A philosopher is never late, he arrives precisely when he means to.

Ok, so let's begin with what began my lecture last week (as it seems a logical place to start). We began the lecture with a discussion on the death of Socrates, which is important when discussing the idea of a 'social contract' (conveniently the topic of my blog today, what a coincidence!). The idea is; that when Socrates was sentenced to death, a great many of his followers were very eager to get him out of such a sorry predicament, yet, when they asked him if he wanted assistance Socrates refused. Now, at this point, one has to wonder why a person would refuse being saved from horrific death, seems very anti-darwin, but Socrates was adamant that if he were to reject the power of the state in which was brought up and allowed to live, then he would be breaking the laws set out by the state: the very state that he had fed upon (metaphorically speaking) for his entire life, thus breaking the unspoken contract that he implicitly signed by living in said society.

The relevant point in this is the idea that when a person lives in a society, they are bound to serve that society and follow the rules set out by the powers that be, and in breaking said rules, one might bring the entire civilisation to it's knees, as what then would prevent others from doing the same.

This idea is explored in Hobbes' 'Leviathan': in which Hobbes describes the only antidote to a fearful anarchic 'State of Nature' (in which there is no governing power and it's every man for themselves). The Leviathan is a singular ruler who must be obeyed and given absolute power in order to regain civilisation from the chaotic state of nature. The only right than can be retained, according to Hobbes, is the right of self-defence. This means that the Leviathan can be over thrown if they are unable to defend those under their control; thus breaking their social contract.

We also discussed Locke, but due to his part in my next lecture/seminar, He will appear then.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

My first radio broadcast. (hopefully)

I’m sat in the lecture theatre and it’s 3.00pm, although it feels like early morning, with the groggy-haze of sleep still firmly gripping my consciousness. We’re covering the idea of narrative: a simple idea at a push, yet, at 40 minutes in, they really are pushing it. We’ve covered 1950’s Hollywood. The lecturer’s way of making sense of the idea of the impact of culture on media: presumably so that the insects on the walls can also understand the concept. But I don’t know, maybe he thinks we’re all idiots.

I hear him phase back into my conscious thought, catching his most controversial statement (outside of his joke about masculine breast cancer): ‘can videogames also have a narrative?’ My mind flashes back to the moment of Dom Santiago’s martyrdom in Gears of War 3, yes it can; not only can it do so, it can also do so in a way that is vastly superior to most ‘blockbuster’ films (anything with Adam Sandler in it comes to mind). Another example of the dismissal of videogames by ‘cultured’ society.

The videogames industry didn’t become bigger than television, film and books without being in some way a superior form of entertainment, did it? Some of the biggest directors, screenwriters and actors didn’t turn to videogames because they were random and pointless repetitions of the same thing did they? Or am I missing some philosophical development that completely overrules logic?

Sure, you could argue that early games such as ‘Pacman’ and ‘Space Invaders’ were repetitive and without a storyline, but imagine for a second that Pacman was to be looked upon through the same ‘cultural’ glasses that art is: then Pacman becomes a poignant insight into the mind of a person on LSD running from the ghosts formed by the drug!

My mind has wandered, the doodle I started has now become fine art and I think we’re now being told that Soaps are examples of ‘fantastic!’ story writing. I beg to differ, but I’ll hold my tongue, I don’t care enough to stay in this lecture any longer than I have to: which, judging by the expressions on everyone else’s faces, is the real ‘key concept’ shared today.

Is there such thing as over-precision?

If there is, this is it:


The only way I can possibly imagine trying to answer such a complex question as ‘what makes a good journalist?’ is through a 150 word email to my precision English tutor. The answer is simple enough: precise English - and only precise English - can make you a good journalist. Creative writing skills, the drive to succeed and a passion for the occupation are entirely worthless! As a journalist, you can only prevail with perfect grammar and spelling. Any minute detail that is incorrect in any article will lead to certain failure and you will lose your job! Not only this, but other journalists will call you horrible names, such as ‘bad journalist’ and ‘poor journalist’, which, I’m sure you will agree, is not good for a person’s self esteem. Finally, a journalist must have extremely precise English, as if they do not, then they shall not become, as is their desire, a journalist.

With regards to Libel.

To begin our foray into the depths of Libel, we must first look at what is required of the claimant in order for them to mount such a malicious attack upon another: (use of the colon perfected in precision english) the claimant must prove that whatever material they have taken offence to is 'defamatory' towards them; as in lowering their reputation: they must then prove, in a Civil court, that the material is understood to be referring to the claimant 'beyond reasonable doubt'; the third and final proof required is that of a third person's involvement, e.g: a readership.

Now we have established that there isn't much to prove in order to take someone to court over Libel, I will take us back to the beginning of the lecture in which I was given this information (although I had read the book, but for storytelling purposes this is easier and more interesting):

-Zoning in-
We begin with Chris Horrie holding, as is quite regular in these situations, The Sun newspaper; Chris is laughing aloud as we disentangle the reason why the cabinet women were being so immorally attacked by Mary Portas (insufferable orange-haired witch from humbly-named television programmes such as 'Mary Queen of Shops' and nothing else of any more prestige than that), Emily Ashton (y'know that famous woman from... The Sun.) and The Sun's Fashion Editor: Toni Jones. The reason is surprisingly simple, even though the article was especially defaming, it is all very legal.

