Animals Are Better Than Robots - RJ Sepich, Blog Essay 3 Prompt 1

In chapter one of his book “One-Dimensional Man,” Herbert Marcuse points out that the social hierarchy of modern society has become defined by technology. “The people recognize themselves in their commodities,” Marcuse writes. “They find their soul in automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment.” He essentially is arguing that in today’s society we find happiness in how advanced our lives are, and we tend to look down upon people who have less technological instruments in their lives.

This pretty fair statement by Marcuse leads nicely into a completely different world that author Philip K. Dick portrays in his novel “Do Androids Dream of Sheep?” From the beginning of Dick’s science-fiction novel, which is set in 2021, the very opposite of Marcuse’s claim seems to be true: The characters value the lives of real human beings and animals much, much more than they value androids and electric animals.

In the opening chapter of Dick’s book, this concept is introduced when one of the main characters, Rick Deckard, is with his electric sheep when his neighbor Bill walks out to see his real horse. The two begin having a conversation about how Bill’s horse is about to have a baby and Rick offers to buy it. Bill, who believes that Rick’s sheep is real, seems confused why his neighbor would want to buy a second animal. But then Rick reveals that he doesn’t own a real animal, and Bill is too shocked to answer at first.

“You poor guy,” Bill eventually says, setting a tone for the entire book that technology is looked down upon in this world compared to the reverence the people have for humans and real animals (Dick 9). This tone continues with much of the storyline of the book following the characters as they try to determine who is real and who is an android, all while contemplating the possibility that maybe they are in fact androids.

By creating a world so respectful towards real, living life, Dick may be pointing out the lack of respect towards nature and humanity that we display in our current world. I believe Dick would probably agree with Marcuse’s assessment that “the prevailing forms of social control are technological in a new sense” and that those who refuse to live by these standards are simply left behind and scoffed at, or as Marcuse says, “The intellectual and emotional refusal ‘to go along’ appears neurotic and impotent.” (Marcuse Ch. 1)

The fact that in Dick’s novel there’s even such as thing as Sidney’s Animal & Fowl catalogue emphasizes this parody of modern society with how we look with pleasure at advertisements in magazines and catalogues for televisions, cell phones, cars, and much more, but for the most part, we ignore commercials about helping animals or starving children in third-world countries.

Understanding that these moments in “Do Androids Dream of Sheep?” where life is valued over technology and those who are human and posses living animals are viewed as being apart of a higher social class is important. Dick didn’t include these storylines and information just to keep the plot of the story going. They’re included because he is trying to make the exact same point that Marcuse argues in Chapter One of his book. While one is a novel and one is a book containing a stream of psychological thought, they both bring the same point about to perhaps get the reader to rethink what he or she values in life.

Weekly Response to Marcuse & Philip K. Dick - Week 1

As always, post your questions/comments/thoughts as comments to this post.

Prompts on Philip K. Dick & Marcuse - Week 1

Prompt 1:  

Clearly quoting or citing a location in Marcuse's text (just citing the chapter number, or prologue, is fine for Marcuse, since we all have access to the electronic text), identify an idea or concept, used by Marcuse, which you believe can and should be used to better understand some aspect of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.  Then, do exactly that:  show how and why that concept from Marcuse can be used to understand the novel.  Be sure to show and understanding of, and cite material from, both texts.  Our discussions of how Heidegger can be applied may be relevant here.

Prompt 2 (Research):  

Using academic sources only, probably from Pitt's library (that is, an actual book, or an article from a peer-reviewed journal), present research relating to Marcuse that you think would help the class, and that is at least moving toward an argument.  To put it another way:  it's fine to spend most of your space simply presenting one or several interesting sources, but you need to also, at the very least, show us the beginning of an argument, or to pose a question or series of questions which would lead to an argument.  A 75%/25% division between research and argument would be fine, although I'd be skeptical of a 90%/10% division.

Your sources should be obviously serious and substantive - at least 20 pages of academic writing, and probably more.  If you're using a book, you shouldn't necessarily read the whole thing, but read at least the introduction, and whatever material deals with a topic of interest to you.

Example topics:  how was Marcuse's work received and used when it was published?  How did Marcuse use, and react against, Heidegger?  How can/should we understand Marcuse using either the history of philosophy, or the history of technology?  What was the role of Marcuse's thought in American politics of the 1960s?  Etc.

Recommended book:  Andrew Feenberg's The Catastrophe and Redemption of History, which relates Heidegger and Marcuse, and is even available as kindle book, if you're too lazy to go to the library.

