Marcuse claims that if we as a race were able to understand the principle that governs and develops the technology in our world, it would change the way we are as a global society, or better a universal society. He argues that ‘’all joy’’ comes from the ability to master nature and move past it to create a truly free and peaceful existence.
I agree that nature is neither peaceful nor free. Science has shown that before our sun burns out, the very sun that made it possible for us to spawn and exist, it will engulf our plant and destroy everything we know. This is most definitely a natural process and most definitely not desirable for our race. We need to produce technics and use reason to overcome this obstacle if we plan to live through it. As Marcuse says we must transcend nature, “a transcendence in which the mastery of Nature is itself subordinated to liberation and pacification of existence.” Clearly we must master nature if its course is to destroy us.
Marcuse talks about the mastery of nature to the point where it is subordinated to liberation and pacification of existence. By this he means we must truly stand above nature, which is a very long way from the technology we have today. If this is done we as a race will be freed into a peaceful worry free existence. We will not have to worry about our own sun burning us, let alone dinner. However it seems impossible to overcome the end, death.
Death is a natural part of existence. In primitive times, especially before farming and domestication, to merely exist was a brutal and violent life style. The option most living things were left with was to kill or die. I believe it is natural to look out for one’s self so when faced with this decision most would choose to kill. They would prey on weak, injured or sleeping animals so they would be able to feed and continue life. This being the case all beings need to worry about their personal safety. Before going to sleep they must wonder whether they will wake up the next morning, or become the hunted while they rest. To me this is as far from true freedom as society can get; the inability to have a safe place rest.
I feel when Marcuse says that “All joy and happiness derive form the ability to transcend Nature.” He is making a claim that is too general. To say that there is no joy anywhere else is not true, I feel the quote would be better if it were not so definite, maybe lasting joy and happiness derive from the ability to transcend nature. For example, in nature when a man hunts an antelope, when he has made the kill and is feeding his young, there surely must be some joy felt by the parent. However, clearly the same joy is not felt by the antelope and this hunt is not free or peaceful.
Marcuse states it is natural for big fish to eat little fish, no matter how much the little fish disagrees. He points out that “Civilization produces the means for freeing nature form its own brutality, it’s on insufficiency, its own business.” This is a very powerful and true statement, and becomes clear with examples. Before civilization people would have to produce everything for themselves and would have no access to objects beyond their geographical reach. As society and technology progress all people posses the same, all encompassing, geographical reach. This is civilization freeing nature from insufficiency. Furthermore the brutal hunt which was described above would not need to take place in a civilization with domestic animals. However; a slaughterhouse, while being less brutal, is definitely still brutal. This is an example of a place where civilization still must progress, there is no obvious solution but with new technics one may become clear.
Technological humanity is on the way to transcending nature in many ways. Although some decide to fight it, as Marcuse puts it “Glorification of the natural is part of the ideology which protects an unnatural society in its struggle against liberation.” By this he means that individuals place too much value in happenings, just because they are natural. Value comes from the result of something, not the reason that it happened. A flower can be bred in a greenhouse and have the same value as an identical wildflower in a field. The only reason certain people hold more value for the one in the field is possibly the surroundings are more beautiful. An example Marcuse uses is child birth, which is most certainly a beautiful thing. However at this point in time if nature were to run its course and humans, with their desires, were able to continue uncontrolled. There would be serious population problems. Marcuse points out “The defamation of birth control” as an example of what a natural society does to stop itself from being free. Just because birth control is unnatural does not mean that it is best. If people are going to have sex, unprotected, would it be better to conceive every time or to only conceive when it is desired. The answer seems clear; people should be brought into this world with their parents will.
This reason is what we need to move forward. In the attempt to stand above nature our reason is what we have that nature does not. We are able to study and understand trends, then apply reason to decide on a course of action. Technology has a far way to go to get to this point, for example we must fully understand ourselves before attempting to move past nature. The human body is a glorious development of nature and is our tool to move on. As Marcuse puts it “Reason can fulfill this function only as post-technological rationality.” The function he speaks of is civilization freeing nature from itself. Some of the things we are still yet to understand fully that seem important to me are the human mind, the universe and even nature. To move past nature we must fully comprehend it as a whole. The goal of these advancements, the end, is when reason (fueled by science) and art merge. “The function of reason then converges with the function of art.”
