Close Reading Post

The benefits and dangers of knowledge

1 Comment

Mary Shelley’s novel, “Frankenstein” illustrates aspects of the excerpts from “Emile” by Rousseau. Being that he was very good at science back when he was in school, Victor Frankenstein decided to experiment and bring a creature to life, which later turned out to be a monster. After realizing what he had done, he decides to abandon his creation and leave on his own. As a result, the monster is left with no choice but to try and teach himself, in order for him to be able to survive. This is the education “by nature” (Rousseau 1) which Rousseau believes to be one of the best ways someone can learn through. Not having anyone else to teach and guide him, the monster observed people, learned how to speak, read, write and love through them.

The monster’s existence demonstrates that monstrosity is not innate, but learned. With no knowledge of his own, the monster is a “blank slate”, a term Locke used on his writings. The way he acquires knowledge reveals the benefit of knowledge and its dangers. The latter being that after he finds out about Frankenstein and his family, he decides to go on and kill William just so he could get revenge against his creator, something Victor realizes after seeing the monster try to hide from him, and he states, “Nothing in human shape could have destroyed the fair child. HE was the murderer! I could not doubt it.” (Shelley 7) Although he tried to learn things step by step, he could was unable to know what to do with the emotions he had within him, which led him to making those decisions.

Just like in Rousseau’s writing, Shelley often talks about nature as he states words like “…never did the fields bestow a more plentiful harvest or the vines yield a more luxuriant vintage, but my eyes were insensible to the charms of nature“. (Shelley 4) This serves as a way to describe how nature revives the characters, feeds the souls, and inspires them. Victor and the monster are similar in that they both learn through books and reading, but more importantly they gain more knowledge through experience, a theory Rousseau would support as well.

Peer Response Post, Through the lens post, Weekly Post Check-In

Response to “Ideology of Rousseau and Descartes”

1 Comment

In response to Eric Chan’s post “Ideology of Rousseau and Descartes”, I find similar feelings towards the two philosophers and the way they approach education. Rousseau explains to the reader what he thinks of education, and the three types he categorizes education in, this being: “from man, from nature, and from things”. (Rousseau 1) Throughout the excerpts of “Emile” that we have read, there is a use of the word “nature” to describe how this type of education is how it just happens, something we, as humans, have no control over. It is, according to Rousseau, the best way of learning, because if man is educating you, you are confined and are not allowed to adopt on your own. Similarly, Rene Descartes describes his experience with the so-called “education” which he thinks is best learned through experience, rather than in school. After completing his studies in one of the most prestigious schools, he still states, “For I found myself involved in so many doubts and errors, that I was convinced I had advanced no farther in all my attempts at learning, than the discovery at every turn of my own ignorance”. (Descartes 1)

As a result, Descartes decided to go on his own after that and travel the world, where he thought he learned more than he had ever read and learned in school. “The child who reads cease to think, he only reads, he is acquiring words no knowledge” (Rousseau 14) is what Rousseau writes in the topic of learning through reading. I agree with Eric in that there is only so much information one can grasp through reading and learn through theory. It is only through experience that a student can also make mistakes, which they will later learn from.

It is significant to note that the philosophers did not completely disregard the teachings through someone else, and the things we learn in school, as Descartes states, “I still continued, however, to hold in esteem the studies of the schools. I was aware that the languages taught in them are necessary to the understanding of the writings of the ancients…” (Descartes 1) and Rousseau believes that one type of education is from man. However, both philosophers believe that we should go off on our own and learn from experience to truly understand something, see it for ourselves rather than have an abstract idea about it.

Brainstorming Exercise #1, Uncategorized

Brainstorming CUBING

1 Comment

“I entreat you to hear me before you give vent to your hatred on my devoted head. Have I not suffered enough, that you seek to increase my misery? Life, although it may only be an accumulation of anguish, is dear to me, and I will defend it. Remember, thou hast made me more powerful than thyself; my height is superior to thine, my joints more supple. But I will not be tempted to set myself in opposition to thee. I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me. Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other and trample upon me alone, to whom thy justice, and even thy clemency and affection, is most due. Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed. Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous” (Chapter 10).