For Class Today

Sample Code to make a url
Sample URL
Article on Internet Power Usage

“Human by Nature: Is Frankenstein’s Monster Human?” – Taylor Hochuli: Blog Essay #2, Prompt #1

                The difference between man and monster is deliberately addressed by Mary Shelly in her novel Frankenstein. A creature made of human body parts is put together to create what she refers to as “the monster” for the rest of the novel. Yet, we see this monster speaking fluently and telling a gripping story of how he came to live in a world that had only been cruel and inhospitable. The grotesque figure is balanced out by an emotional side seen through his long narrative and final thoughts before killing himself. However, this emotional being torments his master by killing everyone he cares for, yet in the end the reader feels pity as the monster recites how his vengeance was only spurred on by the scorn of his creator. The monster seemingly walks the line between man and monster throughout the novel, playing with the readers sympathies. This makes answering the question, “Is the monster human?” all that more difficult. Ultimately, Frankenstein’s monster is not a human by definition, but can be considered a human by his capacity for thought, morality and his emotional capacity.

                In order to develop a deeper understanding of what being human means, one must start with the simple definition of a human being. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines human as, “a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo” (“Human” 2012). In other words, a human must belong in the biological classification of a human in the animal kingdom. This includes being evolved from past species and being born from another human.  Even this is a shaky definition because scientists continue to argue whether the term “human” refers to more or less specific groups of the genus Homo (Smith 2012). For example, does a Neanderthal count as a human or does it just refer to the current human race? At what point is the cut off for being a Neanderthal or primitive man? This argument continues to rage on, and for the purposes of identifying the monster as human, it has relatively little importance. The drive of all these scientific definitions circles around the idea of evolving from another human. A good summation of what puts Frankenstein’s monster outside of the scientific definition of human is exhibited in the 1999 movie Bicentennial Man. When an android applies to become recognized as a human by a world council, one member denies him with the response, “We have to face the undeniable fact that no matter how much you may be like a human being, you are not part of the human gene pool. You are outside of it entirely.” (Bicentennial Man 1999). Although the monster is far from being an android as described in the book, he is undeniably outside of the human gene pool. The monster certainly has physical human traits since “his limbs were in proportion” and has internal organs like a “work of muscles and arteries” beneath his yellow skin (pg. 35, Shelly 1994). However, the monster is not actually born and is not completely genetically related to the human race. So the monster can be called human-like, but does not fit the strict, scientific definition of a “human.”

                Definitions are usually deeper than just the definition one finds in the dictionary. Whether it is a symbolic, cultural, or other meaning, the true definition includes much more than what is on the surface. One can correctly argue that Communism is a system of beliefs created by Karl Marx about the lower class overturning the upper class to create a fair society, but there is so much more to the term. It includes a rich history, bringing even more feelings and aspects of Communism that a definition could never completely cover. Such a concept is described by Martin Heidegger when discussing technology. He says that, “Technology is not equivalent to the essence of technology,” and goes on to point out that the definition of the word tree do not separate out all the different types or elements of a tree (Heidegger 1954). Dr. David Smith from the University of New England points out that scientific definitions are often not as accurate because terms like “human” are part of a “folk-category” (Smith 2012). The definition is unclear because it determined by people and does not have a strong tie to science. He uses the example of the term “weed” which applies to some plants but not to others. There are, “no biological properties,” that determine what is a weed and what is not; the definition is not so scientific (Smith 2012). Although the term “human” is rooted in science, there is a deeper meaning to the term that Frankenstein’s monster embodies. The reader sees the emotional side of the monster through his monologue about his first months of life and his confessions at the bedside of his dead creator.

The “folk” definition of being human includes the idea of being part of the human condition: mortality. A commonly used definition removing androids or gods from being defined as humans include the, “one defining human characteristic…our awareness of our mortality” (Vaknin 2001). Such is used to explain what a human is because the, “scarcity of time gives rise to ambition and creativity” (Vaknin 2001). The monster matches this definition, although just barely. The creation is mortal, but can survive in, “the desert mountains and dreary glaciers” and the cold Arctic which nearly kills his creator (p. 69, Shelly 1994). The monster does allude to the fact that he can die to take away the “spark of life” his creator gave him and he sacrifices himself in the end by burning himself alive to finally end his torment (pg. 165-166, Shelly 1994). With this mortality, he devotes his life toward revenge against his creator who abandoned him. Although it is a terrifying ambition, it is a true ambition caused by his mortality, making the monster human. Another identifying characteristic of being human is a higher intelligence. This is used to distinguish humans from lesser animals or creatures. The creature is certainly intelligent, mastering language and history in a year where it takes most humans at least a quarter of a lifetime to reach his level of knowledge. One might consider this over intelligence as non-human since it is above the levels of the regular populous, but it is intelligence much like a human’s anyhow. He is not smart enough to create life like his creator so there is a limit to his intelligence and makes him seem more human.  The final part of the essence of being “human” lies in morality and choices. This poses a challenge since humans are known for “their behavioral unpredictability” and moral shortcomings (Vaknin 2001). When acts of immense cruelty are performed such as the genocide in Germany or the Stalin regime in Russia, the leaders can be described as inhuman. Instances of violence and anger are seen as less than human, yet even the most human characters have such traits. Frankenstein has his own feelings of violence toward the monster to the point of trying to shoot it after the death of Elizabeth. Yet, Frankenstein is undeniably human. The monster has feelings of anger and rage along with appreciation of nature when learning about the world. His anger is promoted by the mankind’s treatment toward him and only makes him seem more human. His emotional changes from immense loneliness to rage to appreciation show he has the moral characteristics common to humans. Therefore, Frankenstein, although not of the human gene pool, exhibits the essence of being human with his mortality, intelligence, and clear emotional capacity.

