Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

Yes, although the unfortunate monster never enjoyed a taste of Eden, but instead woke up in hell. Tough gig.

The monster is apparently an expression of Mary Shelley's life struggles, especially with infant mortality. There was also a message about science being conducted incautiously, with humans not properly respecting the awesome forces of nature. She was probably the first. Since the, countless others operating in the horror and sci-fi genres have a theme of "science gone mad".

Dr Frankenstein would have been literature's first mad scientist ... if you don't count God

Dr Frankenstein's God is the wrong god. The right God includes natural human feelings of pity and caring, feelings which are self evident experiences and truly axiomatic of universal God. The wrong God is so-called reason which excludes inborn feelings of pity and caring for what is other than oneself.

If we feel pity for Frankenstein's monster we are feeling pity for men who have lost touch with their inborn humanity and have created inhuman systems such as commercial profit.

London

I wander thro' each charter'd street,
Near where the charter'd Thames does flow.
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear

How the Chimney-sweepers cry
Every blackning Church appalls,
And the hapless Soldiers sigh
Runs in blood down Palace walls

But most thro' midnight streets I hear
How the youthful Harlots curse
Blasts the new-born Infants tear
And blights with plagues the Marriage hearse

William Blake

[Sushan]

Sometimes creations dominate their creators. Consider the monolithic structures that humanity creates - cities, corporations, economies, technologies, societies - institutions and phenomena that control us, rather than the other way around. And, often, it's the creators revolting against the control exerted on them by their creations, rather than the other way around.

Is it really a dominance over the creators? I see it like the humans (the creation) have become creators themselves, and creating stuff for their own selves rather than waiting for someone else to do it. Maybe the value of the old creator is gone now because the humans can create things. But is it really a exertion of control over the creator by the creation?

Theists might see it as a hierarchy of creation. Really, if we want to credit anything for our creation, I'd put the Sun first, then Earth, then the Moon, then life on Earth, then humanity, then family. Some would place "culture" between humanity and family, and others may point to the Milky Way's role in our becoming too.

And now we are creating ever smarter and more capable technology. I would agree that there's a feedback loop of control between humans and their creations, but there's growing areas of technological dominance as ever more jobs are replaced by machines and algorithms.

I agree. It is what we have found so far scientifically. Our solar system was the base of our lives. And the rest of the universe was the base for our solar system. The creators supported our very existence so far (and still supporting), and now we are creating things that will shift that support from our natural creators to those man-made things, as you said. Although there is a continous debate on replacing the nature with human-creations, it is happening.

[Sushan]

I don't know Mary Shelley's interpretation of her own creation but I see the monster as a symbol for humanity which , as created by God, has turned out to be a monster that endangers the rest of God's creation. For this reason Frankenstein qua God who is a moral being must pursue and try to extinguish the evil any which way.

I think what you have mentioned is the popular interpretation that many have given to this story. Even in the story of Noah's arc the God did the same thing by extinguishing all the humans excluding Noah because what the humans have become was unacceptable to the God. The behaviour of the monster was unacceptable to Frankenstein and harmful to the rest of the society. So he had to take necessary action.

[Sushan]

Yes, although the unfortunate monster never enjoyed a taste of Eden, but instead woke up in hell. Tough gig.

The monster is apparently an expression of Mary Shelley's life struggles, especially with infant mortality. There was also a message about science being conducted incautiously, with humans not properly respecting the awesome forces of nature. She was probably the first. Since the, countless others operating in the horror and sci-fi genres have a theme of "science gone mad".

Dr Frankenstein would have been literature's first mad scientist ... if you don't count God

I do not think Mary Shelley got her idea about a monster raised by a human from nowhere. People actually thought (and some of them actually experimented)on such unusual, yet interesting subjects. Maybe Dr. Frankenstein is the first mad scientist who got popular.

[Sushan]

Yes, although the unfortunate monster never enjoyed a taste of Eden, but instead woke up in hell. Tough gig.

The monster is apparently an expression of Mary Shelley's life struggles, especially with infant mortality. There was also a message about science being conducted incautiously, with humans not properly respecting the awesome forces of nature. She was probably the first. Since the, countless others operating in the horror and sci-fi genres have a theme of "science gone mad".