 

  1. This scene is in the outskirts of Arveiron. Dr. Frankenstein is out in what can only be described as the beauty of nature. in chapter 10, the author writes “…And the solemn silence of this glorious presence-chamber of imperial nature was broken only by the brawling waves or the fall of some vast fragment…These sublime and magnificent scenes afforded me the greatest consolation that I was capable of receiving.”  This setting is peaceful and relaxing as Dr. Frankenstein is away from all his troubles and from civilization, or so he thinks. Soon after, he notices something moving in the shadows and discovers that it is his creation. They both talk and in the conversation you could tell that the monster is well spoken and knows how to speak perfectly like a human being. The monster persuades Dr. Frankenstein to listen to his story oh what happened to him after he left the doctor.
  2. I would compare this  scene, to the story of the Garden of Eden where all was well and pure until the sin of man forced them out of this paradise. I know it may seem a little far fetched but after you hear my analysis of it, it may come together to make sense.
  3. I would associate this relationship of Frankenstein and his creation with that of farmers who create Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). Dr. Frankenstein created his monster from the bones and flesh of dead organisms and use them to create something else. As Rousseau writes, “He forces one soil to bear the fruits of another.”
  4. If i were to analyze this scene, I would focus on the hate that Dr. Frankenstein has for his creation. This scene is part of a larger scene later on where the monster tells his creator how he has been able to survive alone, Now that he is able to talk to his creator, he does so with so much respect. Viktor in this scene is taking in the beauty of nature, admiring the glacier,the valleys and mountains. He finds peace in the admiration of nature and while in this paradise, he is reminded of what happens when you mess with what nature has created. When he sees the monster he is quick to judge him and the of him as a hideous being unworthy of kindness or empathy.
  5. I could apply this scene of the monster and Viktor to the theory of Rousseau where he believes that man should find a balance of all three types of education from nature, man and things. The story of Frankenstein is a story of how man defied the education of nature by giving life to an organism whose birth was not by natural causes. He did not grow naturally and therefore receive an education by nature. For Rousseau, this would mean that the subject would be “ill-educated.”
  6. I would argue and say that this story of Frankenstein is a good reason of why it is wrong to go against what nature can already do. In this case we see what happens when man tries to assume the role of the teacher of nature. It is not his domain to control and must therefore let it take its course and only after nature has taught the subject can you then give him/her the teachings of man. If i were to argue against this idea i wouldn’t also say that a strict adherence to this theory would also limit the advances of the scientific community. If we were to limit ourselves and say that we must not take on the role as teacher of nature, then advances like those in prosthetic limbs or organ transplants would have never been discovered. It is because of our ability to go ahead and challenge nature, that we are able to discover something new and ingenious every time.
Brainstorming Exercise #1

Similes

1 Comment

Topic:  People want what they cannot have.  In Rousseau’s text “Emile”, he talks about how students have no interest in subjects that are forced upon them, and have a natural inclination towards subjects that they find interesting or useful.

Subject: Frankenstein and his desire to meddle with life, death, and creation, despite the age old principle that those things are not for the realm of man, leave him ardently pursuing his goal.

Similes:

1) Frankenstein wanting what he can’t have is like someone seeing an ex popping up on social media and missing them.  Frankenstein’s passion constantly penetrates his thinking, the more forbidden and taboo, the more he wants it.

2) Frankenstein wanting what he can’t have is like playing video games instead of doing homework.  His need to create life, although he wants it badly, is detrimental in the long run.  He lacks self discipline.

3) Frankenstein wanting what he can’t have is cheese-lust for a vegan.  Even though it is unfamiliar to him, he has a newly found curiosity and interest in it.

4) Frankenstein wanting what he can’t have is like wanting to take Russian because it filled up faster than Spanish, which was your first choice.