Works Cited:

Bicentennial Man. Dir. Chris Columbus. By Isaac Asimov. Perf. Robin Williams, Embeth Davidtz, and Sam

                Neill. Touchstone Pictures, 1999. DVD.

Heidegger, Martin. "The Question Concerning Technology." Heidegger: The Question Concerning

Technology. Georgia Tech, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. <http://lmc.gatech.edu/~xinwei/classes/readings/Heidegger/heidegger_techquestion2.pdf>.

“Human.” Merriam Webster Online, Merriam Webster, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2013.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1994. Print.

Smith, David L. "Philosophy Dispatches." What Does It Mean to Be Human? Psychology Today, 16 May

2012. Web. 21 Jan. 2013. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/philosophy-dispatches/201205/what-does-it-mean-be-human>.

Vaknin, Sam. "On Being Human." Malignant Self Love. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2013.

The Monster as a Human

Is Victor’s Monster Human?

               As times change, so too must our definition of things. We live in an age where the traditional idea of the family unit is being rethought, where our idea of what is and is not technologically possible changes every day, and what we view as acceptable in our society is in a state of constant flux. So, taking a more modern perspective, I argue not whether or not Frankenstein’s monster is human but rather, how could he not be? It is worth noting, I fear, that this argument may end up hinging on one’s political beliefs more so than any other factor.

               For starters, let us examine the monster as a sum of his parts. The monster is made up solely of human parts, “Scrounged,” as Shelley describes them from various graves. If one takes the argument that being human (not necessarily being possessed of “humanity”) means being made up of human flesh and bone and having a human brain, the Monster is decidedly human. I liken this to the practice of calling a dead body “he” or “she” rather than “it” as many societies are prone to do. Whether living or dead, the body still belongs to a human thus we, as a society, imbue it with a certain removed humanity, still referring to it by a gender specific, possessive name. If the Monster is made up of dead human flesh, it is no different than any other dead body (aside from the fact that it is something of an amalgamation) and should therefore be referred to as one.  

               Once Victor manages to imbue the Monster’s flesh with life, it is worth mentioning that what was once a dead human body is now, well, alive again. All of the Monster’s biological processes are functioning well enough to sustain his life. While his motor skills and mental abilities are not yet developed, this would be expected with any human who has just been brought to life or, “born.”

               Many people, myself included feel that what truly separates humans from animals is their capacity for high reasoning and complex emotion. As the Monster’s mind develops, the reader sees him display both of these abilities time and time again.  In chapter thirteen, the Monster asks, “When I looked around I saw and heard of none like me. Was I, the, a monster, a blot upon the earth from which all men fled and whom all men disowned?” (Shelley, 110). This particular passage is important for two reasons. He displays acute reasoning skills (all things considered) by deducing that he is the only “monster” on earth. It shows that he has observed and processed his surroundings with enough intelligence to conclude that he, despite being made of the same biological material as everyone else, is somehow different. In itself that is an intelligent deduction but does not display his full humanity. In calling himself, “a blot upon the earth from which all men fled and whom all men disowned,” he shows that his conclusions have had an emotional effect on him. He feels isolated. Lonely.

               As if this were not enough, in chapter sixteen, the monster provides a definitive declaration of existential suffering. “I am alone and miserable,” he says simply (Shelley, 129). It is possibly the simplest of quotes but it tells the reader everything they need to know. The Monster is intelligent enough to recognize his feelings for what they are and is eloquent enough to give voice to them.

               Taken as a whole, it is only logical to conclude that Victor’s monster is human. He is made of identical building blocks to all other humans, operates by the same biological principles (once reanimated), reasons the way that other humans do and to a level that not all are capable of. Most of all though, he feels the same existential pain that other humans feel. Such experiences are part of being a human. 

Blog #2 – Prompt 2b.

