Immaneuel Kant-SUBLIME LOVE - NATURE AND ECSTACY - ROMANTIC POETRY, GERMAN IDEALISM AND THE LIMITS OF RATIONALISM

Immaneuel Kant is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of the late 18th century's enlightened period. He was a German philosopher and professor famous for his three treatises: Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement.

Kant was a German liberal who believed in democracy and metaphysics. He suggested that metaphysics can be reformed through epistemology. All the objects about which the mind can think must conform to its manner of thought.

He claims that the transcendental investigation has shown our judgments can be objective. For example, when we make one of the kinds of judgments discovered in the transcendental logic, we are making a judgment about things as objects. Kant claims that at this point, we have discerned the principle limits of the synthetic a priori. The categories of understanding and the necessary conditions of sense experience (time and space) are all the elements that are necessary for all experience. For Kant, then, there is a world independent of us, but we can only know it through our experience, and therefore only through the synthetic a priori conditions of experience. The world "in itself" is called the noumenal world. The world as experienced us is the phenomenal world. Kant means therefore to not be an idealist of the usual sort, since he asserts that there is a world independent of our ideas. Kant also means not to be either a classical empiricist nor a rationalist: he asserts all knowledge depends on experience, but also analyzes what is known prior to experience and says that these things are absolutely necessary for there to be any experience.

John Stuart Mill- On Liberty

I must say I really enjoyed our HCJ seminar yesterday. It was probably one of the best ones and one of the funniest.

I have already blogged about Mary Wollstonecraft and about the feministic views she immortalised in her book "Vindication of the rights of women”. It't time to say something about John Stuart Mill and his book called 'On Liberty'.

He saw civilization as a struggle between society and the individual. I definitely agree with what he thought of individual's privilege to be free to do whatever they wanted to as long as they didn't cause any harm to the others. It was because he reckoned that society through laws and public opinions had far more power over the actions and thoughts of an individual than the individual had over himself.

I, however, didn't agree with one thing he said. In his opinion the government shouldn't be allowed to make the final decision. Ok. But if not them, then who should?

Here are some themes of his book that I found to help me understand the reading better.

Major Themes

The Struggle between Liberty and Authority
Individuals have often felt as thought their rights were being infringed upon by an overzealous government and have fought for the ability to have their government act they wish. Individual liberties have been trampled on by various governments and this fear of authority has resulted in democracies, where the majority of the people get to decide what actions are best for the state.

Tyranny of the Majority
With democracies, it is supposed that the will of the people is the impetus for the government's actions and that people are participating in a type of self-governing state. However, says Mill, this is not true, democracies enable a tyranny of the majority where public opinion stomps out the voices of the minority groups and pays their needs and opinions no mind. Mill thinks that this tyranny is the gravest sort, and seeks to find the maximum amount that society can impose itself on an individual while still maintaining personal liberty.

Self-Regarding Actions and Autonomy
A person whose actions only affect himself is not eligible to be coerced or punished for his deeds. According to Mill, it is not society's duty or even its right to protect a person from him or herself. The only punishment that can result from a self-regarding action is the weight of individual public opinion and the consequence of the actual action itself.

The Veracity of Public Opinion
There is no guarantee, and even a strong possibility that what the majority deems to be best indeed is not. The majority' s opinion is tainted with motives and biases that shouldn't come into play when deciding what is best for society as a whole. An analysis of past events, wars, and discriminations can show us that sometimes the majority's opinion is not rooted in good faith. Allowing the minority's opinion to be involved in debates and decisions can only be a good thing, no matter what the opinion is.

Religion and Liberty
Supporters of religion tend to view those who are less religious as less credible in their ideas for society. Mill refutes this theory and says that religious affiliation or lack thereof should play no role in the ability of a person to make an informed opinion about what is best for all society ­ the truth of matters. Mill points to nonreligious men with impeccable morals as proof that religious affiliation does not indicate trustworthiness.

Coercion
Mill is against societal or individual coercion in all cases, except when a person's actions are harming others. He thinks it a clear abuse of liberty when coercion is used to persuade a person to stop an action that only affects himself. When a person is injuring other members of society, however, Mill think s it fine that he be coerced to stop his actions and punished in a court of law if applicable. Mill also believes that the public has the duty to warn each other about a dangerous person and coerce one another to stay avoid him/her.

Society's Obligation
Society has an obligation to throw its influence towards those who are unable to process information and exercise their own liberty in a rational way. Examples of these individuals are children and undeveloped minds. Society has an obligation to children to try their best to make them rational, reasonable adults who want to follow their passions and be dynamic personalities. Part of this obligation, one that is shared by parents, is providing a strong education ­ Mill suggests that there be universal educational standards for all children so none fall behind.

