Another Crappy Filler

Man with the Golden Nappy Pt2 Coming soon!

I also intend to write an article on the Philosophical movement sweeping the world's universities "Dinnerism"

Until then, have a sneer and jeer at this Berk https://twitter.com/BlueBritain

The Man with the Golden Nappy Pt1

The Man with the Golden Nappy Pt.1 Prologue: Mohandas K Gandhi, before leading the movement for an India independent of British rule, was infact A British agent working in the present day. Upon retirement Gandhi had his Mind wiped at Rekall, and was left abandoned in a former time period

MI6 Headquarters, London 2012

Q: Good morning Gandhi, I'm afraid we've got a rather dangerous mission for you.

Gandhi: Go on?

Q: It would appear the infamous warlord "Aqualung" is planning to nuke Burkina Faso, I want you to infiltrate his base and eliminate all possibility of that happening!

Gandhi:   When do I leave?

Q: That's the spirit old boy, the plane takes off in an hour, a convoy is ready to escort you to the airfield.

  6 Hours later, flying above a classified region in south east Asia   

Gandhi:  Let's see....hmm got my trusty M-16 with 3 spare clips, two throwing knives and what's this?  Air strikes!? Very impressive Q

Flt LT Chapman:  Approaching the DZ now Gandhi, prepare to jump

Flt LT Chapman:  Green Light! Go Go Go! 

Watch This Space (III)

First I must apologise for never getting round to updating this blog (though I'm fully aware nobody will see this) but now all exams are over, I promise to get something done. With all this new-found free time after college and on weekends, I'll be spending the next couple of weeks going through many ideas. I know not whether the next article will be a serious one, or just another silly joke like my first piece but what I can assure you of however, is that whatever I may produce; It definitely will appear on this page.

Peace out;
Mike.

Britain: A TECHnocracy?

If you asked the British public what was currently threatening British democracy, I'm sure you would receive a mixed bundle of answers. Terrorism, the European Union and the ever rising price of Freddos are just some of the most common you hear in today's media, however British democracy is under threat from something far more sinister. 

Technology has advanced incredibly over a very short period of time, but has it advanced enough to rule the United Kingdom? A senior civil servant blew the lid off one of the biggest secrets in British history, Parliament could be replaced by system of robots and computers by as early as 2018. 

Self-service checkouts, The
biggest threat to British Democracy?

Using the ground breaking Vasey-Bell chip, a supercomputer will replace the Prime minister as acting head of state. The chip takes into account a vast amount of information about the British public gained through the monitoring of self service checkouts, internet searches and thousands of other data sources stored online. 

Theoretically this will provide the greatest leader Britain has ever known, with the ability to work out every want and need of the people of the United Kingdom and to create and amend legislation accordingly. However experts are locked in debate over whether we are ready to be ruled by technology.

When informed about the government's plan, Connaire Pearce: Chief lecturer of Robotics at the University Of Ciliau Aeron said

"Robotics and computing is still far too primitive at this time for us to even consider letting it rule us, previous attempts at technology in Parliament have proved this"

Parliamentron, Britain's first robotic MP was
elected in 1997.

Mr Pearce is referring of course to the first robotic MP: Parliamentron who won the Bradford North seat for Labour in 1997. While making crucial saves to it's Hansard drive Parliamentron was accidentally turned off, corrupting its data. Since the accident Parliamentron developed extreme right wing views and had to be shut down after numerous racist remarks to constituents. Tony Blair apologised to the nation, but the government's research into robotics was scrapped. It is now the wish of the coalition government to revive the idea of robotics in Parliament. While on paper this ground-breaking technology sounds like the answer to the people of Britain's prayers, this could also be the biggest threat to British democracy if something were to go wrong, and that is something far too great to be gambling with. 

Lebanese Democracy

One of my songs of the moment

A quality song by a quality band. But the less said about their more recent music the better.

History: An art or a science?

Originally, I thought that this was a debate that was unanswerable in terms of a black-and-white dichotomy. This was because the study and practice of History engendered key elements from both the Arts and Science, in effect blurring the lines between the two in its craft. I shall present my thoughts, both arguing for each on commonly agreed ground, first. Then I shall elaborate into my own personal theory of history generally – in which it is engaged in ‘revolutions of re-invention’, and as such, can be pushed into the category of ‘Arts’ subject.