The Passivity of Women in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

Mary Shelley’s upbringing was unique for her era in the fact that she was raised feminist. She grew in a time where most of society would perceive her as the pseudo-property of her father or spouse. Naturally, Shelley would not wish to willingly perpetuate this opinion, nor sit idly by without bringing some attention to the passive position that women were forced into. It is highly likely that this political opinion on the lack of female standing in society is shown in the exaggerated passivity of the female characters in her novel. It could also be said that through these passive female characters, Shelley displays the characteristics women were expected to have.

A former student correctly stated that, “Justine Moritz is the most passive women in the novel.” Truly, a person who is unable to muster up any action to defend their own life would most likely not be able to active at all. Once it was clear that no man would be capable of proving her innocence, Justine just gave up. “I did confess, but I confessed a lie. I confessed, that I might obtain absolution.” (Shelley 90). This makes it seem as if she confesses because that would be easier than trying to find out the truth. Despite believing she is a good person, she makes the minimal effort to prove it. In her passivity, it could be said that Justine represents the assumption that a woman be quiet and humble, never bringing undo attention to herself, and to live with the grace of God. “I do not fear to die… God raises my weakness… I am resigned to the fate awaiting me. Learn from me, dear lady, to submit in patience to the will of Heaven!” (Shelley 91).

Elizabeth’s passivity allows her to fulfill the role of mother and sister, a source of endless support and caretaking, but not supposed to do much else. She goes along with whatever desire or demand that is put to her: she becomes a member of a family she does not know because they asked for her; she agrees to marry a man who is like her brother because she was told to; Victor tells her to calm down after Justine’s execution and she never again appears to be upset. Much like with mothers and sisters, Elizabeth is often referred to in a possessive light. People are always claiming their mother’s for their own everything time they say, “MY mother.” Although the entitled possession Victor expressed toward Elizabeth is perhaps more literal. “…I, with childish seriousness, interpreted her words literally, and looked upon Elizabeth as mine…” (Shelley 26). Elizabeth being the passive individual she is, never combats this view that she is a mother and an object. She spends days taking care of others, and waiting for Victor to tell her how to feel. “Elizabeth seemed happy; my tranquil demeanor contributed greatly to calm her mind.” (Shelley 221). Naturally, she would seem happy, for she had no reason to believe that she could be unhappy on her own.

It could be argued that Safie is the only non-passive female in the novel, but I would argue for her passivity. It is true that she leaves her father’s tyranny in order to obtain religious freedom. However, she merely exchanges being the possession of her father, to that of her husband. Once her father, she had the power to go anywhere, be with anyone, do anything, but instead she follows behind the man she perceives as a protector. It is never actually said in the book that Safie loves Felix, only that he loves her. “…when he saw the lovely Safie… the youth could not help owning to his mind that the captive possessed a treasure which would fully reward his toil and hazard.” (Shelley 135). This shows his love for her was based solely on her beauty that he aimed to possess, which is another attribute passive women as supposed to have. It could almost be said that Safie competes with Justine for most passive woman. While Safie did take some control over her life, unlike Justine, she had the opportunity and means to take complete control over her life. Instead, she chose to put her life into another man’s hands. She chose to play the beautiful wife, rather than a beautiful self-possessed person.

Mary Shelley used her female characters as a way of revealing the plight of women in her time. She exaggerated their passivity in order to reflect the ridiculous expectation society puts on women. They are meant to be mothers (Elizabeth), beautiful and charming (Safie), and quiet and humble (Justine). It makes sense that Frankenstein is a horror novel. Shelley must have thought that the box society forced women into was pretty horrible.

