I believe that the quest for knowledge is benificial on many levels. One quest is to cure curiosity, such as a curiosity for ancient history or nature. However when that quest takes over your life and it is your only focus it can become dangerous. The quest for knowledge is something we all do, when we go to school or even make sure we have found the perfect college for our future that will insure us a good -education- for our future beyond that. The quest is benificial for getting a good career and even traveling. In the case of Frankenstein this quest was benificial for his curiosity. The quest, however, led him to create life which then led him to freak out only because he was not pleased by the apperance of the creature.
A quest for knowledge is beneficial your motivation is clear and innocent. I don't think that seeking knowledge is beneficial when one is only doing so to gain acceptance or popularity. It is more beneficial if a person is seeking knowledge in order to learn and better themeself. A person should be able to realize whether or not the knowledge they are gainig is beneficial to them or not. I think that this is where Victor is lacking in Frankenstein. First of all, his quest for knowledge is based on his want of the acceptance and praise of his peers, and he doesn't realize that the information that he is gaining is potentially harmful to hinself and the rest of humanity. An example of when the quest for knowledge is beneficial is right after the creature is created. He seeks knowledge of his environment and senses in order the better himself but not for false reasons such as fame.
The quest for knowledge is interesting to me because I enjoy the persuit of knowledge myself, but I would say a quest for knowledge is beneficial when the goal of the quest is unselfish (not aimed at glory or power), is meant for the sake of knowing or for the benefit of mankind, and has little potential for being destructive when reached. Heron of Alexandria, Archimedes, Aristotle, Leonardo DaVinci, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon et al embarked on quests for knowledge to understand the mechanical laws that governed the functioning of the world we live in for the betterment of mankind, and their quests were indeed beneficial (except for Aristotle's - he was an idiot) because their goals were unselfish, were meant for the betterment of mankind (to a certain degree) and held little to no potential for destruction (except for Archimedes' - his machines killed thousands). Others, such as Kung Fu-tzu, Siddhartha Gautama, Matsuo Basho and Lao-tzu embarked on quests for knowledge for the sake of knowing, and their goals were not detrimental, were unselfish (they wanted no glory or power) and held almost no potential for destruction; they merely wished to find answers and spread what they found to those who wished to listen, making their quests arguably beneficial. Victor Frankenstein's quest maintained a selfish goal that held a lot of potential for destruction (obviously reaching a goal of imparting life upon an inanimate being holds great potential for destruction and general detriment to mankind, as seen in the novel). Another example is the god Wotan from Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen, who searched for the sacred knowledge of the World Ash Tree; he got the knowledge he searched for, but he ended up destroying the gods in the process in Götterdämmerung. Wotan's search was selfish and the knowledge he recieved was destructive, as it harkened his own downfall as well as that of the other gods when he inadvertently killed the tree. So a quest for knowledge is beneficial when the goal of the quest is unselfish and holds little potential of being destructive to either the questor, other people, or both; it's all in the intention of the searcher, and if the intention is selfish at heart and is something most would consider foolish and probably destructive to begin with, the quest isn't beneficial.
Have done with learning, And you will have no more vexation. -Lao-tzu, Tao Teh Ching, Section 20
I think that the quest for knowledge can never be something bad. The bad thing is the person's intentions. If Victor just kept his experiments inside his head instead of following through with them, he would be an okay guy. But he had to experiment and create life and that is where he failed. The quest for knowledge is only learning about it, but the curiosity and power seeking hunger pushed Victor into action.
4 comments:
I believe that the quest for knowledge is benificial on many levels. One quest is to cure curiosity, such as a curiosity for ancient history or nature. However when that quest takes over your life and it is your only focus it can become dangerous. The quest for knowledge is something we all do, when we go to school or even make sure we have found the perfect college for our future that will insure us a good -education- for our future beyond that. The quest is benificial for getting a good career and even traveling. In the case of Frankenstein this quest was benificial for his curiosity. The quest, however, led him to create life which then led him to freak out only because he was not pleased by the apperance of the creature.
A quest for knowledge is beneficial your motivation is clear and innocent. I don't think that seeking knowledge is beneficial when one is only doing so to gain acceptance or popularity. It is more beneficial if a person is seeking knowledge in order to learn and better themeself. A person should be able to realize whether or not the knowledge they are gainig is beneficial to them or not. I think that this is where Victor is lacking in Frankenstein. First of all, his quest for knowledge is based on his want of the acceptance and praise of his peers, and he doesn't realize that the information that he is gaining is potentially harmful to hinself and the rest of humanity. An example of when the quest for knowledge is beneficial is right after the creature is created. He seeks knowledge of his environment and senses in order the better himself but not for false reasons such as fame.
The quest for knowledge is interesting to me because I enjoy the persuit of knowledge myself, but I would say a quest for knowledge is beneficial when the goal of the quest is unselfish (not aimed at glory or power), is meant for the sake of knowing or for the benefit of mankind, and has little potential for being destructive when reached. Heron of Alexandria, Archimedes, Aristotle, Leonardo DaVinci, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon et al embarked on quests for knowledge to understand the mechanical laws that governed the functioning of the world we live in for the betterment of mankind, and their quests were indeed beneficial (except for Aristotle's - he was an idiot) because their goals were unselfish, were meant for the betterment of mankind (to a certain degree) and held little to no potential for destruction (except for Archimedes' - his machines killed thousands). Others, such as Kung Fu-tzu, Siddhartha Gautama, Matsuo Basho and Lao-tzu embarked on quests for knowledge for the sake of knowing, and their goals were not detrimental, were unselfish (they wanted no glory or power) and held almost no potential for destruction; they merely wished to find answers and spread what they found to those who wished to listen, making their quests arguably beneficial. Victor Frankenstein's quest maintained a selfish goal that held a lot of potential for destruction (obviously reaching a goal of imparting life upon an inanimate being holds great potential for destruction and general detriment to mankind, as seen in the novel). Another example is the god Wotan from Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen, who searched for the sacred knowledge of the World Ash Tree; he got the knowledge he searched for, but he ended up destroying the gods in the process in Götterdämmerung. Wotan's search was selfish and the knowledge he recieved was destructive, as it harkened his own downfall as well as that of the other gods when he inadvertently killed the tree. So a quest for knowledge is beneficial when the goal of the quest is unselfish and holds little potential of being destructive to either the questor, other people, or both; it's all in the intention of the searcher, and if the intention is selfish at heart and is something most would consider foolish and probably destructive to begin with, the quest isn't beneficial.
Have done with learning,
And you will have no more vexation.
-Lao-tzu, Tao Teh Ching,
Section 20
I think that the quest for knowledge can never be something bad. The bad thing is the person's intentions. If Victor just kept his experiments inside his head instead of following through with them, he would be an okay guy. But he had to experiment and create life and that is where he failed. The quest for knowledge is only learning about it, but the curiosity and power seeking hunger pushed Victor into action.
Post a Comment