7 comments:
Needs reference to reading, Probablly Dick and Shelley
I thought the first couple paragraphs were a little wordy. Look at this line: "Clearly we must master nature if its course is to destroy us." I'd actually argue that this should be elaborated a little: the alternative, which is to accept our eventual collective demise, is perhaps not completely absurd - certainly some people would take that side, and I'd like to hear a little about your views.
Beginning with the line "Death is a natural part of existence," I feel that you begin to get more focused and detailed. I am a little unclear on why the "all true joy..." line is important to you, although regardless I think your response to it is interesting.
I'm not sure whether you're trying to scale back a little on Marcuse (in other words, you basically agree with him, but perhaps in a milder way), or whether you don't 100% get the ambition of his ideas. Take this line: "This is an example of a place where civilization still must progress, there is no obvious solution but with new technics one may become clear." To me, at least, it seems that Marcuse is talking about re-engineering everything, specifically through genetic engineering, such that all life will live in peace and harmony. Look on my comments to Josh's paper for some example genetic engineers who themselves have written a little on this subject. I guess what I'm saying is that I think it's worth *asking* whether Marcuse's ambitions are a thing of the distant future, rather than assuming it.
"Value comes from the result of something, not the reason that it happened." You have some fascinating moments like this, where you give a very strong personal opinion, one which many people won't, in fact, hold - many of us, rightly or wrongly, care as much, or more, about process as we do about results. In other words, I'd like you to explain yourself at these moments, especially when it's at moments like this when I feel like I'm close to understanding how you're trying to transform Marcuse, rather than just repeating him.
Here's my impression of the paper as a whole. You are interested in, engaged with, and at least mostly in agreement with Marcuse. In some ways I think you might be trying to defend and even extend Marcuse; in other ways, maybe scale him back a little bit. What I'd like to see, first and foremost, is a clarification of your own views in relationship with Marcuse's. What are you trying to do here? Promote Victor Frankenstein as a Marcusian hero? Clarify what the transcendence of nature means (you seem to open this up in the last paragraph)? Or something else entirely. At points, this is dangerously like a (very good) recitation of some of Marcuse's ideas - I want to see more of what you want do *do* with them, or how you want to *apply* them.
Hey Scott, can you let me know if you're planning on doing a second draft or if you'd like me to go ahead and comment on this one? Thanks
You bring up some very interesting ideas in this paper. I actually really didn’t like Marcuse, but the things you said helped me understand him a lot better. I especially liked the sections where you discuss nature not being peaceful and death being the natural part of existence.
I got a little lost in what you were trying to say in the sixth paragraph about the brutal hunt. Are you referring back to the antelope, and in this sense making reference to a world where all animals are “domestic’ and therefore there would be no eating one another? Then you describe a slaughterhouse as not being less brutal – which I’m sure some could disagree with. I don’t really get what you’re trying to say about the possibilities of technology with this example. I also get pretty lost in your discussion about birth control, and honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say about it. This could be just me, but you might want to try making things a little less wordy so it’s more clear.
Overall, I’m interested to know what you think about technology in terms of how it can actually help us transcend nature – your beginning paragraphs seem to insinuate that it is the answer, but at the end you turn you attention away, and towards reason - “Technology has a far way to go to get to this point, for example we must fully understand ourselves before attempting to move past nature.”
On a more picky grammar note, you might want to take a closer look at your comma and period uses. There were several times where small mistakes made it difficult for me to follow your chain of thought without rereading.
Final Draft:
Marcuse claims that if we as a race were able to understand the principle that governs and develops the technology in our world. This understanding would change the way we are as a global society, or better a universal society. He argues that ‘’all joy’’ comes from the ability to master nature and move past it to create a truly free and peaceful existence.