In favor of the monster prompt 1- Karen Knutson

In Favor of the Monster
In Frankenstein by Mary Shelly, the monster is treated as an abomination and cast out from all societies that he tried to enter. Even though he is treated as a subhuman, does that make the monster a non-human species? It could appear so, if speaking in a biblical aspect. The monster was made by man, and therefore would not contain an actual soul as he would be a conglomerate of parts that would neither go to hell nor heaven, as soon as his processes stopped, he would only be a non-animated slop of parts. However, I as well as many others do not believe in the soul, therefore I will not accept that as a suitable answer. I believe that the monster can be considered a human through my reasoning of humanity and comparing the monter to our modern species.
Our species, Homo sapiens, is an interesting one. We are able to culturally adapt and morphologically adapt to a broad range of climates, however what defines a human? We could go with the biospecies concept in which as long as the two beings can mate and produce viable offspring then they are a species together. Yet, that seems harsh and animalistic, and there are diseases in which a certain member of the species cannot produce viable offspring. Even the anthropological definition of humanity is vague due to the overlap with many features and behaviors that other species have. However, a simple resource may be able to guide into a more structured view the dictionary. The first two definitions in Merriam-Webster revert back to circular logic, however, the third definition states,” having human form or attributes,” and “susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature”(). So if a mixture of all of these ideass are present, then I propose that a human is someone who morphologically human as well as emotionally a human in we assume that a human has emotionally expected responses.
Now this leaves the monster in an interesting position. He was at one point, many mophilogical correct parts of a mishmash of humans. However, there are many people living today who are combintiosn of parts. Our medical technology allows us to do, heart, liver, epidermis, marrow and blood transfusions that are not from the same source as the rest of the patient. The monster is a more extreme example f what happens in modern medicine every day. Not only do we transplant human parts, but we transplant mechanical parts into ourselves as well. Knees, hips, hearts, and other not naturally create parts are inserted into humans all te time; so if the monster does have any unnatural parts to him, he can still be considered a human.
The monster is also capable of a various range of human emotions. When he is in agony after the affair with the DeLacey's he his able do complex human thought and notes, "I ought to have familiarized the old DeLacey to me, and by degrees to have discovered myself to the rest of his family," (Shelly 1881, p. 112). This complex thought is often not associated with other species of mamals.
Not only that, but classifiing human behavior becomes increasingly difficult when there are so many exceptions and dilemas in our own society. Many people are born with genetic defects that do not allow them to socialize properly, and sometimes these defects are from accidents. We don't call someone in acoma a different species, nor do we with the disabled. Therefore, the horror that is the monster's grotesque form should not deny him from being classified as a human.
There is also the issue that the monster has super strength intelligence, and speed that seem out of the scope of humanity. However, if we look at the best and the brightest from each section, we see how it could be possible that the monster is created by using the attributes of the most athletic and brightest people. At the olympics, we see many people who push the boundarties of how fast or how strong a peron can be. Usain Bolt broke a world reccord at the 2012 London Olympics and ran 27 miles per hour, which is around the average speed of most horses. There are also people who have astounded the earth with their intelligence, Steven Hawlking, Albert Einstein, and Marie Curie are all people who are in textbooks and will be in those books until someone discoveres something even more astounding.
Even though the monster does not consider himslf to be a part of the human race, he innevidably is a part of the species that detests his existance due to his morphological and not so superhuman traits

Is the monster human? Brian DeWillie prompt 1

"Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal, inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative), separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order), and rotten with perfection" Kenneth Burke has defined what it means to be human in his essay Definition of Man. This definition, to me at least, uses somewhat confusing language but was explained in the Wikipedia article on this subject. More simply put, man is defined by his ability to use symbols as communication, understanding of negation (a creation of language), separation from nature by his own techniques, existence in different social structures, and his pursuit of bettering himself. These four (main) ideas form a basis by which we can judge if Victor Frankenstein’s monster is indeed a human.

Clearly, the monster uses language to communicate with Victor. When he is living in the hovel by the De Lacey’s cottage, he hears Felix “utter sounds that were monotonous” [p.119] which he later found out was Felix reading aloud. Over many months of observing the family, he makes a discovery that “these people possessed a method of communicating their experience and feelings to one another by articulate sounds.” [p.121] It is difficult for him to pick up the language at first with limited access to viewing what they are talking about but soon learns words such as fire, milk, bread, and wood. He spent more months just trying to learn how to communicate using their language and as we see when he confronts Victor on the glacier, he masters the use of language. The understanding of negation, which Burke says does not exist in nature and is a characteristic of language, is important in the sense that morality stems from the idea that there are things we should not do. We can see a sense of morality in the monster from his retelling of his hatred of himself after committing the murders of (specifically) Clerval and the others.

The monster’s use of technology is not well known. When he first leaves after being created he discovers a fire left by some beggars and uses it to keep warm. He is able to deduce that dry wood was needed to maintain the fire, and he uses it to cook food, although it never mentions that he learns how to create a fire. Additionally, he lives in a hut for a while which was constructed of wood, and he uses stones and wood to cover ways which he might be seen as well as carpets the ground with clean straw. Apart from these examples, he seems no different than an animal in the sense that he travels on foot and uses hunter/gatherer techniques for finding food.

We see that the monster recognizes that there are different social stratifications. When living in the hut behind the De Lacey’s, he notices that they are unhappy, and he learns that one of the main causes for this is their poverty. He understands this social status makes it difficult for them to provide for themselves as well as their father and so he no longer takes food from them when they are gone. The monster can also be seen in a social class of his own. Because of his grotesque features, humans will not even talk to him and immediately assume he has malicious intentions. Despite his attempts to speak and reason with the De Laceys and William, he is unable to change his labeling as a monster.

Finally, we can look at the monsters goals of improving himself. At first, it seems as though the monster would fit this description. He lives behind the De Laceys and dedicates his days to learning their language and learning how to communicate with others. He seeks moral improvement by helping the De Laceys because they are poor rather than taking their food for his own well-being. Finally, he makes a plan to try to ease himself into society by slowly convincing individuals that he is a well-intentioned creature. I think, however, that he ultimately fails at striving for self-improvement. Once he has been shunned by society too many times, he becomes obsessed with exacting revenge on his creator. He no longer seeks to better himself; rather, he only exists to bring down Victor to his level of misery.