5) Frankenstein wanting what he can’t have is like reading celebrity tabloids. This demonstrates humans as a whole, and their carnal obsession with external power, the highest level of which can be found among the rich and famous.  We live extraneously through different forms of media, fascinating ourselves, reading about and indulging in other people’s lives, lives that we can’t have or experience  for ourselves.  We can’t have it, therefore we want it.  To be able to create life is to gain power.

6) Frankenstein wanting what he can’t have is like taking a gym membership for granted until you can’t afford it anymore.

After devising this series of similes, I notice a few patterns.  The first and sixth similes tap into the natural desire people have towards things that are no longer available to them.  It seems that people will learn to want something, even if it was once in their possession.  The second simile illuminates the fact that often the things we want are harmful to us, and that self restraint is more beneficial in the long run than obtaining immediate gratification.  The third and fourth similes note that we go down different paths in life, and end up wanting things unfamiliar and distant to us, as well as things that we did not originally intend on moving towards.  All of these details can be applied to Frankenstein and his aspirations in the novel.

Brainstorming Exercise #1

Ignorance is bliss

“Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow” (4).

Describe it.

Victor Frankenstein is a scientific genius who is fascinated with the “secret of life”. Frankenstein is so drive into his subject and eventually, he attempts to go beyond the human limit. His thirst for knowledge pushes him to the next level and makes him to create a hideous monster. The monster becomes a threat to Frankenstein’s life and proceeds to kill his friends and family. However, after he realizes his mistake and where has the thirst of knowledge brought him to, he feels guilty and regret. Frankenstein’s pursuit of knowledge makes him lose everything he valued. Thus, he claims that a man who doesn’t know much about the outside world and believes in what he sees is the only truth is a happier man.

Compare it.

    In comparison to Descartes’s ideology of education leads to a certain truth, Frankenstein promotes the danger of knowledge. In Descartes’s “Discourse of Method”, Descartes claims that the education of knowledge makes him “ met with nothing so doubtful as not to yield some conclusion of adequate certainty” (3). He believes knowledge can answer your questions and give you a define answer. Different to Descartes, Victor Frankenstein thinks knowledge can be a bad thing. Frankenstein claims that knowledge can make you uncertain of your decision. When you look very deep into something, you might realize it is a complete different thing than you originally thought.

Associate it.

When I am thinking about Frankenstein’s idea that people who stay within the range of what they can do live a happier life, otherwise, people who try to excess their limit live with a bad end, it reminds me of stretching in the gym. Every person has a certain limit of how much you can stretch. Some people can touch their toes very easily; some people just can’t do it. Depends on the gender, age, and whether you do exercise a lot or not, these elements brings you to a different level. When you are stretching, you know what your limits are. People should not attempt to do more than their own limit and they should not force themselves to do it because they will break their back really badly.

Analyze it.

    This quote is meaning ignorance is bliss. Frankenstein states “how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world”, he means that a man with basic knowledge of his environment (“native town”) and does not “aspires to become greater than his nature will allow” can live a happier life because he doesn’t have to carry the burden of knowing the whole world. Frankenstein is saying the harder you strive for knowledge, the less happier you are. However, in other word, I think he is also saying “curiosity killed the cat”.

Apply it.

    In real life, I believe sometimes when people know too much of something can lead to a negative consequence. For example, when people are telling a white lie to protect you from something that you can’t possibly handle, lies can be a good thing. Lies told to help another person or to protect someone’s feelings tend to be good for a relationship. If you must know to truth, you might hurt yourself and the other as well at the end. In this case, for some people, it’s better to not know the truth because it gives them a perfect illusion of a happier life; otherwise, reveals the truth and break the illusion will breaks everyone’s heart.

Argue for and against it.

