In the next chapter, Dawkins finds a way to explain these scientific concepts that most people would find boring and compares them with everyday examples that we can relate with and understand. He begins by saying “muscles are engines which, like the steam engine and the internal combustion engine, use energy stored in chemical fuel to generate mechanical movement.”(47) Dawkins compares our muscles and their function to machine to explain to us how these work. Later on, he compares our genes and animals to computers and how both are “programmed” to the future plans without actually having to anything. Genes are given the instruction and will always control how are body is made, with this I understood that he wanted to prove the point that genes can control behavior. I finished chapter 4 but the last thing he mentioned made me realize that this had to do with the title of the book and how we can be selfish not just because that is who we are but because of our genes. Dawkins then relates DNA to books on a shelf, “it is as though in every room of a gigantic building, there was a book-case containing the architects plans for the entire building.”(22)
As I finished reading this chapter, I found myself skimming through the pages and reading the text with no hesitation. And I wanted to conclude this blog with this idea. Dawkins wrote and executed the entire planning and incorporated the right language so that anyone could pick up the book and read it, what is interesting about the informative novel, is that you don’t really need common knowledge to comprehend the book. Dawkins is like a teacher and we are his pupils, he teaches us through the book, and I never knew I could learn so quickly through a book.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Not So Good
In the 2nd chapter of the Selfish Gene, Dawkins begins to talk about DNA. The different functions, responsibilities, and the main role that DNA plays in our bodies. Dawkins says that, “it is the most successful and productive replicator in the world.” (Chpt. 2) He states that they develop more intricate shells over time to protect themselves and their vital and complex hard work. This is true considering that all DNA molecules have substances and fluids surrounding them and fighting off infections and viruses. Like any other species, DNA had to go through a process of elimination, only the fittest and most prolific DNA were kept within that particular species and the rest diminished in quantity completely. This terminology is now known as Natural Selection. And natural selection will continue to occur as times passes and our bodies will adapt and flourish.
According to Dawkins, "Genes are competing directly with their alleles for survival . . . Any gene that that behaves in such a way as to increase its own survival chances in a gene pool at the expense of its alleles will, by definition, tautologously (true by virtue of logic alone), tend to survive. The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (Dawkins 36). Upon reading this I began to think of the irony in what Dawkins tells us, as children we are taught that God was the maker of heaven and earth and that he is all good and everything he makes is beautiful etc. I guess not, according to Dawkins, of course. As we see here, he tells us that even in our microorganisms we are selfish and violent. And if everything that God made were good than we wouldn’t see this. It also shows that many aspects of our life are life even though they aren’t expected, are corrupted and bloodthirsty.
According to Dawkins, "Genes are competing directly with their alleles for survival . . . Any gene that that behaves in such a way as to increase its own survival chances in a gene pool at the expense of its alleles will, by definition, tautologously (true by virtue of logic alone), tend to survive. The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (Dawkins 36). Upon reading this I began to think of the irony in what Dawkins tells us, as children we are taught that God was the maker of heaven and earth and that he is all good and everything he makes is beautiful etc. I guess not, according to Dawkins, of course. As we see here, he tells us that even in our microorganisms we are selfish and violent. And if everything that God made were good than we wouldn’t see this. It also shows that many aspects of our life are life even though they aren’t expected, are corrupted and bloodthirsty.
Altruistic Views
As I read the title of the book, Selfish Gene, the size of the font, and the description of the content, I filled myself with courage to commence reading because I imagined it would be a very monotonous and difficult book to read. Surprisingly, it isn’t up until now. I have actually been enjoying the book and have been reading with much enthusiasm, I find that the book is written very simply, not to say that its simple in context but its language isn’t so complicated and isn’t filled with scientific jargon. The diction seems intended for all audience, making it smoother to read.
In Selfish Gene, Dawkins talks about how we are condemned to being selfish because it is part of our biological system, unfortunately. I have always thought that there had to be some scientific explanation to our acts, why have we always been the way we are? What is the reason behind it? According to the book: our genes. In order to change this, and break the cycle we have to become altruistic, unselfish. In my opinion it’s a mission impossible. Dawkins says, “Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.” (pg. 3) I’m not so sure if I understand Dawkins in this anecdote, he says that if we, as a society, as a whole cooperate and work together than we should expect little beneficial interference from nature. I would have to disagree in that we will always have to take nature into consideration for all our actions. And like I stated above I feel it is an unreachable goal to try to pertain a peaceful world, because there will always be evil characters in our lives, selfish people.
