1. (p. 27): Oh, tell me, who was it first announced, who was it first proclaimed, that man only does nasty things because he does not know his own interests; and that if he were enlightened, if his eyes were opened to his real normal interests, man would at once cease to do nasty things, would at once become good and noble because, being enlightened and understanding his real advantage, he would see his own advantage in the good and nothing else, and we all know that not one man can, consciously, act against his own interests, consequently, so to say, through necessity, he would begin doing good?
(a) Explain the above quote
(b) Why does the Underground Man think the person who holds this view is a pure, innocent child?
(c) i. Is he right? ii. Think of instances in your own life where you knowingly acted against your own interests. How do you explain why you did this?
2. (p. 30): I want to compromise myself personally, and therefore I boldly declare that all these fine systems, all these theories for explaining to mankind their real normal interests, in order that inevitably striving to pursue these interests they may at once become good and noble— are, in my opinion, so far, mere logical exercises!
(a) Explain
(b) Do you agree or disagree? Why?
3. (p. 31): The only gain of civilisation for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations— and absolutely nothing more. And through the development of this many- sidedness man may come to finding enjoyment in bloodshed. In fact, this has already happened to him. Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary and have become so familiar to us. In any case civilisation has made mankind if not more bloodthirsty, at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty. In old days he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at peace exterminated those he thought proper. Now we do think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more energy than ever.
(a) i. Explain the passage and ii. how it functions in relation with the quote in question (2).
(b) Do you agree or disagree? Why?
(c) In respect to the last sentence, the author asks "which is worse?". What do you think?
4. (a) What is the Crystal Palace? (p. 32)
5. (p. 33) Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation.
(a) Explain
(b) Can you think of current events or personal events that would support this view?
(c) If so, what does that say about human nature, technology, ethics, and politics?
VIII
Dennett on telling people they don't have free will.
1. (p. 35) Indeed, if there really is some day discovered a formula for all our desires and caprices—that is, an explanation of what they depend upon, by what laws they arise, how they develop, what they are aiming at in one case and in another and so on, that is a real mathematical formula—then, most likely, man will at once cease to feel desire, indeed, he will be certain to. For who would want to choose by rule? Besides, he will at once be transformed from a human being into an organ-stop or something of the sort; for what is a man without desires, without free will and without choice, if not a stop in an organ? What do you think? Let us reckon the chances—can such a thing happen or not?
(a) Is Dostoevsky right?
(b) Do you think it would affect people if we told them they had no free will?
2. (p. 35-36) ‘Our choice is usually mistaken from a
false view of our advantage. We sometimes choose absolute nonsense because in our foolishness we see in that nonsense
the easiest means for attaining a supposed advantage. [. . .] For if a desire should come into conflict with reason we
shall then reason and not desire, because it will be impossible
retaining our reason to be SENSELESS in our desires,
and in that way knowingly act against reason and desire
to injure ourselves.
(p. 37) You see,
gentlemen, reason is an excellent thing, there’s no disputing
that, but reason is nothing but reason and satisfies only the
rational side of man’s nature, while will is a manifestation
of the whole life, that is, of the whole human life including
reason and all the impulses. And although our life, in this
manifestation of it, is often worthless, yet it is life and not
simply extracting square roots.
(a) Explain the passages and how the 2nd is a reply to the first.
(b) Are reason and the will at odds?
(c) What do you think the respective roles of reason and the will are regarding giving meaning or value to life?
3. (p. 38) But very often, and even most often, choice
is utterly and stubbornly opposed to reason ... and ... and
... do you know that that, too, is profitable, sometimes even
praiseworthy?
(a) Why is this "stupid" caprice of ours sometimes the "most advantageous advantage"?
(b) Do you agree or disagree? Why?
(c) Sometimes the will and reason align and sometimes they pull apart. How do we decide which to follow?
4. (p. 40-41) (a) What does the history of man show?
(b) What is the "point" he must always make?
(c) What does the narrator say to the reply that science isn't trying to take away his free will, just make it align with reason?
5. (p. 39) There are continually turning up in
life moral and rational persons, sages and lovers of humanity
who make it their object to live all their lives as morally
and rationally as possible, to be, so to speak, a light to their
neighbours simply in order to show them that it is possible
to live morally and rationally in this world. And yet we all
know that those very people sooner or later have been false
to themselves, playing some queer trick, often a most unseemly
one.
(a) Can you come up with contemporary examples?
IX
1. (a) How does the author defend the view that we ought not align our will purely with reason?
(b) Who, that we've covered in our course, do you think he's referring to?
(c) Do you agree/disagree? Why?
(d) Why does the author think man so loves destruction? Explain the disanalogy between man and the ants.
(e) Do you agree/disagree? Why?
2. (p. 43). Man likes to make roads and to create, that is a fact
beyond dispute. But why has he such a passionate love for
destruction and chaos also? Tell me that!
(a) Explain.
(a) Explain.
(b) Why does the author think "man is a comical creature; there seems to be a kind of jest in it all. "
(c) What are your thoughts? Could you describe aspects of your own life this way?
3. (p. 44) And why are you so firmly, so triumphantly, convinced
that only the normal and the positive—in other words, only
what is conducive to welfare—is for the advantage of man?
(a) What else does the author think man values?
(b) Do you agree/disagree?
4. What does the author think gives life value that is not taken into account by science and reason?
No comments:
Post a Comment