DOCUMENTARY & PHOTOJOURNALISM PROJECT: RADIO STORY

For my Journalism module we were assigned to create a fictional 3 minute radio story in which we interviewed somebody regarding a personal experience they went through. My story presents Alejandro Horowitz, a young student who works full time as a manager of Subway Winchester.

Logic & Mathematics / Discussing propositions

It would be extremely bald on my behalf to disqualify certain interpretations of logic (such as math), given that within philosophy mathematics is one of the fields in which a genius can only stand aside and criticize certain theories with the out most perspective. 

However, I will attempt none the less to look at several philosophical propositions that derive from a mathematical understanding and decide whether I agree or not. Bertrand Russell was very keen on understanding arithmetic as a form of logic and Frege wasn't very convinced given that certain ideas of classification can consider arithmetic to be very abstract and not empirical whatsoever. 

The example given was 'one drop of water + one drop of water = one drop of water (in bigger size)'. One drop of water (1q) + (1q) should equal to 2q since the principle of addition is clear but instead its 1Q (Q in capitals representing a lager substance in its same quantity). 

Therefore the proposition of arithmetical abstract is clear. My proposition is that this interpretation is erroneous, I will not refute that arithmetic can be considered abstract instead of empirical but this proposition in particular is incorrect and it demonstrate that Frege's ideas of sense vs reference are very much interconnected in all fields of theory of knowledge.

 First of all we must look at the 'drop of water' a drop of water is a name given to a recognizable amount of water in a very small and somewhat inconclusive size of water with a cylindrical perimeter that evokes the idea of a small portion of water that has been removed or dis-attached itself from a larger much more dense amount of water. Once we recognize the drop with quantify it, in this case 1. The mistake lies in the reasoning behind this categorization of water with an arithmetic understanding such as (Quantity 1) when in itself this quantity cannot really be applied given its physical condition which is at a liquid state. There is a reason why we measure water in liters and not in grams given its molecular structure and mass, therefore when we quantify its mass capacity we find ourselves using a different categorical group than a lemon or a house for example.

 When it comes to a drop of water the identification is much less vague given that there could be a drop of water of one cubic centimeter and a drop of water of 0.5 millimeters, they are both the same thing and yet they aren't given that their size is completely different. Of course, in a mathematical approach their size is not important, 1 small house and 1 big house will still equal 2 houses regardless of the size, however we have no doubt of what a house consists of and its dimensions allow us to understand straight away how a house looks like whereas with water, (once again because of its composition) we cannot apply the same concept we can only assume it is water but we can't really identify it as a group such as 'a drop' of water because ultimately the drop means that 'it is a much smaller proportion of water that belongs to a larger group of water' 

The arithmetic rule of water can only be applied when the substance is contained within a solid mass with sufficient space, because water with itself cannot be added, one drop of water in itself cannot be quantified as the name itself (Frege's rule of understanding a conceptual case scenario based on the names and classification group) proves that it is only a proportion of something much bigger, therefore once this smaller proportion is added to something of the same type it will increase in size rather add one more. 

Water will react with itself in the same way that two solids will compose something bigger or a specific compound, the same way as I can say, add 2 legs, 2 arms, 1 torso, 1 head = 1 person. My point is the following, the 'drop of water' theory (as I call it) that proves that arithmetic is an abstract form of logic rather than empirical is not sufficient and through Frege's understanding of language it can easily be refuted as a valid theory. 

 Moreover, for the sake of the argument we are not applying the concept that two solids cannot occupy the same space at the same time except a liquid in a subtle way, its molecular structure is far more divided and scattered and it allows molecules of water fill other gaps, increasing its size, not its quantity.