But why? (I hear nobody cry, due to the form of media I am using) The reason is, hauling us back from the tangent of The Sun's witless abuse of politicians, 'mere abuse': the first instance of legal jargon to be spoken of in the lecture, and for good reason: mere abuse is a great defence against Libel claims, as, if the defendant can prove that the insults are matters of opinion and they are the truthful opinion of the defendant (this is under the cover of the 'Fair Comment' defence), then the defendant has the right to print their own opinion.

The lecture then moved onto a more formal note, defining Libel as what it is; a dispute between two parties over reputation, which then required a proper definition of what a person can claim of their reputation, which is: a person has the reputation to which they are entitled [through the opinions of others]: not what said person thinks their reputation is.

This definition, whilst seeming to aid the defendant, is balanced by the fact that defamation only has to TEND (this is how it was written in my notes) to damage reputation, meaning that the claimant must only prove, on the balance of probability, that the person's reputation COULD (once again, how my notes were written) be damaged.

Also, accusing someone of a crime is a definite act of libel, unless they are already proven guilty in a British Court of Law, and even then a summary of the defence must be given in the interests of fairness.

To be Libel; the defamation must be in a permanent form, hence why it is such a threat to journalists. These definitions of the fine points of Libel can be summarised by the convenient addition:

Identification + Publication + Defamation = Libel (handy).

With this handy summary of Libel, I will bid you Adieu.

Philosophy masterclass

Yesterday (Tuesday), I embarked upon an academic journey through time and, theoretically, space. The expedition into these realms was very capably lead by none other than Jack Webb, a fellow student of journalism. We began in the pre-Socratic era, with Thales, a philosopher who was the very first recorded mathematician and Philosopher, famous for his prediction of the eclipse. However there are no written records of his work. Anaximander was the next topic of discussion, with his theory of the world being made of all elements rather just water, this was later discredited by Aristotle, but a good effort nonetheless. Pythagoras was next, the namesake of the infuriating mathematical theory, not only this, Pythagoras worked out the mathematical links between the universe, music and maths as well as being the head of his own religion, such was the contemporary importance of his works at the time. Parmenides and Hericlitus, the former of which argued that everything was made of one substance as opposed to the latter who argued that everything was kept in balance by two equally matched opposites, were next. Needless to say, the two were not best friends.

We then moved on to all things post Socrates, including Socrates himself, who, although we have no written evidence of his work, was extremely influential, tutoring Plato who in turn tutored Aristotle. Socrates died as a result of accused impiety and was thus forced to drink large quantities of poisonous substance (lovely). Plato, being next in the line of great philosophers was the number one student of Socrates, whose great work consisted of a plan for a seemingly utopian future society, exploring the nature of justice, politics and statesmanship. This as well as proposing the big questions of how and why anything exists, suggesting that there is a perfect other world that this world merely shadows, and that philosophers were the only few who could access the knowledge in that other realm, possessing the 'ultimate innate knowledge' (sounds like a big ego to me, but he was a smart guy). The student of Plato was Aristotle, perhaps the most well-known Greek philosopher, who argued with Plato on the origin of knowledge and that it was acquired through experience as opposed to Plato's idea of innate knowledge. Aristotle was also, the origin of logic and a master of metaphysics, physics, ethics, biology and politics to name a few.

After the death of Aristotle, stoicism became more prevalent in Greek culture, with the idea of a wonderful immortal life awaiting those who would live in a good way. However, after a while these theories were overtaken by a re-ignition of Plato and Aristotle's theories. In other news, shorthand is going alright.

The application of shorthand.

Today, as always with Mondays, I attended my Key Concepts lecture, and being as it's all pretty much common sense I decided to use the lecture to revise my shorthand. This didn't really work, as my shorthand isn't that great. However, all revision is good revision right? And I got some notes from my lecture, which can only be a good thing, disregarding the content of the lecture and it's worth.

Juggling social, work and relationships all the time is becoming tiresome, speaking of which, Megabus is all talk, the whole £1 thing is a lie; £15 to get to Nottingham each way, from and to London, then the cost of getting to Winchester from there. Having a girlfriend will most definitely be expensive whilst I'm here, not that it's not worth it. I'd recommend it in fact.

Anyways, I digress to less officious topics, which I'm still not certain where to draw the line on with this blog. Shorthand is proving difficult, but very progressive and with more and more practice is becoming relatively simple, although, it's still faster for me to write in longhand, which is ironic, but hey ho!

I am yet to receive my Betrand Russell book, which is particularly annoying, yet it offers the opportunity for me to try ploughing through this law book, fun fun fun. I'm finding that I recognise a lot of the content from AS Law, which is reassuring, but my patience with the quantity of 'double-dutchery' is wearing thin to say the least.

Now, after this erratic foray into the mind of a rather worn out student, I wl lv u to do yr own thng (shorthand before it's made into symbols ;)).