A Day in the Life of a Smoker by Daniel Gilligan

This collection of photographs is centred around a habitual smoker and the routine that goes with being a smoker. I have chosen this because, as an ex-smoker, I thought it would be interesting to re-explore the smoking habit.

Click photos to enlarge

Lighting up: first of many for the day 

Got to light up before leaving the house

Walking to work: "no fag break for 4 hours"

Smoking and strumming- a "good way to wind down"

Last one to wrap up a long day

Until tomorrow...

School Meals: The View from the Kitchen

This documentary is a 3 minute illustration of school meals and the recent overhaul they have undergone, with a new focus on healthier options.

Talking to a long-serving school kitchen manager, I endeavoured to uncover what the reaction to the changes was from those who actually cook the food. 

Seminar Paper:

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ‘Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus’

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ‘Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus’ is a seminal text concerned primarily with the disciplines of logic and epistemology, and the role of language within these frameworks. The enigmatic text draws influence from the works of his mentor, Bertrand Russand, as well as other logicians such as Gottlob Frege.

                The book is organised over seven chapters, each consisting of a singular, cryptic sentence, elaborated upon in a series of footnotes. Russell notes in the preface that Wittgenstein’s endeavours centre around ‘the relation subsisting between thoughts, words, or sentences, and that which they refer to or mean’. Wittgenstein viewed language as much more than a simple, transparent act, but moreover the principal mechanism for establishing truth and understanding the world around us.

                Wittgenstein viewed each individual proposition as a combination of numerous atomic propositions. From these we create a picture; not necessarily a literal picture, but an amalgamation of the atomic propositions we combine. Wittgenstein found difficulty in defining his picture theory and backtracked several times. Peter Carruthers notes in his book ‘Tractarian Semantics’ that ‘it is not just a matter of constructing ever more detailed representations of the truth conditions of sentences… but constructing notations which will be logically or philosophically perspicuous’ (1989). Our unconscious works to manage all the intricate, complex rules of a language, and piece together the elements of a given proposition to establish truth or falsehood.

                This principle is consistent with work dating as far back as David Hume, a central influence, alongside Wittgenstein on Logical Positivism.  The foundations of verificationism established by Hume and elaborated upon by Alfred Jules Ayer permeate the Tractatus. Wittgenstein’s philosophy on language aims to find a verifiable truth value in any given proposition and consequently Wittgenstein acknowledges that any proposition has the capacity to be a false or a true picture. Similarly, the verification principle does not rely on a priori methodology to find truth, but only establishes truth through empirical, verifiable means.

                In Chapters 2 and 3 Wittgenstein outlines how he believes our thoughts are pictures of facts and this in turn is how we interpret the world. There is a link here with phenomenological thought. It poses the philosophical question; can we empirically verify our picture of given facts, without knowing if it is our subjective perception or a universal truth? We can however, consider these facts as provisionally true, but falsifiable (as defined in Karl Popper’s critique of the verification principle). 

                The seventh chapter of the Tractatus declares that, ‘of that which we cannot speak, we must remain silent’. This is encompassing of logical positivist ideology, in that the truth within any given statement lies within our cognitive means of verification, and of those propositions which are unverifiable ‘we must remain silent’. The unverifiable propositions are simply ‘emoting’ (as defined by Ayer), and can consequently be considered nonsensical.  

                The obscurity of the final chapter can also be perceived to reflect Wittgenstein’s overarching viewpoint of the role of philosophy. He says ‘Philosophy gives no pictures of reality and can neither confirm nor confute scientific investigation’. He asserts that without language philosophy could not exist and consequently philosophy is simply a critique of language itself. This is why Wittgenstein’s worked to uncover the way we perceive the world through language.

                Despite his work on establishing truth through language, Wittgenstein stated that ‘it is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists’. Wittgenstein acknowledged therefore that he needed to accept particular necessary truths and certitudes before he could analyse further. Before we can scrutinise our understanding of the world around us, we must recognise that language is the tool we will use for such an analysis. This certitude is undoubtedly the reason Wittgenstein attributed such prestige to the studying the philosophy of language.     