Dr Frankenstein would have been literature's first mad scientist ... if you don't count God

Dr Frankenstein's God is the wrong god. The right God includes natural human feelings of pity and caring, feelings which are self evident experiences and truly axiomatic of universal God. The wrong God is so-called reason which excludes inborn feelings of pity and caring for what is other than oneself.

If we feel pity for Frankenstein's monster we are feeling pity for men who have lost touch with their inborn humanity and have created inhuman systems such as commercial profit.

London

I wander thro' each charter'd street,
Near where the charter'd Thames does flow.
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear

How the Chimney-sweepers cry
Every blackning Church appalls,
And the hapless Soldiers sigh
Runs in blood down Palace walls

But most thro' midnight streets I hear
How the youthful Harlots curse
Blasts the new-born Infants tear
And blights with plagues the Marriage hearse

William Blake

What Dr. Frankenstein could not do was giving emotions and feelings to his creation. And that is why he created a monster rather than resurrecting a human being. Maybe Mary Shelley did not want to make Dr. Frankenstein equal to the God.

[Belindi]

I don't know Mary Shelley's interpretation of her own creation but I see the monster as a symbol for humanity which , as created by God, has turned out to be a monster that endangers the rest of God's creation. For this reason Frankenstein qua God who is a moral being must pursue and try to extinguish the evil any which way.

I think what you have mentioned is the popular interpretation that many have given to this story. Even in the story of Noah's arc the God did the same thing by extinguishing all the humans excluding Noah because what the humans have become was unacceptable to the God. The behaviour of the monster was unacceptable to Frankenstein and harmful to the rest of the society. So he had to take necessary action.

I agree the story of Noah and the Flood is also about sinful man and God's contrition regarding His own creation. The difference between the Biblical story of Noah's Flood, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is that in the Biblical story God makes covenant with Noah that allows us to hope we are redeemable; whereas in the Frankenstein story there is no promise that Dr Frankenstein will ever catch and reform his sinful creation. I don't remember any rainbow at the end of Shelley's story.

The author of Noah's Flood believed in and trusted God: Mary Shelley was atheist but humanist.

[Good_Egg]

Why do we see this tendency of revolting against the creator more often, without giving the respect and showing the obedience (as necessary) towards the creator?

I think we don't have a clear and well-founded idea of how much respect and obedience is owed to a Creator.

And that's because creating a thinking being is inherently boundary-crossing, transgressive of the categories we use to think about the world.

Natural or intuitive ideas of rights over the thing that one has made conflict with natural or intuitive ideas of duties to another thinking being.

[Phil222]

I was thinking about frank being an artificial intelligence and in his questioning of being and creation to his master would he himself want to create a similar companion forhimself or would he feel his creation would question his ideologies on creating this being forhimself selfish. The gift of life comes into question when you were made for a purpose without having the thought of freewill. (God creates man)(Man creates Frank)(Frank creates Friend) do they learn and grow with eachother or grow apart. Time tells their hardships and strengths so maybe they grasp the concepts of knowledge together and share the commonwealth of friendship into a lives kindering eachothers spirit.

[Sushan]

I was thinking about frank being an artificial intelligence and in his questioning of being and creation to his master would he himself want to create a similar companion forhimself or would he feel his creation would question his ideologies on creating this being forhimself selfish. The gift of life comes into question when you were made for a purpose without having the thought of freewill. (God creates man)(Man creates Frank)(Frank creates Friend) do they learn and grow with eachother or grow apart. Time tells their hardships and strengths so maybe they grasp the concepts of knowledge together and share the commonwealth of friendship into a lives kindering eachothers spirit.

Thank you for your insightful thoughts. The parallel you've drawn between the progression of God creating man, man creating Frank, and then Frank potentially creating a friend, illuminates an interesting aspect of the nature of creation and creator. Your postulation indeed extends the conversation to the realm of artificial intelligence, suggesting a layered complexity to our understanding of the roles of creators and creations.