By this definition of what is human, I would say that Victor Frankenstein’s monster is not a human. Altough he has many human qualities, based on his abandonment of self-improvement and dubious use of technology, he does not fully fit this definition. 

The Human Monster -- RJ Sepich Blog Essay 2, Prompt 1

Being human, to me at least, means much more than simply being a homo sapien. It’s about the mental capabilities that our species possess. The characteristics that I believe define what makes someone human are the most unique abilities that we have – the ability to think rationally on some level, the ability to love, and the ability to want to acquire knowledge. I would also argue that people who will have or have had these traits should be considered human, acknowledging that newborns and the mentally ill don’t have these abilities.

For these reasons, I consider Victor Frankenstein’s monster in the classic Mary Shelley novel to be a human.

Just because the monster doesn’t spawn from a mother’s womb doesn’t mean that it cannot be classified as human. I believe that the monster is much more human than some of the people on this Earth. From the moment of its creation, the monster begins a life of thinking about what it must to in order to keep itself alive, loving the De Lacey family before asking Victor to create another monster who will love him back, and it shows a desire to learn about human nature, languages, and many other aspects of its world. Just because the monster is a vengeful being that kills most of Victor’s loved ones does not make it inhuman. It commits each murder for a rational reason -- because it wants Victor to help it find acceptance and friendship in the world. The moment that I become thoroughly convinced that the monster is human occurs when it tells Robert Walton about its remorse for one of the murders.

“Think you that the groans of Clerval were music to my ears?” it asks Walton. “My heart was fashioned to be susceptible of love and sympathy; and when wrenched by misery to vice and hatred it did not endure the violence of the change without torture such as you cannot even imagine” (Shelley 254-255).

Here the monster explains that it understands love because it feels love, and it describes the regret and pain it experienced after murdering Victor’s friend because of revenge. There are people in this world who commit murder and feel no regret, yet I would still consider them human, but the monster is showing that it is perhaps even more complex than many humans.

The question of what makes us human is something that has been discussed much over history, both philosophically and scientifically.

British writer George Orwell once said that, “The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism to the point where it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one's love upon other human individuals.”

I agree with his definition of humans because most of what he says would fit into my category of thinking rationally and the rest of his definition revolves around the ability to love. Although it is debatable that originally the monster was “prepared…to be defeated and broken up by life,” I believe that by the end of the book, when Victor dies, the monster is much more accepting of the struggles that life presents and has learned on some level how to deal with such difficulties.

Because of the mental capabilities the monster develops that mirror the unique abilities that define humans, I believe that Victor Frankenstein’s creation should be classified as a human being.

Weekly Response to Frankenstein and Heidegger (week 2)

Remember - post your short Wednesday responses (not your full-length Thursday essays) as comments to this post.

Prompts for Thursday the 24th

Option 1:  Frankenstein and the Human

I ask this with great trepidation, because it often leads to underdeveloped responses.  Here's the short version:  "Is the monster human?"  The reason this simple question often leads to weak or underdeveloped writing is that people tend to give very little attention to the great complexity and difficulty of defining what it means to be human in a way that will withstand scrutiny - especially in a novel that at some level challenges our preconceptions about what the word means.

So, here's the slightly longer version:  Answer whether or not the monster is human, where your definition  of "human" is clearly and articulately defined, and rooted in an outside, probably academic text (scientific, psychological, historical, philosophical, etc.).  You should be defining humanity not in a trivial or casual way, in other words, but using a well-developed theory of human nature.

Option 2:  Frankenstein and Gendered Viewpoints

This prompt is inspired by a former student.  Here's an excerpt from a post of hers for context:

I read Frankenstein about three years ago, and the English class was to direct attention toward the theme of the creation of a disaster. However, reading Mary Shelley’s Gothic novel a second time, I approached it by looking closely at the individuals characters. Overall, I find all of the characters to be passive. In terms of Victor Frankstein’s monster, I couldn’t classify his actions as passive, but because he hasn’t been nurtured and integrated into society, I’m not so sure he comprehends what it means to be passive. The females are the most passive of the novel, listening and agreeing with what men tell them. Victor Frankstein’s mother, she takes a more passive role as the husband swoops in to provide shelter and security to Elizabeth (Shelley 26). Elizabeth herself can’t even formulate her own opinions, listening to either what the police say or Victor about Justine Moritz role in William Frankenstein’s death. Justine Moritz is the most passive woman in the novel so far, welcoming death despite her not murdering William (Shelley 91). However, when I consider that the author of Frankenstein is a woman, this brings me to a question that relates to my insight: Is Mary Shelley telling the story from a man’s point of view? The story of Victor’s despair is told through Victor telling it to Robert Walton.