Franz Fanon: 'The Wretched of the Earth'

Franz Fanon’s seminal text ‘Wretched of the Earth’, first published in 1961, advocates a violent approach through which an occupied nation can emancipate itself from colonial oppression. His belief spawns from what he sees as a global divide; the world not being ‘at one’, with humanistic fundamentals overshadowed by racist ideologies. He notes the tangible divide between westernised Europe and underdeveloped Africa/Asia and views these differences to be rooted in colonial history and oppression. Previous colonisation and exploitation by developed countries lends itself to the on-going culture of creating and maintaining prejudices against the underdeveloped. Fanon says of this, we like to ‘keep the enslaved at arm’s length’. This is mirrored in the minimal coverage of the on-going poverty in Africa or furthermore in the western political tradition of making associations in public consciousness between entire countries and terrorism. Fanon considers this a process of dehumanisation, desensitising westerners to the crises faced by non-western humans. Fanon’s humanism is exemplified when he questions; ‘are we not all fellow-Europeans in the marrow of our bones?’ Even migrants to Western Europe from colonised countries tend to neglect the plight of their native man and homeland, becoming ever more wrapped up in western culture. Fanon attributes equal responsibility to all Europeans, proclaiming that we must ‘know ourselves in the light of truth’, and that ‘our ancestors enriched us at the hands of others’, consequently he considers the blood to be on the hands of every European.

                Fanon’s criticism of European colonisation and what he perceives as its indelible, damaging effects leads him to promote aggressive insurgency against western oppression. He epitomises his ideology when he says, ‘Europe has laid her hands on our continents, and we must slash at her fingers until she lets go… Let us start fighting’. Africa, and natives of underdeveloped countries are encouraged to unite and come together to fight against the hegemony of Europe.  This is reminiscent of Marxist ideals; both are seeking to achieve ‘revolutionary socialism’. In Fanon’s scenario the colonised can be seen to represent Marx’s proletariat, in their comparable fight against subjugation and oppression. Unless ‘revolutionary socialism’ is achieved Fanon asserts that, ‘one by one we will be defeated by our former masters’. His goal, he believes, can only be achieved through brute force; confronting state terror with bigger and better violence. This violence will humanise the colonised, making them into authentic, real human beings, and not simply passive zombies controlled by the west. To achieve this, the colonial system must be overthrown by any means necessary and there is no avoidance of this means as ‘national liberation is always violent’. Fanon’s concept is echoed in Nietzsche’s idea of the ‘overman’- the need to overcome and carve out our place in the world according to our own will, and not be constrained by our facticity.

                Fanon’s seemingly extreme ideology can be seen influencing revolutionaries such as Malcolm X and his struggle for black civil rights, his campaign advocated violent reprisal, applying the essence of Fanon’s work. A polarised example would be Ghandi, whom Fanon would have certainly seen as too acquiescent. Fanon’s text, although controversial, cannot be considered as simple aggression and belligerence; his ideas are rooted in humanism, egalitarianism and the breakdown of racial prejudice. 

Seminar Paper

Totalitarianism

Chapter 13: Ideology and Terror: A New Form of Government

The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt

Totalitarian governments strive for omnipotence, a means by which they can assert their own ideologies and models for the future upon a nation. Garnering support and realising control is achieved through an elaborate process. Gathering a substantial following is tantamount to the instigation of a successful totalitarian autocracy. Hannah Arendt considers how a population could knowingly opt to join a totalitarian state and how they are influenced.

If we consider the Nazi’s rise to political power; it is evident that many peripheral factors contributed to a peoples forsaking of a democratic Government and a shifting of their allegiances. Hitler’s cynicism echoed that of most of the nation, fed up with a weak constitution, bitter about the First World War and suffering from severe economic conditions. The beleaguered people become impressionable; seeking a new leadership, bringing with it a new set of values. But for the population to adopt such a repressive and dictatorial change they must be moulded. The classes must become the masses; furthermore obedience amongst the masses must reign supreme. Individualism must be yielded from the people and replaced with universal thinking and a ubiquitous identity.

