can be known for certain, many things however are known through inductive reasoning, with a backing of statistical probability.

Law lecture week 8, Freedom of information.

Freedom of information is the law that’s on the side of the journalist, press officers however, are not. Press officers act like human sandbags, their job is to control how much information is divulged to the journalists. Chris’s law is that the more press officers something has the worse it is. Freedom of information however allows us to get round this; there are over a hundred thousand different organisations which are bound by law to divulge information under the freedom of information act. Most will have a freedom of information page on their website where they document the kind of things that they disclose, this is known as the Schedule. The company must then divulge the information requested under the freedom of information act within 20 days. Defence matters are of course exempt from the freedom of information act for obvious reasons, by divulging the location of British troops for example, could cause serious loss of life or at the very least a threat to said troops. This is one of the main defences that companies use to avoid divulging information, they can say that it’s exempt, or that it is too expensive to gather. You can however appeal again for the information but if the information is very sensitive it’ll be fairly hard to gather. This is a good reason to keep appeals to the simplest phrasing, don’t go for over complicated requests. Similarly you shouldn’t investigate anything personal, for example, you cannot request knowing how many people earn more money than you where you work, then publish it. This would leave you wide open to malice.

                Examples of things uncovered using the freedom of information act include that the London authority paid out £50,000 to a child who injured himself climbing over the railing to his school. This is despite the fact that he was climbing over to burn down the school, however, since there was no sign indicating that you shouldn’t climb the railings the school was at fault.