There are compelling reasons to believe that it is an ‘Art’. It is a subject of interpretation, of which a ‘picture’ of the past is created through the thoughts and feelings of another. This is not only in the reading of history, but also of the crafting of it: for a historian, usually alone, creates a history or historical argument, according to their own creative and logical reasoning. Thus, history is not set; it is subjective. It is not ‘objective’ – and therefore not a science. This is a common thought amongst many, particularly from those of the ‘Science’ camp – and often a common derision. There are other reasons as to why History is an ‘Art’. It has to be written in a narrative; it has to say a story (at least, according to this author’s opinion. If it is a mere collection of facts, it is a chronicle alone). While this in itself can further aggravate subjectivity, it suggests that at least a semblance of literary prowess is required to craft a History. It is conveyed primarily through the medium of the written word after all. And would not the best pieces of History be considered ‘literature’? Finally, it has been stated that History can entertain (and according to Trevelyan, this is its only purpose). However, I believe that to categorise it only according to that reason is disingenuous – can’t Science entertain as well? Academia cannot be split organisationally based upon the interest that a subject can evoke alone – it would isolate Media Studies for starters. These reasons, together however, present a strong case for History as an Art.

However, there are equally strong reasons as to why History could be a ‘Science’. It requires investigation into an actual subject, using empirical evidence primarily. This is revealed by the etymology of the word alone – it is from the Greek ἱστορία - historia, meaning "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation”. To this end, it requires source work, both primary and secondary. This reliance on ‘facts’ is a cornerstone of the ‘Science’ argument. It also, particularly in our modern era, requires a methodology to work from – it must aim to be purged of prejudice, improper opinions, and to be as comprehensive as the subject matter requires. In that case, History sounds very much like a ‘Science’; though of course the problem of subjectivity remains. Academic history is peer-reviewed too, further solidifying its stringent methodology. Then again, these points are not without their faults. Arts subjects can work from stringent methodologies too, and it is only since the solidification of History as an academic subject, with Von Ranke 200 years ago, that historians have tried to consistently base their work on ‘fact’.

Both these viewpoints contain some validity, and it is hard to extricate History from either. At best, it can be said that History is both; in a way, a ‘literary science’. However, I believe that History can be tipped ever so slightly into the domain of ‘Art’. Here are my thoughts why.

History is both a product and producer of culture; much like it is said that it can only be judged by the context in which it was written in. For example, an ethnically diverse culture would produce a history concerned with ethnic majorities and minorities. Conversely, a history of great significance could change culture – an example being how socialist and Marxist histories have encouraged the development of social democracy, and the redefining of concepts like ‘social justice’ for instance. This is compounded by the fact that History, even (and especially) in a common and simple view, affects public discourse. It is all around us; it is referred to on a daily basis – in news, politics, science and sports amongst other things. As it primarily deals with human culture, it further draws it to under the humanities, and not to the social sciences – embracing the category of being an ‘Arts’ subject.

However, this point can be further developed. History is constantly under re-interpretation, or ‘revolutions of re-invention’. This is the crux of the development of the subject, and thus it forces ‘interpretation’ from a major position to an essential position in its character. The cycle can be illustrated thus:

1. Past histories are indicative of the past culture of the historian – thus the context of the historian itself is affected
2. Their histories educate future generations (from the unversed to the academic)
3. The inclusion of these histories as education combine with the present cultural knowledge of those being taught – in effect, a new interpretation, or even school of historiography can be created. This is besides the emergence of new evidence, or the better elocution of past historians. A new configuration of historical reasoning is created.
4. The past history is assimilated or rewritten
5. This cycle continues to the next generation

The effects of this is that it can generate new historiographical debates (changing academic culture), and new views considering History as a whole or a specific topic. It leaves an objective view of History unresolved, but it justifies History based on its view in culture or society – the affirmation of revolving interpretations.

The question of ‘What is History’ is a revolving category in itself. If it is an ‘Art’ or a ‘Science’ is a clash of academic cultural thinking, between different eras. For example, History was regarded as a series of stories, accounts and myths, often intertwined, before the modern era. It then met the ‘re-invention’ of 19^th century ‘objectivity’, when history was professionalised into an academic subject. This further went through the definition-wrenching era of Postmodernism. The question of History as an art or science, or the closely related question of whether it is objective or subjective, was chewed and spat out during those centuries.

Thus, history seems more like a subject of expression of the human condition and contemporary understanding. Of course, it is usually accepted as such – but it is only truly revealed when analysed through time, and through social and theoretical interaction. When analysing it, of course the above arguments for it being an ‘Art’ or a ‘Science’ also have to be considered. The points for human interpretation and subjectivity are bolstered however, and with cultural and educative purposes, it is thus more an ‘Art’. However, it is an exact ‘Art’. This is not just because of its professionalisation, but because it has always been so – the etymology confirms this. As I have stated, its doubts seem more confined to academic culture.  Furthermore, the ‘revolutions of re-interpretation’ cycle discount any teleology to history. A set understanding of History, with its extrapolation into the future, like Marxism, is shredded by the constant reconfigurations of the cycle. With different understandings, different future predictions emerge. This reaffirms History as a constant expression of the present, and in a way discounts it as a provider of universal laws. While this does not make it especially an ‘Art’, I think that this distances it from being a possible ‘Science’, which does indeed seek to prove laws and observations that will always be or happen. To conclude then, I will say that History is an ‘Art’ – but one ever evolving, and still in need of empirical precision to carry out successfully.