Arendt alludes to two ways in which this is achieved. ‘State terror’; the essence of fear being created by the state, a comparative example of this is exemplified in capital punishment; people refrain from committing an act of crime through fear of extreme repercussions. The idea of state terror is to eliminate, not just the act, but even the thought of a defiant act. Secondly, the totalitarian ideology is imparted to the masses, convincing people of an escape from the burdensome constraints of conscience and common sense or as Arendt puts it ‘a suicidal escape from reality’. It entails the loss of the individual self and the ability to fully reason with one’s self; ultimately becoming ‘one man’ with the masses and part of a universal self. Subsequently, a human’s actions will not be ‘free’; opposition, sympathy and spontaneity will all be repressed, facilitating people to carry out heinous actions.

It seems incomprehensible that numerous amounts of ordinary people can lose their individualism and morality and conform to a totalitarian state. A Freudian model would claim that the irrationality of man combined with the manifestation of the aggression we suppress could be a justification for committing immoral acts. Deplorable economic or social conditions can lead to helplessness and vulnerability, rendering people very impressionable. Hitler used this malleability to manipulate and control. The successful suppression of reason, morality and conscience could be generated by scaremongering, terror and propaganda by the state.

Another idea as to why ordinary people committed atrocities with such banality was deduced from experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram. He concluded that under pressure and under the the weight of authority, people act out of character and transgress their typical boundaries just to remain obedient. This striking obedience may indicate the subject projecting their responsibility onto someone else, namely the authoritarian. This theory could again be applied to Nazi Germany, but on a larger scale; an entire nation passing the responsibility of their actions to the state. 

Once mass cooperation has been achieved, what do totalitarian states intend to accomplish? Totalitarian states disregard the iuris consensus, the subjective rights of man, with the claim of making man the embodiment of the law. Totalitarian regimes therefore attempt to make every man an unfailing, faultless character of the law; unlike with the existing social contracts we are accustomed to, for example in the United Kingdom, whereby people are passively and reluctantly subjected to the law.

Positive laws are replaced by ‘total terror’. Fear of death or other repercussions leaves people powerless and renders a state independent of all opposition. With this omnipotence, the state can work towards its primary endeavours. Nazism’s objective was to produce a Germanic master race. This involved the accelerating of the movement of natural laws to a speed they would never reach independent of human intervention. Darwinistic fundamentals state that we continue to evolve into aesthetically and biologically stronger beings and that the weak will perish in a struggle of ‘survival of the fittest’. It is a belief of totalitarians that inferior, weaker beings and races delay and hinder this necessary process. Totalitarianism asserts that accelerating natural selection eliminates individuals for the sake of an entire species and that we must sacrifice ‘parts’ for the sake of the ‘whole’; parts that nature has already pronounced a death sentence for.

Arendt counters this by saying if we defy nature and eliminate everything deemed unfit to live; it will consequently be the ‘end of nature itself’. She says we cannot use the laws of nature or history as they are not ‘stabilizing sources of authority’ and that ‘man is a source unto himself’. The line between man and law, and legality and justice are very indistinct. The totalitarian rejection of positive laws and the implementation of total terror defy the voice of conscience. The apparent execution of the laws of nature do not consider right and wrong and are not representative of a social contract common to the sentiment of all men.

Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud was a deeply inspired man, living in repressed times. His surroundings and personal alienation lead to his macabre theories. He witnessed both WWI and the Great Depression, the indelible influence of these hard times permeate his discourse.

            Freud was well versed in the work of other philosophical scholars, but was cynical about much of their work, notably he challenged the Enlightenment scholars. His deep pessimism and dark vision of humanity lead him to believe it was impossible for humanity to ever discover and understand the extent of the universe. He alleged that the sub-conscious controlled humankind, therefore making development and progress impossible.  

            Although Freud attacked the content of Plato’s tripartite self, he valued the concept and utilised it to create the ‘Freudian Personality’.

The first part of Freud’s personality was the ‘Id’. The Id is the dominant,

demanding division of the tripartite. It is the amalgamation of sex and aggression, seeking only to gain pleasure and avoid pain. The malevolent and insatiable Id has been ominously described as the ‘reservoir of the unconscious’ and a ‘cauldron of seething excitations’.

            The Id relentlessly besieges what is known as the ‘Ego’ or ‘Self’. This is the voice of reality and reason; endeavouring to placate and gratify the incessant demands of the Id.