I agree that nature is neither peaceful nor free. Science has shown that before our sun burns out it will engulf our plant and destroy everything we know. The very thing that made it possible for us to spawn and exist will eventually lead to our demise. This is most definitely a natural process and most definitely not desirable for our race. We need to produce technics and use reason to overcome this obstacle if we plan to live through it. As Marcuse says we must transcend nature, “a transcendence in which the mastery of Nature is itself subordinated to liberation and pacification of existence.” Clearly we must master nature if its course is to destroy us.
Marcuse talks about the mastery of nature to the point where it is subordinated to liberation and pacification of existence. By this he means we must truly stand above nature. To reach this point our technology must progress significantly. We are now reaching a point where we are beginning to understand some of the more complex trends of our planet and how what we do effects them. We are starting to be able to predict the results of our actions and change our habits so we have a better future. Good examples of this are with dieting and carbon emissions, two things we have learned are bad and we are now trying to correct. If point in technology is reached, one where we fully comprehend all aspects of our world, we as a race will be freed into a peaceful worry free existence.
In the fictional story Frankenstein the main character, Victor Frankenstein, creates a person from scratch. He attempts to transcend nature and succeeds. His success turns out to be in vain when the creature turns against him. The technology he created was new and advanced. Marcuse would say that Victor made a good attempt but although his technology was advanced, it was also flawed. I would agree with Marcuse and say that it is Victors fault he lost control of the monster, if his technology was good he would have been able to create a mind he would have been able to control or at least understand. Instead the venture ended in death.
Death is a natural part of existence. In primitive times, before farming and domestication, to merely exist was a brutal and violent life. The option humans were left with was to kill or die. I believe it is natural to look out for one’s self so when faced with this decision most chose to kill. They would prey on weak, injured or sleeping animals so they would be able to feed and continue life. This being the case all beings need to worry about their personal safety. Before going to sleep they must wonder whether they will wake up the next morning, or become the hunted while they rest. To me this is as far from true freedom as society can get. To move forward as a race safety for all people is essential.
In 1775 Benjamin Franklin wrote “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I feel this brings us to a crucial step in moving forward. In a good world there would be no need to trade your freedom for your security, no need to hide behind walls or avoid bad neighborhoods. When Marcuse talks about the final cause materializing and opening up new relations between man and man he is implying that all men will be free and all men will be secure. Decisions like the on Franklin describes will no longer be necessary.
One danger that would come with the pacification of nature is the elimination of competition. This would only be acceptable if the end we reach is truly a perfect existence. If nature is pacified and there is no longer any reason to fight for food or strive for a higher salary. If all people are satisfied, there would be no reason to change, no reason to compete. So essentially if this cause was ever met, progress would cease and there would exist an utopia. However, I feel when Marcuse says that “All joy and happiness derive form the ability to transcend Nature.” He is making a claim that is too general. To say that there is no joy anywhere else is not true, I feel the quote would be better if it were not so definite, maybe lasting joy and happiness derive from the ability to transcend nature. For example, in nature when a man hunts an antelope, when he has made the kill and is feeding his young, there surely must be some joy felt by the parent. In spite of this the same joy is not felt by the antelope so maybe Marcuse is talking about joy felt by all parties.
Marcuse states it is natural for big fish to eat little fish, no matter how much the little fish disagrees. He points out that “Civilization produces the means for freeing nature form its own brutality, it’s on insufficiency, its own business.” This is a very powerful and true statement, and becomes clear with examples. Before civilization people would have to produce everything for themselves and would have no access to objects beyond their geographical reach. As society and technology progress all people posses the same, all encompassing, geographical reach. This is civilization freeing nature from insufficiency. Furthermore the brutal hunt which was described above would not need to take place if nature was pacified. Things like dinner would be readily available without the need for brutality.
