Locke, Epistle to the reader

The opening few paragraphs appear to me to be saying that he hopes the reader has pleasure in reading it as he did in writing it. It seems to say that he enjoyed writing it and he is proud and pleased with the finished work. But, later in the text '...may be long but I may be too busy, or lazy, to shorten it' could connote a different stance.

One of the key points i took from the text was the idea that we are all born with a blank slate; when born we have no innate conceptions. Locke believed that we learn everything through experience and gain information by practice. I do not completely agree with this theory as I think that there are some things, such as the ability to breathe underwater for the first few minutes after birth. This is not learnt through practice but is done innately. The same as learning to walk. It does take practice to do competently but we will attempt to do it without pushing from parents.

Another point which I gathered from the reading was that we all will take a different approach and meaning to things. This was written by Locke as ' Everything does not hit alike upon a man's imagination. We have an understanding no less different than our pallets, and want to season our meat differently. I took this as to meaning: needing a different seasoning is needing the same point explained in a altered way to another. This also fits with the idea that two could have the same experiences yet take opposing meanings and therefore create their own morals and feelings about a situation.

The statement ' The age we live in is not the least knowing, therefore it is not easy to be satisfied' I took as implying that due to the fact that we are so knowledgeable and learned we find it hard to be contempt with what we know.

His points do make sense but I would still like to disagree with the points that we are born with no concept of any knowledge. The fact that he kept adding to and amending the text tells us that he also had changing ideas and thoughts about what he knew. Although, this would agree with this theory that we learn through experience?!

Semiotics...this is my signifier?

To begin with we were introduced to Umberto Eco, he has been called the thinking person's Dan Brown. But the main people were to focus on for the lecture were Saussure and Pierce.

So, semiotis. Can be described as thew major technique for studying the media. Language and words are a form of semitotics and devolpments occured in areas of linguistics and social theroy. It was said that language is a reflection of of reality. It gives voice to deep personal intentions and allows them to be articulated and perfomed.. This is the externalist theory of language.

Saussure, a Swiss philosopher, gave courses in general linguistics. But, he also had new ideas. He had ideas that language ios constucted. It is an agreed set of meanings and objects. Dog for example is known to us a certain breed of animal with 4 legs, but is different to all other 4 legged species in some ways. The meaning of the word exsits because it has been shared and negotiated: an agreement has been reached to its relevance to the world.

In finding the meaning of a somthing there are three steps. The signifier is the sound, image or design on the paper. The signified is then the concept or implies (this can varyu due to cultural associations). Then the referent is the real item that is being refered to in the statement. The heart was used as an example in the lecture. A picture of a heart on the front of a card has the signified meaning of love, but has the referent of an actaul human heart.

Saussure stated that our perception of reality id sturctered and shaped by the words and signs we see. We do not simply label the wprld but 'construct' meanings through the words and that gives the association we have from word to object. there is no implict meaning on any object.

Words were compared to parts of a car. You cannot understand a word until you know the context. This is described as structerlist; can not understand part of socity without grasping at all of the picture. Socities hidden laws will determine how words work and stuctuelism work. Signs themselves make no sense, only when they are part of a sytem do they become understood.

Some important words, few I had come across before whilst studying A-level media, were explained to us. Thes included denotation and conotation: denotate the actaul meaning of a sign ( a heart as a human organ) or to conotate the associated meaning (heart meaning love). We learnt that there a re differnt types of sign. An indexical sign is an indicator of something else. a casual link to something else. For example smoke is an indexical sign to fire. Iconinc signs are signs which resemble a meaning or referance, an example of this could be the face of the Queen on a £20 note.

More difficult ideas were paradigmatic analysis and syntagmatic analysis. Paradigmatic is the interchanging of meanings within a sentence. Syntagmatic analysis is the order of how things happen.

Hobbs..not only the one i enjoy reading about..reminds of a rather good biscuit...

Thomas Hobbs (1588- 1679) is described in Early Modern Europe, H G Koenigsberger, as being “the greatest political writer of the period”. He is remembered today for his work on political philosophy. A book he wrote in 1651 (Leviathan) created the foundations for most of todays Western political philosophy from the perspective of social contract theory. Social contract is covering lots of theories which try to explain the ways people create states and maintain a social order. It implies that people surrender some of their rights in order to recieve or maintain a social order through the rule of law. A simpler explaination would be to think of it as an agreement between them and rules set out by the ones that govern them.

The starting point for many of the theories was the theoriy of 'State of Nature'. This is where an individual’s actions are bound only by their conscience. From this common starting point, the various componants of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom they have in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.

According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "nasty, brutish and short", a state where self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or society.

The social contract was an idea where individuals came together and gave up some of their rights so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up its right to kill person B if person B does the same). From this social/ conscience agreement the establishment of society came about, and by extension, the state. Society was thus no longer anarchic.

But, states now acted in their own interests: in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were bound to be in conflict because there was no rule over an above the state (i.e. more powerful) capable of imposing social-contract laws.

I think that I would get along with Hobbes. My merit may be good but yet to be placed first! He came to his conclusions in a logical manner, i enjoy order and hate confusion.

So everyone in Norway is happy?

Britain is ranked 21st best place to live. 1st is Norway, followed by Australia and Iceland. Japan which is ranked 10th has the highest life expectancy at 82.7 years - in UK it is 79.3 years.

How did they come to this conclusion then? Are these people genuinely happy or have they been told they are?
Diogenes believed in a philosophy called cynicism, to be happy you live as simply as possible, looking at the way that dogs live. He said that he would live like a dog and had no care of manners at all. I could say from this that I think he is wrong. Norway has a very civilised population. Although ,these countries are known for their relaxed attitude to life (stereotype 'Aussie' life as work for the morning- not a stressful job you understand- then surf all afternoon).

What questions could have used in order to find the conclusions of this servey? A simple "Are you happy?". Different people may find happiness in different ways though.
Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who was born over 2300 years ago. One of his major concerns was discovering how to achieve happiness. His basic theory is that all good and bad things come from sensations. All pleasure is good, and all pain is bad. Therefore, in order to achieve happiness, we should try to maximize the amount of pleasure we experience.

Aristotle gave a detailed desciption of how he perceived true happiness. Pleasure is not a good in itself, he argued, since it is by its nature incomplete. But worthwhile activities are often associated with their own distinctive pleasures. Genuine happiness lies in actions that lead to virtue, since this alone provides true value and not just amusement. Therefore, Aristotle held that contemplation is the highest form of moral activity because it is continuous, pleasant, self-sufficient, and complete.

Does this servey then mean that all in those countries are happy? Does it mean people outside those countries are generaly unhappy? Is it the situations that they find themselves in or their state of mind in the same situations is different to thos in higher ranked countries?

I'd say I'm happy when busy yet also when relaxed. When im with friends and alone i can find a state of happiness. These may all vary to some degree but still, I would call my emotion happy.

Who is ever in a high enough intellectual state to give a definition of happiness that covers all aspects of the emotion?

First blog?!

Hi! My names Beth Roots, I'm from Suffolk and doing a combined Law and Jounalism degree course.
So we were told " Say what you like about Russell". Well I'm sure what to say really. I could use a syllogistic method to get to my conclusions on him: All biased opinions should be discredited. Russell seemed bias in some views to me. Russell should be discredited? Clearly not so what am I to think now!
This is going to call for serious epstimology....so more to added later!!