            From the ‘Ego’ stems the ‘Superego’. This is the ‘impossible standard of perfection’ we strive for; we impart idealistic social appropriations based around structures, standards and morality to the superego; hence this acts as the ‘policeman in our heads’. An individual’s superego can also be governed by the ideologies of religion. Powerful teachings such as ‘Love your Enemy’ can cause internal conflict between Id and superego. As a consequence of falling short of the ‘impossible standard of perfection’ the superego punishes with guilt.

            Freudian Philosophy, like much modernist art and writings was dark and cynical in its approach. He supported this cynicism by defining his personal reasoning for it. Freud’s ideas are centred on the ‘irrationality’ of man, this is tantamount to Freud’s pessimism; he believes this irrationality makes man just inclined to hurt one another. He says this combined with our constantly decaying bodies, bad fortune and human interaction justify his pessimism. He asserts that our subconscious effectively controls us, but we live under the guise of a ‘collective superego’. His views have echoes of Rembrandt; whose work invariably portrayed a glimpse of light surrounded by blackness and overshadowing.    

            Freud noted ways in which man could cope with the Id’s insatiability. Sublimation of bodily urges can be attained by focusing attention onto something such as sport or work, although this is a mild solution. Less recommended methods such as intoxication (something Freud engaged in frequently, being a notable cocaine user) and isolation; the alienating yourself from society. The latter method is something that appealed to Freud and it alludes to his philosophy that ‘hell is other people’.

            Freud conducted his ‘psychoanalysis’ through various methods. He used hypnosis as well as free association. This allowed people to talk freely without any influence from the analyst; Freud believed this was key to uncovering the subconscious. In addition to this he also asserted that dreams were fundamental to the understanding of the ID. He believed dreams were a method of ‘wish fulfilment’ and each had intrinsic sexual connotation. Dreams working as a manifestation of the ID can help to sublimate the ID’s dominance.

            Freud was a contentious psychologist and has had many critics since. Many proclaimed Freud as a charlatan and a plagiarist, claiming his idea were falsified, stolen or lacked a scientific basis. William Reich’s criticisms denounced Freud’s doomy outlook, claiming humans were innately good and sex was key to good human nature.         

William Randolph Hearst 1863-1951

The influence of William Randolph Hearst on the modern newspaper model is indelible. His first acquisition was the ‘San Francisco Examiner’, passed to Hearst by his affluent father, George. He used this as an outlet for experimenting with sensationalisation and to develop an understanding of public responses and gratification to the media.

Using the knowledge and experience he gained he moved to New York in an endeavour to expand his audience; here he purchased the decaying ‘New York Morning Journal’. He was able to do this by using his deceased father’s money. The inheritance also secured him access to executive and renowned journalists, some of which he poached from rival newspaper ‘The World’, owned by his former mentor, ‘Joseph Pulitzer’.

Hearst’s contentious biographic ‘Citizen Kane’, demonstrates Hearst’s resoluteness; ‘I’ve got to make the New York Enquirer as important to New York as the gas in that light.’ He became an infamous public figure, stigmatised by the administration and much of the general public owing to his yellow journalistic tactics. However, Hearst’s own brand of yellow journalism instigated the birth of the mass media as we know it today. His influence is evident daily, exemplified within every tabloid newspaper. Orson Wells articulates, ‘Hearst published the gossip columns; he practically invented them!’

Hearst allied himself with the Cuban insurgents during the Cuban Revolution of 1895. A smear campaign against the Spanish was implemented to garner public support. This type of biased journalism is still prevalent today, demonstrated in practices such as political persuasion.

Hearst led a very rich, fanciful life, his personal life and business life was as much interest to the public as regular news. Citizen Kane states that, ‘To forty-four million U.S. news buyers, more newsworthy in his own headlines, was Kane himself, greatest newspaper tycoon of this or any other generation’. Hearst’s relationship with the film was less than harmonious; he saw it as a defamation of his and his second wives characters. He sought to have the film destroyed, but instead it went on to have a vast advertising campaign and become one of the all-time great films. Hearst ensured he had no part in this though; banning the mentioning of the film in all of his publications.

Hearst’s ambitions lead him to acquire numerous other daily and Sunday newspapers, expanding his monopoly throughout the United States. The ‘Hearst Corp.’ was established, and as well as newspapers, Hearst acquired magazines, movie newsreels and radio; as well as a stint in politics.