Technological humanity is on the way to transcending nature in many ways. Although some decide to fight it, as Marcuse puts it “Glorification of the natural is part of the ideology which protects an unnatural society in its struggle against liberation.” By this he means that individuals place too much value in happenings, just because they are natural. Value comes from the result of something, not the reason that it happened. If you are strolling through a park and you stumble upon a beautiful purple and yellow flower it will hold value to you. Nonetheless, a flower can be bred in a greenhouse to have purple and yellow leaves and when you see it, if it is truly the same as the wildflower, it alone would hold the exact same value. An example Marcuse uses is child birth, which is most certainly a beautiful thing. A beautiful that that if left uncontrolled in our current world would lead to serious population problems. Marcuse points out “The defamation of birth control” as an example of what a natural society does to stop itself from being free. Just because birth control is unnatural does not mean that it is for the greater good. If people are going to have sex, it is better for birth control to be an option so children will only be conceived when they are desired. People should be brought into this world with their parents will. Still I must disagree with this point on the grounds that if we truly did trancend nature that would involve transcending our natural desires for the opposite sex. To transcend nature would be to control natural urges. Instead of act impulsively we would think about our actions and use reason to make a decision.
This reason is what we need to move forward. In the attempt to stand above nature our reason is what we have that nature does not. We are able to study and understand trends, then apply reason to decide on a course of action. Technology has a far way to before we fully understand nature, for example we must fully understand ourselves before attempting to move past nature. The human body is a glorious development of nature and is our tool to move on. As Marcuse puts it “Reason can fulfill this function only as post-technological rationality.” The function he speaks of is civilization freeing nature from itself. To move to a post-technological rational we need to understand everything in our world. To do this we must research and study all aspects of nature, ourselves and the universe. To move past nature we must fully comprehend it as a whole. The goal of these advancements, the end, is when reason (fueled by science) and art merge. “The function of reason then converges with the function of art.” We as a society will then be liberated and pacified, freed and peaceful.
With lines between paragraphs:
Marcuse claims that if we as a race were able to understand the principle that governs and develops the technology in our world. This understanding would change the way we are as a global society, or better a universal society. He argues that ‘’all joy’’ comes from the ability to master nature and move past it to create a truly free and peaceful existence.
I agree that nature is neither peaceful nor free. Science has shown that before our sun burns out it will engulf our plant and destroy everything we know. The very thing that made it possible for us to spawn and exist will eventually lead to our demise. This is most definitely a natural process and most definitely not desirable for our race. We need to produce technics and use reason to overcome this obstacle if we plan to live through it. As Marcuse says we must transcend nature, “a transcendence in which the mastery of Nature is itself subordinated to liberation and pacification of existence.” Clearly we must master nature if its course is to destroy us.
Marcuse talks about the mastery of nature to the point where it is subordinated to liberation and pacification of existence. By this he means we must truly stand above nature. To reach this point our technology must progress significantly. We are now reaching a point where we are beginning to understand some of the more complex trends of our planet and how what we do effects them. We are starting to be able to predict the results of our actions and change our habits so we have a better future. Good examples of this are with dieting and carbon emissions, two things we have learned are bad and we are now trying to correct. If point in technology is reached, one where we fully comprehend all aspects of our world, we as a race will be freed into a peaceful worry free existence.
In the fictional story Frankenstein the main character, Victor Frankenstein, creates a person from scratch. He attempts to transcend nature and succeeds. His success turns out to be in vain when the creature turns against him. The technology he created was new and advanced. Marcuse would say that Victor made a good attempt but although his technology was advanced, it was also flawed. I would agree with Marcuse and say that it is Victors fault he lost control of the monster, if his technology was good he would have been able to create a mind he would have been able to control or at least understand. Instead the venture ended in death.
Death is a natural part of existence. In primitive times, before farming and domestication, to merely exist was a brutal and violent life. The option humans were left with was to kill or die. I believe it is natural to look out for one’s self so when faced with this decision most chose to kill. They would prey on weak, injured or sleeping animals so they would be able to feed and continue life. This being the case all beings need to worry about their personal safety. Before going to sleep they must wonder whether they will wake up the next morning, or become the hunted while they rest. To me this is as far from true freedom as society can get. To move forward as a race safety for all people is essential.
In 1775 Benjamin Franklin wrote “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I feel this brings us to a crucial step in moving forward. In a good world there would be no need to trade your freedom for your security, no need to hide behind walls or avoid bad neighborhoods. When Marcuse talks about the final cause materializing and opening up new relations between man and man he is implying that all men will be free and all men will be secure. Decisions like the on Franklin describes will no longer be necessary.
