Socratic Seminar 2

The author seems to stress about the fact that science itself is just knowledge, and therefore, morally neutral. The application of that knowledge is what should be considered good or bad, not science itself. Science is knowledge, and knowledge can only "be", it cannot have an intention, how ever, people see it to be evil along with the scientists that seek this knowledge. It is understandable how people view it to be evil, after all it was science that lead to the creation of weapons of mass destruction. However, it is also science that has provided use with everyday utilities, the light bulb, cars, television sets, phones, etc. Scientists are the pursuers of knowledge, while others seek the application of that knowledge. For example, if a scientist says, "we have discovered an element that could possible lead to the cure of cancer." The people world wide would be only interested in the idea, not the idea itself. Scientists are there to make discoveries, not to say, "If you have a problem, we can solve it for you." I was quite shocked on how much I agreed with the author, if people could come to understand his views (of which I think is great), they would be able to stop blaming scientists if their discoveries went wrong and instead, the people that used it for evil. For example, shortly after the theory of the adam was theorized, the adam bomb was built and used to level many lives during the Second World War. The blame? It was directed at the people who discovered the adam, not the ones who used the bomb for their own profit. Scientists are like little children, discovering knew things is like a child opening a present on Christmas Day.

What is more important, science or moral?

Does science benefit or degrade humanity as a whole?

Could science and moral work together? If so, why?

Oryx and Crake Question

5. If you had the chance to fabricate an improved human being, would you do it? If so, what features would you choose to incorporate? Why would these be better than what we've got? Your model must of course be biologically viable.


If i had the chance to fabricate an improved human being, I would definitely not let such an opportunity pass. With medical at its peak, and advancing nano technology, the "perfect man", would not be impossible to create. Legality is the only wall between us and the "perfect man". If it were to be legal I would definitely improve a human being. First of all, I would add genes that allow faster regeneration, or healing if you will, of organs, tissues, and bones. I would keep the appearance of a normal human being, but adding genes that would improve physic, for example, the genes of a cheetah for speed and agility, the genes of a tiger for strength, and the genes of a deer for sharp senses. I would also genetically modify this persons immune system and make it stronger so that they would not be able to attract known diseases such as, leukaemia, types of cancer, etc. However, I would leave the brain alone, the brain itself is a mystery to us, and to play around with something so powerful and dangerous seems to be unwise. This would be much better than what we have right now because factors that would normally claim our lives would be greatly reduced. Disease and global pandemics would no longer be a problem. Sharp senses, speed, and strength would be able to protect us from people that bear ill will. Improved organ and tissue regeneration would allow people to visit hospitals less so the emergency rooms would not the crowded, and it could even possibly be able to prolong life spans. The possibilities are endless.


http://www.the-eleventh.com/files/hires_human.jpg


As you can see, there are no signs of any physical abnormalities. Unlike what many people think a modified human should look like (usually some kind of beast like figure), this man looks just like any other human being despite having genetic modifications.

Wordle

<a href="http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2569284/jlseixhjdlgggga201840235u" 
          title="Wordle: jlseixhjdlgggga201840235u"><img
          src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/2569284/jlseixhjdlgggga201840235u"
          alt="Wordle: jlseixhjdlgggga201840235u"
          style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd"></a>

Billy Budd questions 4

2. How is the burial of Claggart ironic?  What feelings and ideas does this burial conjure for you, the reader?

            The irony of Claggart’s burial is that he, the evil one, had a proper and formal burial at sea, while Billy, the kind and innocent one, is to be hanged for his crime. Claggart, someone who has never done anything good in his life, receives such respect in his death, while Billy receives absolutely nothing. It is as if Claggart will laugh at Billy’s misfortune in his grave and saying, “I got my way after all Billy.” This gives the reader a sense of injustice and makes the reader despise the past society as a whole for its unjust actions.

http://www.halloweenmania.co.uk/images/laughing-skullhead.gif

A picture of a skull laughing, this represents that even in death, Claggart laughs at Billy’s misfortune.