I am supporting Frankenstein’s idea that keeps a simple mind makes you a happier person. I think when people have too much information about something, they will get confuse or even get lost. For example, when Frankenstein just find out the beauty of science, he loves it and he is happy to study it. However, when he gets into certain degree, he becomes isolated and science becomes his only value. He doesn’t talk to friend or family when he is too focus on his research. He slowly lost the connection to the outside world. At that point, Frankenstein no longer feel happy to working on his experiment, rather, the experiment becomes the only thing he can do. Science has overwhelmed his life. I believe when there is too much of anything is a bad thing, including knowledge. When you know too much of a subject, it can make you forget your original purpose of exploring that subject.

Brainstorming Exercise #1

In search for mate

 

Describe it:

My topic is about how in Mary Shelly”s Frankenstein, the monster was convinced that its only way to obtain happiness and companionship was for Victor Frankenstein  to create another female monster so it can accompany him.  After constant attempts to being accepted and acknowledges from him trying to introduce himself to the De Lacey family thought the blind father to even Victor who he knew felt strongly apposed to his existence. The need for acceptance and to feel normal was always a driving force for the monster even after realizing thats its own existence was not ever to be accepted.

Trace it:

He knew that isolation from humans with a companion was his only option. From the very beginning the Monsters has been rejected and misunderstood based on his appearance and simple lack of compassion from his creator to others. “I swear,” he cried, “by the sun, and by the blue sky of heaven, and by the fire of love that burns my heart, that if you grant my prayer, while they exist you shall never behold me again”. That showed his desperation to want to be accepted and up to that point he tried to gain acceptance from humans period from his from attempt to gain sympathy from the old man to trying to reason with William and on each situation he was met with disappointment.

Map it:

This point relates to John Locke when he said “Our observation, employed either about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds, perceived and reflected on by ourselves is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking”. Our experiences that we go trough is one aspect of our understanding but also our  internal operations or emotional view on what we learn thought our experience is a factor. The monsters constant rejection and cruel treatment from humans over the years has left him with the conclusion that he will be never accepted. He felt that his only option was to remove himself all together from humans with a mate to possibly show him the companionship he was so desperate to attain.

 

 

Brainstorming Exercise #1

Brainstorming

1 Comment

Of what a strange nature is knowledge! It clings to the mind when it has once seized on it like a lichen on the rock.

Reflections and sensations are the basis of education

Describe it Frankenstein’s monster understood how knowledge is gained. After being created, the monster was isolated from society and had no knowledge of anything. He began to analyze his surroundings to learn them. His experiences were key to his development.
Compare it Frankenstein’s monster can be easily compared to his creator; Frankenstein himself. Frankenstein had formal education while growing and was easily part of his society. He had gone to a prestigious university whereas the creature had no type of formal education. However, Frankenstein had learned a lot from his experiences rather than studies at school. Similarly, his creature also learned a lot based on his experiences and interactions with his surroundings.
Associate it This can be associated with several other points made in Frankenstein. Nature is a huge part of how Frankenstein’s creature begins to gain knowledge. He explores the various parts of nature and interacts with it. Locke’s idea about using experiences to gain knowledge also has a lot to do with nature. You create a lot of memories from experiences in nature and it helps build knowledge.
Apply it Locke’s ideology can easily be applied to Frankenstein’s creature’s story. The monster
is isolated from the world and goes through a great deal of interactions and understanding of his surroundings to build his education and knowledge.
Analyze it Frankenstein’s monster and conveys the ideology of John Locke. Locke emphasizes how experience is essential in gaining knowledge. Locke’s sensations and reflections refer the physical as well mental aspects of experience. Essentially, the monster’s ambition in interacting with his surroundings supports Locke’s ideas.
Argue for and against it I can argue for this by saying that formal education is not necessarily needed to build knowledge. John Locke’s ideology of having experience to build knowledge actually works in the real world and we also see it occur in Frankenstein.

I can argue against it by saying that experience doesn’t always build knowledge. It entirely depends on what a person is experiencing. Also, sometimes it is necessary to read literary resources to learn about something rather than experiencing it.

 

A Blogs@Baruch site