Social Media Assignment 2) Review on 'Internet Diffusion and The Digital Divide: The Role of Policy-Making and Political Institutions' by Kenneth S. Rogerson and Daniel Milton

This chapter on ‘Internet diffusion and the digital divide’ explains the situation in several countries regarding their intention to develop technological infrastructure as well as creating new internet policies in their countries. The authors use several case studies from Estonia, Brazil, Singapore and the United States. These countries from different regions and different socioeconomic status represent a good comparison to one another given that they share very little similarities but at the same time one of their pursuits is very similar.
The internet has been considered a key aspect of social media and this set of countries has applied policies to expand its influence. In Brazil president Lula wanted to create a highly influential technological community in which software and internet was available for the masses, creating a developing unity among people and pushing society to have a minimum of 15% of the population with internet access, which supports the idea that “the higher the educational background the more people use the internet in an instrumental way” (Milton) which was part of Brazil’s “Computers for all” program. Estonia was also a role model using the internet, being in 2007 the only country that applied governmental voting through the internet, perhaps because it used to be the Cybernetics central of the Soviet Union (Milton) Nevertheless their objectives are clear and their intentions were to provide a fair digital divide across the nation, allowing in 2007 95% of the population to have access to the Internet.
Singapore had a much stricter domestic policy with the internet, they also shared an electronic pursuit hoping that in the 90s their ‘paperless’ campaign would impulse the country to share information through electronic channels however, information that they wished to control with their Computer Misuse Act they hoped to filter content to the public and in 2006 with their Cyber-watch they hoped to protect classified governmental information. In comparison to Brazil and Estonia, Singapore was more conservative and slightly more authoritarian, but nonetheless they sought to expand the influence of the Internet at home.
The United States showed a balance between Singapore, Brazil and Estonia. During the late 90s President Bill Clinton encouraged government funding for the Community Technology Centre, developing infrastructure and technological advances (Milton). On the other hand, with the new developments in the industry they also sought to protect public interest. With the Telecommunications Act in 1996 Congress wished to have a stricter policy filtering content which was later decided to be unconstitutional, which in 1997 later transformed into the Children Privacy Protection law which allowed parents to have more control and the information of certain webpages was filtered to protect minors.
Ultimately this chapter shows the importance of governmental intervention when it comes to the development of technology and infrastructure. With the support and funding of the public sector Internet can reach a much wider audience and provide information that is regulated protecting the public, which is an example of what Rogerson and Milton said at the beginning of the chapter “with economic development comes better access to internet and narrower socioeconomic differences between the media users.” (Milton)

Social Media Assignment - 1) Review on 'New Media & Society - ICT as cultural capital: The relationship between socioeconomic status and the computer-use profile of young people'

This article from the Flanders/Ghent University of Belgium shows a very interesting and straight forward experiment which wishes to understand the relationship with socioeconomic status and the computer use of young people; its priority was to find out “whether varying patterns of computer access, attitudes, competencies and uses can be seen as constituting differences in cultural capital” (Tondeur, 2010). The report raised awareness that there is an intrigue to define ICT and its role in new media within society “looking, therefore, for contemporary suppliers of relevant competencies and skills, ICT becomes paramount.” (Tondeur, 2010)

The study surveyed over 1000 students from over 40 different schools around Belgium. There were several questions asked to determine how experienced they were in ICT skills and they were asked several possible scenarios in which they would require certain ICT skills and the students would answer how skilled they thought they were.

The results however were slightly pessimistic since they did not prove that there was any sign of social economic status and computer ownership among the students they have interviewed “what emerged from the analyses was that no relationship between SES and computer ownership was found for this group of students.” (Tondeur, 2010)
Nevertheless this was corroborated by previous research, suggesting that access to computers is no longer a unitary phenomenon and it can only slightly support the idea of treating the computer-use profile as a contemporary indicator of differing cultural capital.” (Tondeur, 2010)

My suggestion to the report is that perhaps the students from a lower socioeconomic status could have lied in the surveys pretending to have a better notion of ICT skills than the reports state in order to not feel humiliated or undermined by their classmates. This could be considered a rather sceptical idea but it might suggest a reason as to why the SES did not affect the ICT skills. Another point of view is that the socioeconomic status in Flanders, Belgium does not differ greatly from one student to another and therefore will not provide significant evidence, if perhaps students are compared from different parts of Belgium or even a zone in Europe various socioeconomic statuses will be revealed, thus allowing the research to be more thorough.

