Wednesday, 30 September 2009

"All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal"

My title brings up an interesting point, not just a point, but a debate. Who agrees with this logic? Realists? Philosophers? If I had my say, I'd agree with the syllogistic logic that is shown. It makes sense, but there is room for argument because Jesus was a man, however he was reborn or brought back to life, so there is room for arguments on the counts that despite being a man, being immortal can be present.

I'm not going to lie, philosophy isn't my strong point but it has to be done. I was intrigued by Raphael's painting that Brian put up during the lecture, it wasn't just a symbol of philosophy and wisdom, but one of knowledge, something which immediately caught my attention. The two men in the middle are Plato and Aristotle, arguably two of the great legends of ancient philosophy. Exactly, they are now only legends. Possibly forgotten. Many theories have since been released which rejects their views, mainly the physics of Aristotle. It begs the question whether modernisation can take place on any form of knowledge whether it be football to in this philiosophy. Galileo for example was a scientist on the dynamics of moving objects, and Betrand Russell sees him a key person in the shift from middle age philosophy to what we call today modern science. It was Galileo who developed the telescope and it observed many things, including mountains on the moon (something which has rejected the physics of Aristotle).

One key interest during the lecture was the information on Descartes, or as I like to call him, "Des-cart-tees", a man who is widely regarded as "El Padre" of modern philosophy (pardon my Spanish). He was a mathematician of 'realism' and 'idealism' and claimed that mathematical problems only existed in the mind. Arguable, however he raises a valid point. What if the very world we live in is just a problematic issue of maths and the unknown? Who's to say that what we believe is false, and what is real is nothing but a mathematical problem? Descartes did this. He separated 'thought' and 'matter', matter exists whereas thought is some form of belief or the beginning of matter. Either way, Descartes completely abolishes the works of Aristotle, along with Galileo, Newton and Francis Bacon. Descartes used doubt to create the problem that what he believed to be true was in fact a lie. He used only facts as truths and didn't allow for thinking to cloud the realities.

It came to me at the end of the lecture, and something I asked myself later that night. As a society, do we react to daily life from our thoughts, or do we use truths to live in a Utopia?

Tuesday, 29 September 2009

Media Law (Lecture 1)

At first I was concerned as to what to expect when I walked through the doors of the Tom Atkinson building, although my anxieties were quickly settled by the presence of my good friend Jake Gable, or as I know him, The Gooner. Before the actual lecture itself we embarked on setting up our blogs, which in theory allowed for myself to write this current post.
I think the course was put in perspective during the lecture when Chris exclaimed there is a possibility I could be sent to prison for contempt of court, something that I do not aspire to during the years I am alive. This crime can range from taking any recording equipment into the court room, to misquoting or harassing a witness or member of the jury, and I for one do not intend to throw away my years in some cell.
Chris also talked about libel laws, and the fact that the United Kingdom has the most hostile of them on the entire planet. The prospect of being sued thousands of pounds (something I don't have until I fulfil my dream of winning the lottery) doesn't really appeal to me.
I did learn two new things in this lecture though. Firstly, I obtained the knowledge the High Court is separated in three divisions: Queen's Bench, Family Division, and Chancery Division. The Queen's Bench deals with civil and criminal jurisdiction, whereas Family Division sees such cases as divorce and matters regarding child welfare, and the Chancery Division sorts out issues of complexity such as disputes over property settlement; and bankruptcy. The second thing I learnt in this lecture is that crimes are divided into two main categories: these being arrestable and non-indictable offences, and that crimes only offences against the state of the public in general, whereas civil law is classed as disputes between citizens.
Was my first lecture what I expected? I'm not going to lie, it was exactly what I expected. Not just the opportunity of greater knowledge, but furthermore the reality of today's media world.

Gman enters the blogging world

After a week of expectation, the blogging has finally commenced. I am Gareth, or as my friends know me, Gman. I live in Sittingbourne, in Kent, and I am 18 years old, whilst studying single honours journalism at the University of Winchester.