4. What is the significance of Billy’s last words?  How does it connect to themes and symbolism in the text? 

In Billy’s last words, “God bless Captain Vere!” is ironic because he is so innocent and oblivious that even if Captain Vere was basically the cause of his sentence, he still has complete respect and trust for his captain. He does not realize that Captain Vere was the man who drove the court to Billy’s sentence, and of course does not blame his captain one single bit. He is thankful for Captain Vere's hospitality during the time he was on the Bellipotent, and is forever loyal and trusting towards his captain.

http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/funny-dog-pictures-loyalty-forever.jpg?w=492&h=442

A picture of a dog that is forever loyal to its owner.

Socratic Seminar

The importance of this passage seems to be on the topic of “self respect”. This term can be defined in numerous ways, but I would never have expected the author to define it as something so deep rooted. “Self respect” to most people can be seen as pride, but for the author, it is something much than that, it is something that is rooted in humanity itself and defines who we are. Although I cannot see this having connections to any “big ideas” so far, it could be brought to attention as a new concept of philosophy and could make pretty large impacts if taken into further studies, but the only thing is that I cannot tell if the impacts from this “idea” will be beneficial or not. In this reading, the one thing I do not understand is the concept of “alienation from self”, first of all, how are the examples provided alienation from self? For example, “we no longer answer the telephone, because someone might want something;” I cannot see it as alienation from self but rather alienation from others. I like how this passage starts our, but as it nears the end, it wavers from its original point. In the beginning, the author talks about how it is centered on the “self”, but as it gets near the end, the author starts using “self respect” as an offensive maneuver against others, and turns it into a “battle strategy”. From life experiences, we tend to raise ourselves above others to make it seem like “we” are the best, and “they” are not, this would be one example in a real life situation.

Questions:

1.    Why does the author start in one direction and suddenly write off into a different direction?

2.    How is “self respect” connected to “alienation from self”?

3.    Is “self respect” courage?

Billy Budd Comments

Billy Budd questions 3

5. What is the tragedy of Chapter 19?  Do you sympathize with Billy Budd?  Why or why not?

            The tragedy of Chapter 19 is the fact that Claggart goes to Vere and accuses Billy of mutiny, Billy was given the chance to speak in his own defense, but his innocence disallowed for him to do that. Instead of conveying himself with words, he used his fists, and punched Claggart in the forehead, which ended up killing him. I do not sympathize with Billy because I simply could not understand the reason for his actions, he never explained why he did what he did, or speak up when he was given the chance. In the end, he resorted to violence and killed Claggart; an action taken that was completely unnecessary. Also, he had been warned numerous times that Claggart had no good intentions towards him, and instead of listening, he brushed it aside, he did not even consider the slightest possibility of there being truth in the warnings. In the end, he was betrayed by his own good nature and innocence. It really goes to show that people should take what has been said into consideration, instead of brushing it off as a joke right away.

http://allenglish.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/inoneear1.jpg

This picture shows words going in one ear and out the other.

7. Is justice served for Billy Budd?  Why or why not?  Who is to be thanked or blamed for the decisions of the court?

            In this case, justice is served, but just not for Billy. Although Billy is good natured and innocent, it did not stop him from killing Claggart, even if it was not intentional, his fists were the cause of death for a fellow shipmate. If one kills, one would have to receive some sort of punishment, although death by hanging is quite unsightly for a man such as Billy Budd, it still is a form of justice for the victim. No one is to be thanked or blamed for the courts decisions, the term “Justice is blind” is not just a saying; it really applies in this case. Although Captain Vere could have said something to the court to persuade them to pass a lighter sentence of the accused, he did not do anything. I think that Vere just wanted justice to be served for the dead, and it did not matter what would happen to Billy, and in the end, justice became the winner.

http://theoldgiftshop.com/images/figurines/MD7099.JPG

This picture shows that Lady Justice is blindfolded.