Danger in the Government
Mill is very fearful of the power of the government and all his theories are molded not to give the government any more power of persuasion or procedure. Mill thinks that governments should not be allowed to make the final decisions regarding its constituency, that rather local officials should be appointed and with the central government advice, but most importantly with the input of all citizens, make the decisions.

Feminism

Feminism can be defined as a philosophical belief that women and men are, and have been, treated differently by our society, and that women have frequently and systematically been unable to participate fully in all social institutions.

There was a period in my life when I had many feministic views. Perhaps too many views and perhaps they were too feministic. However, it wasn’t anything like: ‘Oh, I am a woman and I don’t like men’ but more of ‘I am a woman but it doesn’t make any difference’

But it was years ago- which doesn’t mean I don’t think this way anymore. I do, indeed, but in less strong and more rational way, because as we know, the way women are treated by our society has been changing over time. There are very little areas in the society where men and women are treated differently. For example, for one of my A levels exams I had to research how differently are sportsmen and sportswomen treated by the media. The media tend to focus on women’s appearances rather than their strength, whereas men are usually presented as strong, active athletes representing muscularity.

Mary Wollstonecraft was called the "first feminist" or "mother of feminism". Her book “Vindication of the rights of women” (1792) is about women's rights, especially women's education, which as she argues is an answer to everything.

A Vindication anticipates many of modem feminism's themes, such as the power of sex, the perils of beauty and the dangerous nature of sexuality. Wollstonecraft makes it clear that society’s views of women need reinterpretation by stating from the beginning of her Vindication that “In the present state of society it appears necessary to go back to first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground”. Wollstonecraft explores each part of her argument logically and judiciously while pointing out the flaws of sexual politics and feminist virtue in eighteenth-century society.

She refers a lot to men’s domination and women’s weakness by calling them ‘slaves’. Two things that divide two sexes are ‘muscularity’ and ‘appearances’. Men are strong therefore they can control women, but women can achieve something by their ‘beauty’s power’ which attract eyes. ‘A king is always a king’- powerful and dominating, whereas ‘woman always a woman’- who is either a slave or a queen. I think Wollstonecraft’s such powerful views may have been influenced by her childhood experience, when she lived with her drunken and violent father. A desire to achieve more than this drove her to the world of education and philosophy, as she believed that it is possible for women to become more masculine and take power over their minds, beings and souls rather than having them corrupted by men. Taking control over ones desires in marriage is one way to become an independent, strong, contributing women in society. Wollstonecraft also argues that educating women will strengthen the marriage relationship. Her concept of marriage underlies this argument. A stable marriage, she believes, is a partnership between a husband and a wife. A woman thus needs to have equal knowledge and sense, to maintain the partnership.

It was quite a long reading, but I really do enjoy talking about subjects like this one. Perhaps because it involves me in some way?

Thinking about closer/ further future? Hmm

As we approached 2010 a month ago, people seem to desire a start something new, something different to what they had/did in a previous year. Everyone wants changes, good changes of course. This is my first written speech this year; I need to get back in the routine! Hopefully it will be a good year- of course it will be! First of all, we have 7 wonderful weeks ahead when we will get a chance to do Radio Production! How exciting! Each of us will learn something new each day. I am definitely looking forward to that.

Second of all, the horrible winter is slowly leaving us, giving space for spring to visit. How lovely it will be to watch the nature come back to life again. All the trees will go green; the sun will show up more often. It will be nice and warm again. Spring is definitely my favourite season. Long and cold winter always drives me mad as there is nothing to do except for spending really short days at home. That's why first warmer days in the year give me such energy to live. It always has huge influence on my behaviour, feelings and imagination. I love to ride a bike, visiting new fresh-green areas and many places without any purpose. Walking dressed in a T-shirt and shorts becomes a pleasure because they do not confine moves and are very light. As days are definitely longer one may spend much more time outside with friends too. I really like the way the birds sing in the early spring, the view of fruit, blossom trees covered with fat hanging light pink flowers. It definitely makes me feel happier and stronger. What more than excitement can be felt in the fresh air during these days?

So yeah. It looks like there are some lovely days ahead. Let’s hope for the best :)

Everything happens for a reason. Really?

It’s time for Justina’s night time reflections.