One danger that would come with the pacification of nature is the elimination of competition. This would only be acceptable if the end we reach is truly a perfect existence. If nature is pacified and there is no longer any reason to fight for food or strive for a higher salary. If all people are satisfied, there would be no reason to change, no reason to compete. So essentially if this cause was ever met, progress would cease and there would exist an utopia. However, I feel when Marcuse says that “All joy and happiness derive form the ability to transcend Nature.” He is making a claim that is too general. To say that there is no joy anywhere else is not true, I feel the quote would be better if it were not so definite, maybe lasting joy and happiness derive from the ability to transcend nature. For example, in nature when a man hunts an antelope, when he has made the kill and is feeding his young, there surely must be some joy felt by the parent. In spite of this the same joy is not felt by the antelope so maybe Marcuse is talking about joy felt by all parties.
Marcuse states it is natural for big fish to eat little fish, no matter how much the little fish disagrees. He points out that “Civilization produces the means for freeing nature form its own brutality, it’s on insufficiency, its own business.” This is a very powerful and true statement, and becomes clear with examples. Before civilization people would have to produce everything for themselves and would have no access to objects beyond their geographical reach. As society and technology progress all people posses the same, all encompassing, geographical reach. This is civilization freeing nature from insufficiency. Furthermore the brutal hunt which was described above would not need to take place if nature was pacified. Things like dinner would be readily available without the need for brutality.
Technological humanity is on the way to transcending nature in many ways. Although some decide to fight it, as Marcuse puts it “Glorification of the natural is part of the ideology which protects an unnatural society in its struggle against liberation.” By this he means that individuals place too much value in happenings, just because they are natural. Value comes from the result of something, not the reason that it happened. If you are strolling through a park and you stumble upon a beautiful purple and yellow flower it will hold value to you. Nonetheless, a flower can be bred in a greenhouse to have purple and yellow leaves and when you see it, if it is truly the same as the wildflower, it alone would hold the exact same value. An example Marcuse uses is child birth, which is most certainly a beautiful thing. A beautiful that that if left uncontrolled in our current world would lead to serious population problems. Marcuse points out “The defamation of birth control” as an example of what a natural society does to stop itself from being free. Just because birth control is unnatural does not mean that it is for the greater good. If people are going to have sex, it is better for birth control to be an option so children will only be conceived when they are desired. People should be brought into this world with their parents will. Still I must disagree with this point on the grounds that if we truly did trancend nature that would involve transcending our natural desires for the opposite sex. To transcend nature would be to control natural urges. Instead of act impulsively we would think about our actions and use reason to make a decision.
This reason is what we need to move forward. In the attempt to stand above nature our reason is what we have that nature does not. We are able to study and understand trends, then apply reason to decide on a course of action. Technology has a far way to before we fully understand nature, for example we must fully understand ourselves before attempting to move past nature. The human body is a glorious development of nature and is our tool to move on. As Marcuse puts it “Reason can fulfill this function only as post-technological rationality.” The function he speaks of is civilization freeing nature from itself. To move to a post-technological rational we need to understand everything in our world. To do this we must research and study all aspects of nature, ourselves and the universe. To move past nature we must fully comprehend it as a whole. The goal of these advancements, the end, is when reason (fueled by science) and art merge. “The function of reason then converges with the function of art.” We as a society will then be liberated and pacified, freed and peaceful.
I enjoyed this paper, as I did the first draft. You have a great understanding of Marcuse, which is no small achievement in itself, and you are doing interesting things to extend and clarify him, as well as to (in small ways) challenge his ideas.
I don't, in fact, have a great deal more to say about this version. It maintains the strengths and weaknesses of the first version - the weaknesses are diluted but still present (while you do have a clear argument, it is more implicit, and less developed from paragraph to paragraph than I'd like), while the strengths have been gathered are accentuated, but are still fundamentally the same.
At the end of the day, this is a good but unambitious revision of a provocative and interesting paper.
I liked both the Benjamin Franklin paragraph and the last paragraph very much; reorienting the paper as a whole around this material (or rather, refocusing around something like the Benjamin Franklin material) would have pushed it in a somewhat more ambitious, or at least more focused direction.
Post a Comment