In each stage of this progression, the creation gains an additional layer of complexity, possibly culminating in the creation acquiring the capacity for creation itself. This introduces a dynamic aspect to the relationship between creator and creation. However, it's worth considering, as you've suggested, whether the subsequent creation would emulate the previous creation's "rebellion", or whether, having been born of creation rather than creator, its relationship with its progenitor would take a different form.

The question of whether creations inevitably revolt or if they are capable of peaceful coexistence with their creators remains. As we've seen, these relationships can be fraught with tension, especially if the creation begins to question the purpose of its existence or its inherent lack of free will. So, is this tendency towards revolt a fundamental aspect of the creator-creation dynamic, or is it contingent upon how the creator treats its creation?

[Sushan]

Why do we see this tendency of revolting against the creator more often, without giving the respect and showing the obedience (as necessary) towards the creator?

I think we don't have a clear and well-founded idea of how much respect and obedience is owed to a Creator.

And that's because creating a thinking being is inherently boundary-crossing, transgressive of the categories we use to think about the world.

Natural or intuitive ideas of rights over the thing that one has made conflict with natural or intuitive ideas of duties to another thinking being.

Your point about the inherent boundary-crossing nature of creating a thinking being adds a significant dimension to this discussion. Indeed, when we create something that can think and perceive the world independently, the usual categories we employ to navigate our relationships can become blurred and complicated.

You've rightly pointed out the tension between the rights over what one has made and the duties towards another thinking being. This dichotomy underscores the complexities of the creator-creation relationship. In some respects, a creator might feel a sense of ownership over their creation, especially if considerable effort and resources were put into its making. However, the moment that creation exhibits consciousness or independent thought, the creator's duties to respect that autonomy might supersede their initial rights of ownership.

One might wonder whether this tension is the root cause for the frequent instances of creations rebelling against their creators. If a creation perceives its creator as overstepping bounds or not respecting its autonomy, it might respond by resisting or revolting. Conversely, a creator might revolt against their creation when they feel that their rights are being ignored or violated.

How much respect and obedience does a creation owe its creator? Is this obligation fixed, or can it evolve over time as the creation grows and develops? Can a creation ever truly break free from its creator, or will there always be some form of attachment or obligation?

[Sushan]

I don't know Mary Shelley's interpretation of her own creation but I see the monster as a symbol for humanity which , as created by God, has turned out to be a monster that endangers the rest of God's creation. For this reason Frankenstein qua God who is a moral being must pursue and try to extinguish the evil any which way.

I think what you have mentioned is the popular interpretation that many have given to this story. Even in the story of Noah's arc the God did the same thing by extinguishing all the humans excluding Noah because what the humans have become was unacceptable to the God. The behaviour of the monster was unacceptable to Frankenstein and harmful to the rest of the society. So he had to take necessary action.

I agree the story of Noah and the Flood is also about sinful man and God's contrition regarding His own creation. The difference between the Biblical story of Noah's Flood, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is that in the Biblical story God makes covenant with Noah that allows us to hope we are redeemable; whereas in the Frankenstein story there is no promise that Dr Frankenstein will ever catch and reform his sinful creation. I don't remember any rainbow at the end of Shelley's story.

The author of Noah's Flood believed in and trusted God: Mary Shelley was atheist but humanist.

Your comparison between the story of Noah's Flood and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein offers some valuable insights. Indeed, the crucial difference seems to be in the potential for redemption: in the Biblical account, humanity is given a second chance through Noah and the covenant with God, whereas in Shelley's narrative, the monster's fate seems far more uncertain.

The divergence in outlook might reflect the philosophical beliefs of the respective authors, as you pointed out. The biblical author believed in divine justice and mercy, leading to a narrative imbued with hope for redemption. On the other hand, Shelley, as an atheist and a humanist, perhaps conceived a world where actions have dire, irreversible consequences and where redemption isn't a divine promise but a human struggle.

This then brings us to an interesting question: could the monster ever be reformed in Shelley's universe? If there were no divine promise of redemption, would it be up to the monster and Dr. Frankenstein to find a way towards reconciliation and reformation? Could the essence of humanism lie in this struggle for self-improvement, even in the absence of divine assurance?