Lastly, ICT skills perhaps can’t consider a different socioeconomic status but they might reveal the differences through other methods, such as the content behind the purpose of using computers. It is true that there is only a slight difference between lower, middle and upper class when it comes to the computer skills but different uses the students have with those skills might determine their SES for instance a student that uses the computer to use his school work and another one only uses it for instant messaging and chat might prove one to be from a higher socioeconomic status than the other.


word count: 470

Seminar Paper / The Outsider (Albert Camus)

HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF JOURNALISM
SEMINAR PAPER
The Outsider by Albert Camus

The Outsider (or The Stranger) is a novel (1942) written by Nobel Prize for Literature (1957) Albert Camus and is often cited as one of the greatest philosophical novels of the 20th century, due to its role in existentialist, nihilist and deterministic propositions.
The plot is based around the crime and incarceration of Meursault an Algerian man that killed an Arab who threatened him with a knife, the story is divided in two parts and is narrated by Meursault himself who describes through his life the days previous to his incarceration and his life after it, with certain pragmatism.
The philosophy behind this novel is nothing short of an existentialism masterpiece with various inclinations towards absurdism. The main themes are characterized by a clear paradox, straight forward in Meursault’s attitude throughout the novel; his carelessness and lack of empathy suggest that he is aware he has no freedom and he shows himself to be indifferent towards the moral appeal that most of our society is accustomed to, for instance: drinking coffee at his mother´s funeral, describing guests rather than his feelings or by establishing a relationship of sexual interest with an ex-employee merely a day after his mother’s death. The paradox is mirrored by the idea that perhaps he is free of a moral condition and therefore can take those decisions in consideration, freely choosing to do what suits him best without any sentimental repercussions.
Camus was a very straight forward nihilist, his points of view personified in Meursault’s actions reflect the existentialist point of view; where some might critique the fact that the main character is not emotionally disabled by the loss of his mother and rather establish instead a sexual bond with a woman, the nihilist subjectivist might see an appropriate opportunity to enjoy one’s desires, the close encounter with death might have shown Meursault his very own mortality and thus he decides to enjoy himself in any shape or form he pleases, freed from a moral conditioning. The point of this novel lies within this very argument; the proposition of a man that does not follow a social contract nor cares about his integration in society, thus the title ‘the outsider’, more personified in the fact that Meursault is Algerian and not French, lives on French colonial soil yet he belongs somewhere else, a more physical example of his conditioning.
This leads to a second theme within the novel which is Colonialism, this latter one seems to be a more superficial topic in the novel, yet important nonetheless. The Arabs have no name, and Meursault kills an Arab who he doesn’t care about nor knows his name, his crime is emphasised by the fact he did not care who he killed and it proposes the idea that the Arabic society was segregated and disregarded for.
My personal interpretation is that Camus chose the right “victim” for Meursault´s crime, as I thought ‘why should a careless man, care for a man who is disregarded by his own society?’
The philosophy within this novel is quite syntagmatic; the first part is surrounded by absurdism, Meursault only follows his life through a physical and experiential sense, and he does not assume responsibility for his actions or the consequences of such, his reasoning for the killing of an Arab man was simply due to the uncomfortable heat he was under whilst walking across the beach, and the murder is contemplated as a mere occurrence, something that “happens”, yet in the second part once he faces trial and becomes aware of the possibility of being executed he then faces an introspective of himself and assumes his mortality and the responsibility of his own life.
Once again we come back to the theme of freedom in which the character only assumes his responsibility once he is forced to, once he doesn’t have the freedom to experience since he is locked up in jail. Camus uses Meursault as an example of the way our irrationality can work, free of conditions pushing one to fulfil our desires yet the moment we face a barrier or a limitation we are forced to analyse our actions and act consequently to that new condition.
The second part of the book is focused more on the philosophy behind the arbitrariness of justice and society, Meursault is asked to repent and pretend he is a Christian in order to be absolved by the judge, yet he denies his self-preservation by maintaining a religious honesty. The proposition behind this dilemma seems uncertain but I believe that Camus wanted to show Meursault’s independence above what seemed ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. At no time there is a slight suggestion of empathy from Meursault to the Arab he killed, or is there anywhere in the novel a reference to his family or what he left behind, simply Meursault’s decision of accepting his responsibility instead of living a ‘free’ life in which he classified himself wrongly, it is merely absurd and selfish proposal yet meaningful to the nihilist perspective. In the end Meursault finds comfort in his death, his reasoning is somewhat uncertain and that shows a perseverance within the character’s true identity, since the argument of existentialism would be a farce if this changed before the contemplation of death. Albert Camus criticises the use of capital punishment as the paradox of a justice system which enforces the very action which once condemned, a slightly cynical approach proposing that perhaps one is free only through living and dying to its convictions instead of a hypocritical change of attitudes to stick to life, an existentialist frame used by similar thinkers such as Nietzsche or Sartre.

