Grape picking

A glimpse of French education in philosophy - Part II

HISTORY

History... A topic particularly interesting for journalists since it deals with facts, figures and people‘s stories.

Can historians avoid interpreting History? Problem: Can historians be objective? How can history be a science?

History’s handicaps
There is no direct observation on history - only documents and people’s memory can reconstruct the events. From this point of view, historians cannot establish an objective truth about History. People who left the evidence were themselves biased - since they were going through the events -and therefore played an active roles, whether spectators or actors. Some documents are missing as well, which means that historians have to analyse partial and biased pieces of evidence. This issue would inevitably lead to interpretation.

There is also a problem linked to individuals: extremely biased people, like communists or Nazis would give a false account of their time in their writings. Some people would even deny that the Holocaust happened. How can historians deal with those issues in order to establish an accurate account of History?

A scientific reconstruction of History

a) Historians gather documents of the studied era, study and criticise them
b) Questionning of the authenticity, the source and value of the document
c)The historians must question the truthfulness of the document as well as the coherence of it. This is why it needs to be confronted with other documents of the same era. Like other sciences, History can improve with the new updates of database.
According to Popper, if all the available documents have been taken into account and if they allow historians to verify their facts and potential theories, then History has been reconstructed in a scientific manner.

But History is not really a science…
Historians consider the events in themselves, study different people, governements and eras and those cannot be simplified into a general rule like in science. History is not an exact science given that historians have to interpret the facts within their context.

A glimpse of French education in philosophy… part I

Going through my external hardrive this morning I was surprised to find that I had kept my philosophy revision notes for my Baccalaureate. Many topics that I studied aren’t included in the HCJ lectures, so I thought I’d share a few of them on this blog.

ART

Imitation principle

Art must represent something that already exists according to Aristotle, which distinguishes it from simple know-how. He believed that people had a natural tendency for representation of reality – poetry, plays – because it generates pleasure/joy. Aristotle wanted to give this natural dimension to pleasure: it can also be intellectual. In his theory he attacked Plato’s idea that separates imitation from truth and reason.

Genius

Art must involve genius, otherwise it is only a simple work, not a work of art. But philosophers had different ideas regarding the definition of genius.

According to Plato, genius is a phenomenon that cannot be explained, it’s a divine inspiration, a kind of surnatural delirium. The artist only becomes a medium between God and mortal people.

Kant believed that an artist had genius/talent when he was unable to explain how he made the work of art. If the “artist” follows determined rules, then he’s just applying general rules in order to make a product. The artistic product comes from talent and imagination. Technique and talent make the artist.

Stravinsky (XXth century Russian pianist) didn’t believe in genius. According to him, a work of art is made with technique/know-how and emotions. The creation process comes from inspiration, which is an emotion.

Nietszche demystified the idea of genius. The process of creation is a constant work, and the idea of genius itself is an illusion. The viewer has an impression that the result was easily achieved when watching the finished work of art.

Rules of art

Art revolutions don’t allow us to establish a knowledge/understanding of beauty.

Some works of art don’t suffer any change in rules/taste/fashion/current/genre. This is why we can empirically set rules of art – determined from the previous work of arts, what works and what doesn’t work, according to Hume.

Can anyone judge beauty?

Still according to Hume, a good judge must have an innate sensitivity, master a form of art, and must refuse any kind of prejudices.

Understanding, sensitivity and imagination are essential qualities when juding a work of art, according to Kant. Everyone is equal when it comes to art, it must generate pleasure without needing previous knowledge or concept.

Bourdieu disagreed with this idea: in his case he believed that the pleasure people get out of art is different according to which social class they come from.

If a group of people from various social backgrounds have a look at this picture - Hands of a farm woman by Russell Lee, it is quite likely that they will have different thoughts/feelings about it.

Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?

Click here to find out*

*Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Keynesianism for Dummies

Keynesianism is an influential economic theory developed by British economist John Maynard Keynes in the first half of the 20th century, according to which liberalism is not the answer in times of economical crisis. The market doesn't regulate itself, and the State needs to play an active role in the recovery. The State's role in this case is to reflate the economy.

The idea is simple: according to Keynes, wages regulate demand. The State must inject money into the economy in order to boost consumption. If wages go up, the demand will grow, and therefore the production will restart, which itself will create new jobs. If wages go down, it's the opposite scenario: unemployment, weak consumption & production. Keynes was also opposed to excessive saving, which was due to pessimistic speculation on the economy. It would then result in a climate of financial uncertainty and the consumption would be affected.

This theory refutes Say's law, or law of the market. Jean-Baptiste Say was a French economist born in the 18th century. The main idea in the theory is that if the product is a good quality product the demand will create itself, not needing the help of the State. Pumping money into the economy will just boost the inflation, it will not create a real demand.

"The production of commodities creates, and is the one and universal cause which creates a market for the commodities produced."

James Mill, Scottish economist

And here is a simple graphic that illustrates macroeconomics...

Poor students to get two years at university for free

My news report this week:

Overdraft charges to change

Social Darwinism

March of Progress

Social Darwinism was mainly developed by Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. It was based on Darwin’s theory of evolution, according to which living beings evolve through a process of natural selection. Theory of evolution was then applied to political and social issues that people encountered at the time. According to Spencer, natural selection shows that only rich and powerful people have the ability to adapt to their social environment. Therefore, it is only natural and moral to let them grow, while people who struggle should not be helped – only because it is not moral to encourage weak people to reproduce. On a political level, the theory encouraged the idea that strong and advanced populations should rule the world, while weaker countries should not be assisted.

Social Darwinism was used many times as a reason to persecute the weakest. Although this theory was not a cause in itself, it served many questionable actions European governments have undertaken in the 19th and 20th centuries, such as colonialism and imperialism.

It also served eugenics, a popular current in the early 1900s. It is described as a “biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population". This so-called science promoted the idea of a superior race, and that inferior people should either be slaves or exterminated.

Eugenics led to many atrocities. From 1907, Some American states enforced laws according to which mentally ill people should not marry and that they should undergo sterilisation. Between 1907 and 1963, over 64,000 people were sterilised in the United States. And last but certainly not least, the Nazi government conducted eugenics programs in an attempt to maintain a pure German race. Between 1934 and 1937, an estimated 400,000 people were sterilised by the Nazi regime. The same regime killed thousands of institutionalised disabled through compulsory euthanasia programs. Here is a nazi poster promoting compulsory euthanasia.

“This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."