Shelly Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Shelly - Essay Example This story can be seen as an allegory about the theme nature versus nurture. It shows that even monsters are capable of love and even a harmless creature can be turned into a monster, given the treatment that he or she receives from his or her creator or the people around him or her. To give more clarity to the theme, nature versus nurture, in Frankenstein, Shelly has used a set of verbal imagery including the images of fire, light, gloomy weather, remote settings, violence and finally death. The way in which the narrator in the story get cast away from mythical stories, which are very close to nature and get drawn towards science which was in some way opposite to nature, is by watching a lightning burning down a tree to ashes (Shelly, 56-58). Here, the light and fire is metaphoric of the transformation of the author from being a person fascinated by nature into someone who has the confidence to command nature, who believes in nurture rather than nature. And when Frankenstein narrate s his own inner story to his creator, the imagery of fire is repeated and the reader hears the monster wondering about the nature of fire in the following words: I found a fire†¦and was overcome with delight at the warmth I experienced from it. In my joy, I thrust my hand into the live embers, but quickly drew it out again with a cry of pain. How strange, I thought, that the same cause should produce such opposite effects (Shelley, 218). This is a profound depiction of the basic contradiction involved within the evil-good duo, which can also be interpreted as a reflection of nature- nurture duality as well. Because in nature there is no evil or good as such and they exist only within a frame created by human beings. So it can be argued that evil is an after-effect of nurture. And the fire teaches that simple lesson to the monster who is just like a new born baby unaware of good and evil, and who is just learning to tread the earth and the landscape of humanity. Throughout the s tory, people are seen seeking refuge around a wood fire to talk, to understand the contradictions of life better (Shelley, 257). Similarly, there is also mention of the â€Å"feverish fire† glimmering in the eyes of Frankenstein even when his health is failing him (Shelley, 254). Here, fire is the life force, the passion that keeps one alive. Fire is the boundary between life and death, between nature and nurture. In the same way, light is used as an imagery that represents knowledge- the point at which humans depart from nature and enters the realm of nurture. This is why Frankenstein is seen observing that â€Å"I began also to observe, with greater accuracy, the forms that surrounded me, and to perceive the boundaries of the radiant roof of light which canopied me† (Shelly, 217). Again the reference to knowledge is made when narrator says, â€Å"as exemplified in the change from life to death, and death to life, until from the midst of this darkness a sudden light broke in upon me† (Shelly, 84). This was the moment of knowing the secret of life. This was the point of transition from simply living the nature to nurturing life. But the same light becomes â€Å"oppressive† for Frankenstein because it is the growing existential knowledge that becomes an unbearable curse for him (Shelly, 214). And this is why, towards the

Dualism Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Dualism - Research Paper Example Are medical researchers within their rights to experiment on animals if their research helps cure diseases? Do animal rights properly belong to the realm of philosophy and pedagogy, or is it a matter for the courts? At the crux of the issue is the meaning of â€Å"sentience.† Does feeling (i.e. physical sensation) equate to intelligence? The main thrust of this paper is to argue that the ability to feel pain establishes a minimum ethical criterion for not experimenting on animals and, if by extension, feelings and other â€Å"emotions† are deemed to be present, then animal protection should acquire the force of law. Aristotle wrote that animals meet this minimum criterion, arguing that they are endowed with perceptive sensitivity, â€Å"which appears inherent in all animals, for they have an innate power, which (is called) sensible perception†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Aristotle, 354). But when it came to this sensitivity, Aristotle said, not all animals are created equal. He said that â€Å"sense being inherent Name 2 in some animals, a permanency of the sensible object is engendered, but in others it is not engendered,† as would be the case with insects, for instance (Aristotle, 354). Descartes made a similar distinction, but one which drew on man’s supposedly divine nature, asserting that while animals wield an intelligence that allows them to carry out basic tasks, such as finding shelter, this intelligence â€Å"is of a significantly inferior type to the rational intelligence of man, which comes from his soul† (Kang, 117). Ultimately, Descartes decided that animal intelligence cannot be compared to that of humans, because animals are unable to reason or communicate verbally. Nevertheless, whatever the limits of animal consciousness might be, countless theories have been developed to support the validity of animal intelligence. Physicalist and Neurofunctionalist – philosophical approaches Physicalism postulates that consciousn ess canbe identified with neuron activity, a position that allows for the possibility that intelligence is a characteristic humans and animals share, so long as they are built upon the same â€Å"biological, chemical and physical† properties (Allen, 2010). Such an approach also claims that questions about the relative intelligence of different species becomes â€Å"trivial† â€Å"once neuroscientists have carried out the non-trivial task of determining the physiological basis of consciousness in animals for which no reasonable doubt of their consciousness can be entertained† (Allen, 2010). Neurofunctionalism considers the existence of neural cortex activity in primates as â€Å"the most plausible candidate for being the neural correlate of phenomenal consciousness in these species† (Allen, 2010). In â€Å"On a Confusion About a Function of Consciousness,† N. Block associates phenomenal consciousness with brain processes in certain higher-level perc eptual representations. â€Å"Since the evidence for Name 3 such processes is at least partially derived from animals, including other primates and rats, (Block’s) view is supportive of the that phenomenal consciousness is found in some nonhuman species (presumably most mammals)† (Allen, 2010). Other â€Å"first-order† theories take a more direct line, including representationalism, which insists that an animal’s ability to perceive its surroundings equates to conscious awareness. Aristotle and Locke took a