Week 9 &10 Seminar paper

The Chief: the Life of William Randolph Hearst
By David Nasaw

‘Citizen Kane’

By reading the book and concentrating on chapter Citizen Kane is about Orson Welles making is first film about William Randolph Hearst. Welles spoke of Dumas, Machiavelli, and the Borgias but also of an unformed idea for a film about some larger than life American figure which in this case was William Randolph Hearts. Citizen Kane was been named on of the most influential films of all time, which was based on Hearst’s life and also adding bits and peaces from other rich men life to turn it into Kane.

Orson Welles worked together with RKO and Herman J. Mankiewicz to write the script of the movie and once it was finished it was obvious that it was about William Randolph Hearts. At the time Hearts was against the movie being shown on screen and did anything in his power to prevent the film being released. The reason behind this was because Orson Welles in the written scrip talks about a life of fictional figure who owns a chains of newspapers, who has been unsuccessful candidate for New York Governor, and also boasted that he started the Spanish-American war, and who marries an singer who he tries to get recognition for her an opera star by his publications, who retires and dies when his empire collapses. In other words it is done in a biographical way of Hearts life.

As I stated above William Randolph Hearst did everything in his power to prevent Citizen Kane not to be shown. Hearts threatened the RKO board members he will print their frictional version of their lives in his newspaper. He refused to advertise RKO films in his newspapers and magazines. Hearst also contacted Warner Brother’s manager and told him not to be shown in their theatres. Hearst did the same thing with Twentieth Century Fox theatres. His main purpose was to boycott the viewing of Citizen Kane all over the country. William Randolph Hearst explained doing all this as “unkind gesture” towards him because Welles tried to destroy his character. Also before the release of Kane Orson Welles told a story how he was approached by a man apparently detective and told him not to go back to his hotel as they was trying to set him by having a 14 year old girl waiting for him to show up and two photographers to takes snaps of him. This was done so Orson Welles could have been jailed and this would have killed his reputation.

After agreeing from both sides for the film to be shown Welles agreed to make small cuts to the movie. But just before premier in Radio City Music hall there was an unsurprising hick up the opening was cancelled again due to threatening from Hearst side that they will publish information on John D. Rockefeller. After a long time of fighting the film was released and explained by Orson Welles that it was peace of art that deserved to be shown. The reviews of the films were very high; many magazines called it the “greatest creation”.

My opinion on this is that William Randolph Hearst was against the movie not to be shown because he had a lot of illegal stuff he did not want people to know about that was happening in his life. Also he doing did everything in his power to prevent the film to release but it didn’t happen because Orson Welles stood his ground firm and didn’t want to drop it.

Week 8

Manifesto of the Communist Party

In manifesto of the communist party all the powers of old Europe enterted into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German Police - Spies.

It is believed that Communism has already been acknowledged by all Europeans powers to be itself a power. What this means the communist were more recognised and allowed to open the views to the worlds, what their aim is, their tendences and also meet the nursery tale of spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself. Communist of various nationalities have assembled their self in London and published manifesto in different languages such as English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish.

Bourgeois and Proletarians

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Everyone has been devided: Freeman and Slave, patrician and plebian, lord and self, guild - master and journeyman, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fiht that each time ended, either in revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.


Bourgeoisie could be explained as the class of modern patitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor. Who once where feudal society which where not established. As time as went on they have split in to two classes facing each other and the other one is:Proletariat which are theclass of modern wage laboreres who have no productions on their own, are often explained as selling the labor power in order to live.

Seminar & Week 4

Kant

Kant believed that there are only three proofs of God's existence by pure reason: These are the ontological proof, The Cosmological Proof and The Physico-theological Proof.

The ontological proof define God as the most real being; which is the subject of all predicates that belong to being absolutely. It is for those who believe the proof valid that since existence is such a predicate, this subject must have the predicate existence e.i. must exist.

The cosmological proof says: if anything exist, then an absolutely necessary Being must exist: Kant also explains it in form of " I Know I exist: therefore an absolutely necessary being exists."

The Physico-theological proof is the familiar argument from design, but in a metaphysical dress. Kant argues that the universe exhibits an order which is evidence of purpose. He respects this argument but points out that,at best, it proves only an Architect, not a creator, and therefore cannot give an adequate conception of God. Kant concludes that only theology of reason which is possible is that which is based upon moral laws or seeks guidance from them.

Hegel

Hegel begins an argument of his logic by the assumption that " the Absolute is pure being"; we assume that it just is, without assigning any qualities to it. But pure being without any qualities is nothing; therefore we are led to the antithesis:' The absolute is nothing' . This could be seen as babies are nothing till they grow up as they are not born with qualities.

Week & Lecture 3

Empiricism is simpley described as the doctrine that knowledge derives from experience.

Noumenal world is perceived by 'intuition' - especially aesthetic reaction to art/beauty.