'NETWORK' REVIEW / SEMESTER 2 BEGINS!

Our second (and last) semester of HCJ begins by introducing us into the new texts we'll be looking at until the end of this year...

Our first media text was the movie Network, inspiring and shocking at the same time and with a great script as well as screenplay.
Besides the wonderful performance by William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch, Robert Duvall and others... or a great story, there is a more important philosophical value with a clear accusation to society and the way it works.

The way in which we are targeted by TV and become complete slaves of their manipulation and their never ending scheme of deceiving information and censored content is a topic that very few people have dared to argue.

The first time I heard of Network was when I saw the conspiracy theorists favourite movie, Zeitgeist which repeatedly showed footage of Peter Finch criticising the way the corporate media worked and moving people with his charisma. After I saw the movie I realised there was some sort of outcry of truth behind Sidney Lumet's work...
many questions were raised regarding the influence of the TV and the information we receive, the way our individuality is constantly jeopardised by the way in which we allow systematic manipulation from corporate media.

Some of my favourite scenes include one of the scenes we saw in the lecture when Howard Beale (Peter Finch) asks people to get mad and shout out of the window that they are angry and they will not tolerate any longer the conditions they live in.

I thought to myself if we have ever done something like this before? I realised we have done so and actually in the millions. The social networks, blogs, freedom of information in the Internet is full of people that complain and get mad and move people to get even more angry and move other people too.. I realised that the Internet is the modern window by which we are all shouting "I'm mad as hell!"
perhaps one day our conditions will enrage us enough to actually turn our anger into an action that will bring us to prosperity..

SEMINAR PAPER / The Origins of Totalitarianism

HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF JOURNALISM
SEMINAR PAPER

THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM
BY HANNAH ARENDT.

This seminar paper’s intention is to summarise and analyse Hannah Arendt’s book on Totalitarianism published in 1951. Arendt’s work compiles the elements and origins of totalitarianism, puts them into context and explains their history and methodology thoroughly. Nazism and Stalinism are the two main totalitarian movements which the book is focused on and how throughout the 20^th century it has served as a philosophical analysis of totalitarianism.

Analysis on Chapter 13
Ideology and Terror: A Novel form of Government

Summary

In this chapter, Arendt determines the roots of the ideology and methodology of Totalitarianism. Her interpretation of totalitarianism is the following.

1.      Hannah Arendt determines that Totalitarianism is a different form of oppression, specifying that it does not necessarily mean it’s a dictatorship or a tyranny a government that is totalitarian rather that shares similar values: “total domination is not only more drastic but that totalitarianism differs essentially from other forms of political oppression known to us such as despotism, tyranny and dictatorship.”

2.      It establishes a connection with the masses in which there is a shift of ‘power’ and ‘influence’. The source and true power will always remain in the governing body but nonetheless the feeling of community is trying to be created in order to make the people feel that it is their power that matters. Oppression through absolute mass manipulation: “totalitarian government always transformed classes into masses, supplanted the party system, not by one-party dictatorships, but by a mass movement, shifted the center of power from the army to the police,”

3.      Totalitarianism is but the fusion of certain criteria in oppressed terror channelled towards a population that it’s controlled. This control and this modus operandi have a source and have a ‘natural’ process, which it’s a metamorphosis of several oppressive political factors as well as violent instruments of tyranny and despotism. However there is a concept of collision between both ideas, there can be no blank nature of totalitarianism if its creation implies a fusion of preconceived ideas. “Which borrows its methods of intimidation, its means of organization and its instruments of violence from the well-known political arsenal of tyranny, despotism and dictatorships, and owes its existence only to the deplorable, but perhaps accidental failure of the traditional political forces—liberal or conservative, national or socialist, republican or monarchist, authoritarian or democratic. Or whether, on the contrary, there is such a thing as the nature of totalitarian government, whether it has its own essence and can be compared with and defined like other forms of government such as Western thought has known and recognized since the times of ancient philosophy.”

