tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post601587009167199007..comments2023-11-05T07:27:43.837-05:00Comments on Narrative and Technology: Patrick Kilduff RevisionAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8692381608294018617.post-52915873204014735952012-02-12T13:21:01.509-05:002012-02-12T13:21:01.509-05:00The first paragraph is a bit of a mess - you want ...The first paragraph is a bit of a mess - you want a clear argument, which should include some sort of understanding, direct or indirect, of why this argument or discussion matters.<br /><br />The definition of humanity is interesting, and worth working with. It's not terribly precise, though - if the definition of humanity has something to do with change, how is humanity different from, say, the evolutionary process itself? Or does self-reinvention have to do with the conscious or deliberate recreation of the self? <br /><br />I have trouble following what you're saying about Victor. Are you arguing that he attempts to reinvent humanity, but fails to do so? That he *does* reinvent humanity, in a good way? I simply don't yet understand what your viewpoint is.<br /><br />Your transition from one definition of human to another doesn't work very well - you need to do something to show *why* you are switching definition. While I'm not opposed to the idea that one needs to be human to understand what it is, all your readers *are* presumably human - so I'm not sure what you're doing with that idea.<br /><br />Focusing on "complex" emotions is a plausible way to talk about who or what we are - but it seems like you're piling definition upon definition, rather than simply working with one.<br /><br />Striving to achieve is unique to humans? Read Franz De Waal's *Chimpanzee Politics*, and see if you can still say that. My point isn't that you need to be some kind of expert in animal psychology in this class - my point is that inevitably when you get into the habit of generalizing freely, which you are, you'll say lots of things which are either deeply problematic or completely wrong. You seem to be relying primarily on your own beliefs about human and animals emotions here - but people have written LOTS about this stuff!<br /><br />There's nothing "extreme" about ants from the same nest sacrificing themselves for the whole, or indeed, for African wild dogs to do the same. Be careful generalizing where you don't have expertise! There are good, constructive ways to talk about how the monster's empathy is distinctly human, but you can't just make the claim and assume that it's true.<br /><br />At the risk of sounding like a jerk - do we really know that, say, whales don't have an understanding of beauty? For my part, I have absolutely no clue. It's one thing to admit that you're *probably* right - but it's far from obvious, and I'm not sure why you think it's obvious.<br /><br />Overall: This essay is deeply incoherent. Your initial interest in defining humanity in terms of change is promising, but you drop it almost as soon as you bring it up. Your subsequent definition from the psych textbook is ok (perhaps less interesting), but again, you drop it.<br /><br />Then, curiously, everything else is based on your purely intuitive, instinctive description of how human and emotions work - as if there aren't oceans of research on this subject. Where you did interesting (if tentative) research, you abandon your ideas - where you desperately need to do some research, you just go full speed ahead without a single fact, with no grounding of any sort.<br /><br />there are moments in this long discussion (e.g., on empathy) where you have interesting things to say about the text, but generally you ramble based on intuition, instead of constructing any kind of clear argument.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.com