Whenever something happens, no matter whether it is a good or a bad thing (usually it is a bad thing) my parents always say ‘No worries, everything happens for a reason’, which lights up hope for oncoming things to get better in the future. It is nice to believe that whatever happens, life still holds in store some other, interesting opportunities. Is it true that everything has its reason to happen, though? It has never been proven, but at the same time I guess it feels like a great idea for a good, positive excuse for things that go wrong in life. I feel that it actually can be argued to be true; sometimes it seems like some situations have their own reason to be happening in our life.

Sometimes seeing a person for the first time in your life makes you feel like you are already ‘bonded’ with them. You don’t quite yet know who they are, but you know that you were meant to meet them, and you know that they will affect your life in some way. Maybe they will give you a little help? Teach you a lesson? Keep you going when everything turns against you? It definitely happened to me, at least once.

Of course, bad experiences are just as important as good ones. Making mistakes is the best way of gaining new experiences and even knowledge, which can be seen as an advantage. Well, maybe not in journalism. Making errors in journalism is bad! Bad, bad, bad! Let’s try not to make any of those. At the end of the day, the successes and downfalls create who you are and how you are seen.



How about war? What is the reason of war? So many people died and still die in the brutal Iraq war. I do disagree with the statement in this case. Very, very, very much! It would stupid to think that the reason for it could be that people will find a ‘real purpose of life’ when it finally finishes, if it ever will. People living there don’t even remember what peace means. All they get to see every day are men dressed in military uniforms, machine guns and some automatic weapons. All they feel is fear and all they have is hope which slowly wanes. War has no reason for giving so much pain to these innocent people. War has no reason to exist.

I am supposed to revise for my exams right now! Revising philosophy gives me too many thought in my head which then need to be typed down so they can stop playing on my mind, otherwise I will be getting distracted for the rest of the night.

I am relieved now. I shall go back to studying leaving you to express your thoughts :-)

Bye byee.

A Student Hero from Winchester University

A student has been hailed a hero after saving an 84 year old man from burning in a house fire that happened on Monday night.

A 20 year old Winchester University student- Edward Herbert, hurried to his neighbour's house across the road to get him out of the burning house after hearing a working smoke alarm.

The incident happened on Monday night, 7th December at 21:17, before Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service Control Room operators received a 999 emergency call.

Edward climbed the ladder to get to the top floor of the house, as the man was at the upstairs window.

The ladder wasn't long enough so Edward only managed to get an old man's head out of the window and decided to wait until firefighters and police arrived to rescue the man, who was then taken to hospital by South Central Ambulance suffering from smoke inhalation.

The hero declared: 'I just wanted to get him out of the house.' This is a very brave move, especially that he was risking his own life. He also said: 'He fainted on me twice, that was really scary, I thought the worst.'

Luckily, a member of the ambulance crew took care of him administering oxygen.

Winchester Fire Station Watch Manager Chris Roper, said:

'The alarm was raised by neighbours who heard a smoke alarm sounding. The fire, which was in the ground floor kitchen of the property, is thought to have started due to an electrical fault. The occupier was upstairs in his bedroom at the time. Fortunately neighbours heard the alarm sounding and dialled 999."

Edward Herbert, who saved an elderly man, said: I am definitely going to see him in hospital, bring some flowers and make sure he is alright.'

The police informed that the man is fine and with his family in hospital.

Qualified privilege

The Galloway case:

The Daily Telegraph lost the case after making serious defamatory allegations against George Galloway, including elements of malice with no Justification, comment or QP. The reason for losing the case was that journalists failed the ’10 point test’, mainly because the paper did not put all its allegations to Galloway for him to deny before the information was published.

Qualified Privilege is a type of defense again libel taken in defamation actions. It is also available in situations where it is considered important that the facts should be known in the public interests. There are two types of QP: Statutory qualified privilege and Common Law qualified privilege.

Statutory qualified privilege can be used in certain circumstances, such as court reporting, public and council meetings reporting and reports of police statements. The published report has to be accurate, fair and free of malice. There is also a requirement for Statutory qualified privilege which states that the matter published must be a matter of public concern, the publication of which is for the public benefit.

However, Privilege at common law can be applied in situations where the law protects defamatory statements that are untrue, for the convenience of the public. For example, it applies when a person makes a defamatory statement in the performance of legal, moral, or social duty to a person who has corresponding duty or interest in receiving it.

10 point test is another way of defence:

1.The case has to be serious- the more serious allegation, the more protection will be applied.
2.The nature of information
3.The source of information
4.The status of information
5.Evidence is essential
6.The urgency of the matter
7.A comment from the claimant is needed
8.The tone of the article- it has to be written in a balanced language
9.It has be to published immediately
10.A claimant has to have a chance to deny it.