Your job is to answer one of the two following questions, in the form of an essay, both of which are inspired by and should be contextualized by the above quote.  DO NOT ANSWER BOTH - JUST ONE.

a)  Focusing on specific passages and/or characters (don't try to do everything), address what it means that Shelley is "telling the story from a man's point of view," also keeping in mind that Shelley was raised in an environment, unusual for its time, in which feminist thought was accepted and even welcomed.  Is there a strategy, or an implicit argument, to the dominance of male voices in the narrative?

b)  Are the women of the novel, in fact, passive?  What is the significance (political, intellectual, theoretical - you pick the kind of significance) of their passivity, or their lack thereof?  As always, support your argument with details from the text!

Option 3:  Frankenstein and Heidegger

Note:  this is the same as a prompt from last week.  The only change is that you are expected to to use the second half of the novel.  Any time when I reuse prompts form week to week, you are allowed to use them again unless I say otherwise.

Focus on the creation (or birth, if you prefer) of the monster at the beginning of chapter 5.  Use a specific idea from Heidegger to help interpret what the monster means, or what it is.  Example:  you might use Heidegger's concept of "standing-reserve" to argue that Shelley is imagining what happens when humanity becomes "standing-reserve", or vice-versa.  Cite at least one specific passage from both texts.

Note:  If you don't actually think Heidegger is useful for understanding Frankenstein, this really isn't the prompt for you.

For Class on 1/17

The above image is the original title page of Frankenstein.  The title page is an unfortunate omission from our edition.

“The Positive Mirror: Henry Clerval In Frankenstein” – Taylor Hochuli: Blog Essay #1, Prompt #2

               Throughout the grim tale of Victor Frankenstein and his ambition gone wrong, there is one light that only makes the miseries of Frankenstein more apparent. This character that shows the more righteous, correct path is Frankenstein’s childhood friend Henry Clerval. While Frankenstein sinks deeper and deeper into depression, the reader of Frankenstein sees Henry flourish and grow even happier. It creates a distinct contrast that shows a counter character to the confused scientist. Henry represents something more when analyzing why he continues to remain happy while Frankenstein descends into woe. Through the lens of Henry Clerval, an observant reader can see the opposite of Frankenstein to emphasize the effects of over ambition and the benefits the better ideals.

                Both Henry Clerval and Frankenstein have ambition to be the best in their field, but their differences emphasize the wrongdoings of Frankenstein. At the beginning of the novel, the reader is introduced to Henry Clerval as a chivalrous being who reads and loves stories of knights and grand adventures. In the words of Frankenstein, Henry, “occupied himself, so to speak, with the moral relations of things,” and that he had, “made doing good the end and aim of his soaring ambition.” (pg 19-20, Shelly 1994) He is worldlier and his dreams are plausible in real life. His dream also demands good character and leadership, making him work on his personality more than the secluded, anti-social Frankenstein. Henry has the dream to, “become one among those whose names are recorded in story, as the gallant and adventurous benefactors of our species.” (pg 19, Shelly 1994) His ambitions are specifically to benefit mankind and help others rather than himself. In a way, he does achieve his dreams becoming recorded in Frankenstein’s narrative as being a perfect individual by Robert Walton. Henry’s ambitions lead him to become a better person rather than defy nature and show the misguided ambitions of Frankenstein. The mad scientist has many, “enquiries (that) were directed to the metaphysical, or in its highest sense, the physical secrets of the world.” (pg 19, Shelly 1994) Frankenstein is obsessed with the non-worldly and wishes to defy nature instead of improving it. He wishes to see the secrets behind the universe for no other reason but to find them. Frankenstein’s goals have no particular benefit to himself or society unlike the giving Clerval. All Clerval does during the novel is attempt to better himself and help Frankenstein, essentially nursing him back to life after the grief of the monster makes Frankenstein bed ridden. The morally just ambitions of Clerval bring him happiness and make him a better person, compared with the other-worldly ambitions of Frankenstein that lead to a life of torment.

Along with this difference in ambitions, their course of pursuing their differences rewards Clerval while the reader witnesses the horror of Frankenstein’s impatience. Frankenstein does not have respect for nature and attempts to defy it as quickly as he attains the knowledge. Frankenstein moves along in his work so quickly that there is not enough time to think about the moral consequences of his actions. Frankenstein directly says, “Idleness had ever been irksome to me,” right before he creates the monster that plagues him for the rest of his life. Henry on the other hand, represents the best way to go about pursuing ambition. He is held back from going to college by his father who, “was a narrow-minded trader, and saw idleness and ruin in the aspirations and ambition of his son.” (pg 24, Shelly 1994) This fear is exactly what happened to Frankenstein as he finds ruin while pursuing his aspirations in science. Holding back Clerval from such education teaches him not to find a similar kind of ruin by relentlessly going after his passion. He leads up to his goals rather than jumping straight to the end. Instead of learning a language and running off to India in search of adventure, he learns the trades of his father and then goes to, “the university with the design of making himself a complete master of the Oriental languages,” before, “[pursuing] no inglorious career.” (pg 44, Shelly 1994) Clerval limits his ambitions and works up to his goals rather than demanding immediate satisfaction and travelling to the Far East.