4.      Totalitarianism is a relatively new concept. “If we apply these findings, whose fundamental idea, despite many variations, did not change in the two and a half thousand years that separate Plato from Kant, we are tempted at once to interpret totalitarianism as some modern form of tyranny, which is a lawless government where power is wielded by one man. Arbitrary power, unrestricted by law, yielded in the interest of the ruler and hostile to the interests of the governed, on one hand, fear as the principle of action, namely fear of the people by the ruler and fear of the ruler by the people, on the other these have been the hallmarks of tyranny throughout our tradition.”

5.      An analysis on the certain violent methods of totalitarianism to destroy the unnecessary and weak.

6.      Rule by fear. Totalitarianism destroying humanitarian morality and redefining or turning into ‘obsolete’ ideas of notions such as empathy. “Guilt and innocence become senseless notions; "guilty" is he who stands in the way of the natural or historical process which has passed judgment over "inferior races", over individuals "unfit to live," over "dying classes and decadent peoples." Terror executes these judgments, and before its court, all concerned are subjectively innocent: the murdered because they did nothing against the system and the murderers because they do not really murder but execute a death sentence pronounced by some higher tribunal.”

7.      Very arbitrary man made law. Emphasis in the control of man over mankind and the masses, the power lies on the men who have decided to abuse it.

8.      An objectivist education without convictions, and aggressive form of interpretation shared by all but enforced and chosen by one.

9.      Alternative to deism, subjective theology that is only based in an ideology of the totalitarian government.

10.  A redefinition and shaping of logic, a pattern of new sense in rationality.

11.  Explanation of Totalitarian rules in which enforced compulsion against man’s thoughts takes place. A philosophical explaination to an aggressive submission based on the countless interactions that disable one’s abilities to introspect and determine whether the information one is receiving is incorrect or if one is simply against it.

12.  Lastly establishing a paradigm between isolation, loneliness and solitude. Different restrictions, physical and emotional that are side effects (in the slightest form) of a totalitarian control, a mass that is isolated, of a lonely education and evoking man’s feeling of solitude within himself, a very deep introspective of emotional side effects of a conditioning form of oppression that seeks to unite man, once separated from himself. “Loneliness is not solitude. Solitude requires being alone whereas loneliness shows itself most sharply in company with others. Apart from a few stray remarks—usually framed in a paradoxical mood like Cato's statement (reported by Cicero, De Re Publico, I, 17): numquam minus solum esse quam cum solus esset, "never was he less alone than when he was alone," or. rather, "never was he less lonely than when he was in solitude"—it seems that Epictetus. the emancipated slave philosopher of Greek origin, was the thirst to distinguish between loneliness and solitude.”

Commentary

This chapter represents a perfect symbiosis between an analysis that dwells with the most superficial of characteristics and yet the deepest of introspective of emotion and ideological response. Hannah Arendt may have not considered herself more than a political theorist but her interpretations and synchronization to both classical and modern forms of philosophy made her an eloquent and outstanding philosopher.

Her definition of Totalitarianism is well addressed, her historical research in the previous chapters gave her the right ideas to establish certain propositions such as Totalitarianism being the collective concentration of several forms of oppression united under a violent methodology of control and aggressive self-centred education, and yet the possibility of having found the ‘nature’ of this despotic form of government that was created upon itself, the development of various decisions to control the masses based on a fundamental criteria of control and tyranny.