Keats states "Beauty is Truth, Truth is a Beauty". He believes thats all you need to know.

Kant invites perception he believes everything you perceive has two natures example of that is a *table* still there but has a different character. *( Noumenal object, has nature even if it was percieved.)

Kant's Morality
The Categorical Imperative
Things He Bilieves:

• intrested in instinct.
• Learn everything from the world that exist
• Born with certain ideas
• Maximus - bad to lie
• Morally good example of that is training

His moral law is every huma has got it written in their heart whatever they do.
He also believes the whole world should be destroyed if you lie.

Barkley states everything flasks in and out of existance. The universe looks the way it looks because of the perceptive appratus of the mind/brain. He states it is not actually there.

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. Also measure good by its outcome.

Semester & Week 2

Seminar Notes:

In the essay, Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman in an attempt to understand her feminism, at least in part, as an extension of the middle-class struggle for the "rights of man" and the establishment of a bourgeois society—both of which, Furniss claims, problematize Wollstonecraft's relevance to contemporary social issues.

Mary Wolstencraft states women are limited. They are not allowed to do many things men can. She says men stereotype women for what they should do, how to do it and simpley stating their are the weeker gender. Men believe women should be looking after the children keeping them the house clean and there always should be food on the table.

She also talks about sexuality and how women should have more freedom an example of that is in private life sexuality does matter as in men can only marry women and the other way round. But in public it doesn't matter who drives the bus whether is a men or women as long as it does not harm anybody.

Notes on the liberty

Mill's most memorable point made in his work "On Liberty" is that "over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is soverign" ...

Mills work can be connected to Rene Descartes quote" I think therefore i am" which questions everything. An example of that is how do you if mother is your real mother, or your birth certificate is real and that is your real birthday .


JOHN WILKES - LIBERALISM AND UTILITARIANISM


Liberalism could be explained as an idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed.

Utilitarianism could be explained as providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. These people believe you can say anything you want as long as you do not physically harm anyone. The opposite of that is telling children Santa Claus don't exist which will harm them and it is not right as they are children.

A Modest Proposal

A Modest Proposal

By reading Jonathan Swift ‘A Modest Proposal’ walking and travelling through the street, roads and cabin doors of Ireland, all you can see is how crowded it is by female beggars and their children. He talks about how they beg instead of working which gives a bad example to their infants and when they grow up they become thieves because they find it easier than to work. Or some of them don’t even make it in life they die from diseases, hunger and care.

Jonathan Swift says ‘I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...’ His proposal on the female beggars with loads of children, who they don’t really take care of them who will end up dying at early age anyway either from hunger, diseases or simply murdered should be sold to eat. Jonathan Swift proposes that these children are sold to the upper class people who will eat them as he states above. Jonathan Swift states everyone would benefit from this proposal starting from beggars to richer class. He sees it as the female beggars will earn some money for growing and making the children healthier. Swift states by doing this it will also be “relieving the poor” as they will have fewer children to look after and have some sort of income to their families.

Seeing this proposal from the upper class family’s point of view is that they can pay for something to be seasoned for a year in this case young child to be healthy, grown and ready to eat. Jonathan Swift sees this as “some pleasure to the rich” because they can afford it and why not have it if they have money for it.

Jonathan Swift believes by making this proposal this would benefit the country by easing off the amount of thieves and beggars that are produced by careless poor families which all they do is breed. Swift also believed this would make Ireland a

better country. He states that eating human flesh could be normal and could be quite beneficial. Swift says his proposal is not a personal interest; he does it for the public good of his country.

Jonathan Swift is not the only to come out with this type of proposal to eat human flesh. Other cultures such as Buddhism say it is good to eat the flesh of the dead. Also many countries still practice cannibalism as part of their rituals and see it as normal thing to do. This means there is still people out there that could disagree on Swifts’ proposal on making the country better by eating young children.

Seeing this from another point of view which eating human flesh could be seen as not civilised and normal would disagree with Jonathan Swifts Proposal. In the story book Robinson Crusoe, Crusoe manages to civilise Friday from turning him to a normal person from a cannibal. No matter how hungry they get they would not eat each other because it is not seen as a good thing to do.

Reading Jonathan Swift a Modest Proposal my opinion on eating young children is I think that it shouldn’t be happening no matter what these children turn out to be, everyone deserves a better a chance. The only people to be blamed are the parents of these young children for bringing them into this life and not caring about them and when they should have brought them up with some sort of disciplinary. Also I think eating human flesh is very wrong as only God can give and take life. I strongly disagree with Swift proposal as it is not civilised to eat young children no matter if you can afford or not. My proposal would be to totally different because I would suggest that the children are taken care of by the country if the parents can’t. Or simply not allowing the have more than two children per family if they cannot manage to look after their self let along their children.