The payoffs of subduing ambition and working on one’s moral character are seen by the success of Clerval and his enjoyment of life while Frankenstein continues to wallow in his own misery. After hearing the monster’s tale, Frankenstein joins Clerval to go to London. On the journey, all that Clerval can discuss is how wonderful the landscape and the sky are. Instead of this, Frankenstein, “shut up every avenue to enjoyment,” and continued to be, “occupied by gloomy thoughts.” (pg 112, Shelly 1994) After such a long absence of Clerval in the novel, he returns happier than ever while Frankenstein is even more depressed. The moral choice of Clerval is rewarded with his ability to appreciate nature with “ardour” rather than just the admirations of others. (pg 113, Shelly 1994) While Frankenstein goes from a hopeful, happy childhood to toil and depression, Clerval sees the opposite effect. He goes from being repressed by his father to gaining freedom and enjoying wilderness. Although he certainly is hampered by the poor state of his best friend Frankenstein, Clerval still sees his condition improve as he moves toward his dreams of adventure. Even Frankenstein notes this when he says, “Alas, how great was the contrast between us!” and, “in Clerval I saw the image of my former self; he was inquisitive, and anxious to gain experience and instruction.” (pg 112,115, Shelly 1994) Having such an innocent person continue to benefit, the author shows the bias toward Henry Clerval’s line of thinking. Watching the events through Henry’s lens and watching his development express this fact. By keeping his ambitions in check and allowing himself to remain worldly, Clerval allows himself to increase his happiness in the novel while the author sends the overambitious Frankenstein into a spiral of despair.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1994. Print.

Brian DeWillie Prompt 2

                Characters can give great insight into the themes of the story or a message that the author wants to convey. In the first half of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley uses Robert Walton as a character that can give great insight into what the novel may mean.

               

The first theme of the story that I think Shelley might be trying to convey through Walton is the danger of blind pursuit of knowledge. By also making Walton’s journey similar to the beginning of Victor Frankenstein’s, we can also learn even more about this theme. Walton started off as a young boy without a proper education but a thirst for reading. He “had read with ardour the accounts of the various voyages which have been made in the prospect of arriving at the North Pacific Ocean through the seas which surround the pole” as well as many other books about voyages of discovery. He temporarily abandoned this pursuit when he learned his father’s dying wish was that he did not pursue a seafaring life, however, after inheriting his cousin’s fortune, he set off on his passion for discovery. His own voyage was one to discover a passage to the North Pole and hopefully learn about the secrets of the magnet (magnetic field of the earth) and had dedicated 6 years of his life in order to undertake such a voyage. It seems as though Walton was fixated on this one goal of his, much like Victor was in his pursuit of creating life. By only considering his end goal of the glory of discovery, he was ignoring the potential peril he might face on such a rigorous journey. He actually does encounter danger when his ships gets stuck between sheets of ice and he must make decisions that could potentially harm himself and his crew. This consideration of the consequences of actions is especially important to today’s society when reflecting upon the article from Bill Joy. It might be incredible to discover some new and amazing knowledge but that alone is not necessarily a good reason to pursue that technology. As Victor sums up later in the book, “A human being in perfection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind, and never allow passion or a transitory desire to disturb his tranquility.” To me, this means that one should try to look at both sides of any endeavor in order to make an informed decision rather than blindly pursue new knowledge.

               

The second theme that I think Walton may represent is the value of communication. Through his letters to his sister, Walton longs for a friend that he thinks he will never find on his journey to the north. He wants someone who he can share his thoughts and feelings with other than just his crew on the ship. When Victor is finally brought onto the ship and he gets to know him more, Walton begins to think of him as a friend. This is an important turning point for Walton because previously, his journey had been long and lonely and he was glad to have someone that he regarded as a friend. It gave him a renewed sense of purpose to complete his mission. Walton seems, at this point, be in contrast with Victor in this case. Walton gains a friend in the middle of his journey whereas Victor only met up with Clerval after his “journey” of creating life was complete. From reading the first half of the book, we can see that Victor’s pursuit of knowledge led to disastrous consequences so perhaps the influence of a friend before his dangerous journey is completed will sway him to keep a clear mind.