Nevertheless, its intentions are clear. The masses have to controlled, but not only controlled through a modus operandi which is self-evidently oppressive but rather subtle through certain forms of manipulation. Manipulation is a key tool in Totalitarianism, and when it comes to assessing Totalitarianism and the power of manipulation as the shaper and crafter of a united governed culture Nazism and Stalinism collided greatly. The intention of the following examples is to fulfil the historical context that the previous chapters of the book were using to assess Totalitarianism; Adolf Hitler was a mastermind of manipulation and so was his right hand Joseph Goebbels. Their use of propaganda, speeches, rallies, unified sentiment of pride and glory with modern technologies and a rightful exploitation of such gave the means for the national-socialist party to manipulate thoroughly a strong spirited but weak and poor German society. Whereas Stalin, though persuasive as he was he did not control Russia so much through his charisma but rather than his furious and intolerant power, his imprisonment methods, his ruthless army and secret police, which leads to the alternative form of Totalitarianism which to a certain degree is the core essence of this form of oppression, Rule by fear:

Totalitarianism has been found to be, according to Hannah Arendt as a new concept of oppression, regardless of its origins as a fusion of many or a new concept, the principal theory is that Totalitarianism is new, however its methods may not all be new such as a the simple fear factor; Ruling by fear has been man’s main initiative of domination against a weaker subjugate, the fear to retaliation and consequent punishment by the subject in power has been and will always be the most efficient source of persuasion, and many civilizations before ours knew this. It is inherent in man-kind to sustain power through fear.

Arendt follows to discuss more specific matters like the destruction of morality, the creation of newer forms of logic, the idealisation of a different cause. All these methods are of an extremely aggressive nature, being aware that education on its own is a passive-aggressive form of interpretation and knowledge shaping, preconceived ideas from other sources being constantly repeated to the masses until they embrace, accept and understand them can be of grievous consequences when the aim is not to proliferate the subjectivism and self-development of one self but rather follow the strict passion and doctrine of one governing body. One objective truth that is spread evenly and unilaterally across a nation, fundamentalism based in the opinions of few who are willing to enforce any type of punishment upon those who decide to reject it.

Totalitarianism defies not only the humanitarian, liberal empathy that it’s also inherent in human kind but also its nature, and the laws of nature. The liberation from the weak, the destruction of the impaired is of the essence; The third Reich was keen and eagerly pleased to get rid of the handicapped community euthanizing thousands of people, expressing the ideas that this was their law of nature, this was the best option for the community, a community that sought productivity beyond any attachment to its own citizens, where anyone weaker than a certain standard was expendable. Stalinism was not far from this concept using their own people in the Second World War having no regard whatsoever to the individual citizens who were seen as shield for bullets designed to kill more Russian people. The defence in Stalingrad was accomplished after several million people were massacred by both German and Russian troops alike; a fearful soldier that ran from his troops was more likely to get killed by his staff sergeant (in communist ranking system) than by a German soldier. Ultimately we are discussing the ideas that individualism was rejected, and that did not exclude any measure that included killing your own citizens. Arendt narrates a nature similar to that of Friedrich Nietzsche’s superhuman theory, a theory so passionately embraced by Adolf Hitler, which she did not mention but I myself see so much resemblance in. Nietzsche’s ideas, and the way Hitler indoctrinated his government upon, reflect that perhaps Arendt’s idea of Totalitarianism having its own nature was correct, the fusion and evolution of different ideas interpreted by different men led to transform a passion for power into Totalitarianism using tools of other propositions by other thinkers.

Arendt’s final contemplation on human loneliness and solitude is remarkable, she escalates through totalitarian repression of emotion and isolation to a Greek tragic, into a question that started long before Totalitarian states, propositions of where does one find his place, where does one abandon solitude? And once this solitude is abandoned does that imply that there shall be no feeling of loneliness? Regardless if this man or men are isolated from another group. The separation of the individual first from his own feelings and sentiments, then from his group, society or culture and this culture being isolated on its own, this classification process is a contemporary form of the Roman-Egyptian Agora, the circles of the ‘self’ beyond one’s self.

Arendt’s conclusion transcends the initial encounter of this chapter from specific introspective political theory into the most relevant and rational philosophical proposition, and it reminds readers that regardless of the oppressive form of government that may rule one’s physical body, one’s education, we shall leave this world the same way in which we have arrived; alone. An excellent analogy using a ‘tragic’ sense of introspection of man’s lonely path of solitude enforced by a contemporary form of emotional dis-attachment.