He says that people fight and kill just to “protect” or “defend” our nation, regardless if we are fighting against our own species, “Moreover, they are encouraged to kill other individuals about whom nothing is known except that they belong to a different nation.” (pg.9) This bewilders me. I consider myself incapable of killing another human being, no matter where he’s from or what he’s done, when does it become my right to destroy something that I didn’t build. If this selfishness comes in our genes, is there a way to take it out? With this said, I also feel that at times it is necessary to defend ourselves and we are all entitled to protect our rights when they are taken from us or when we feel threatened, a perfect example: war.
In Selfish Gene, Dawkins talks about how we are condemned to being selfish because it is part of our biological system, unfortunately. I have always thought that there had to be some scientific explanation to our acts, why have we always been the way we are? What is the reason behind it? According to the book: our genes. In order to change this, and break the cycle we have to become altruistic, unselfish. In my opinion it’s a mission impossible. Dawkins says, “Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.” (pg. 3) I’m not so sure if I understand Dawkins in this anecdote, he says that if we, as a society, as a whole cooperate and work together than we should expect little beneficial interference from nature. I would have to disagree in that we will always have to take nature into consideration for all our actions. And like I stated above I feel it is an unreachable goal to try to pertain a peaceful world, because there will always be evil characters in our lives, selfish people.
He says that people fight and kill just to “protect” or “defend” our nation, regardless if we are fighting against our own species, “Moreover, they are encouraged to kill other individuals about whom nothing is known except that they belong to a different nation.” (pg.9) This bewilders me. I consider myself incapable of killing another human being, no matter where he’s from or what he’s done, when does it become my right to destroy something that I didn’t build. If this selfishness comes in our genes, is there a way to take it out? With this said, I also feel that at times it is necessary to defend ourselves and we are all entitled to protect our rights when they are taken from us or when we feel threatened, a perfect example: war.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
New Ideas?
On Friday we discussed and read more of Walt Whitman’s works. And Mr. Tangen told us to analyze those poems and to identify who Whitman was targeting in his poem, particularly one of America. At first, we got the impression that Whitman was appraising Americans, and he was. But then Mr. Tangen recognized the fact that he was classifying “Americans” in his poems to everyone, because essentially we are a land of immigrants, therefore, we are everyone…according to Whitman. This demeans all Americans because if he is appraising Americans, he is appraising everyone, so his tone and original connotation of his subject is not longer valid.
I found an interesting notion in poem 18 that can easily be related to what we question on Friday about him glorifying Americans. What we didn’t notice was, does he have an opinion on war? And while I read I noticed that poem 18 like I said above is about how Whitman, being an American and idolizing these people, what he thinks of war? Does he talk about it in any of his poems? Yes.
“ Vivas to those who have fail’d!
And to those whose war-vessels sank in the sea!
And to those themselves who sank in the sea!
And to all generals that lost engagements! and all overcome heroes!
And the numberless unknown heroes, equal to the greatest heroes known. ”
Here we see a clear statement of war. The odd thing about this is, like we’ve analyzed already he exalted the American people. With this in mind, we would think that he would talk only of the Americans and their past history: all the wars, the battles, skirmishes, their victories, and finally their vital independence. But he doesn’t, he does the complete opposite, “ And the numberless unkown heroes, equal to the greatest heroes known.” Here he is equalizing both the unknown soldiers, which can give the implication of the opposing soldiers, and the “greatest soldiers known” which implies the glorious ones. Taking all these things into account, I was puzzled when I read the first line of the stanza Whitman writes, “Vivas to those who have fail’d!” I didn’t know what to think anymore, because not so long ago we had established that he was elevating everyone from the rest, but still if he had this mentality than why would he celebrate the failure of those who failed? Might he have been degrading the Americans self-centered egos once again? After evaluating a couple of pieces of Whitman and seeing an Anti-American trend, could he really be against them?
I found an interesting notion in poem 18 that can easily be related to what we question on Friday about him glorifying Americans. What we didn’t notice was, does he have an opinion on war? And while I read I noticed that poem 18 like I said above is about how Whitman, being an American and idolizing these people, what he thinks of war? Does he talk about it in any of his poems? Yes.
“ Vivas to those who have fail’d!
And to those whose war-vessels sank in the sea!
And to those themselves who sank in the sea!
And to all generals that lost engagements! and all overcome heroes!
And the numberless unknown heroes, equal to the greatest heroes known. ”
Here we see a clear statement of war. The odd thing about this is, like we’ve analyzed already he exalted the American people. With this in mind, we would think that he would talk only of the Americans and their past history: all the wars, the battles, skirmishes, their victories, and finally their vital independence. But he doesn’t, he does the complete opposite, “ And the numberless unkown heroes, equal to the greatest heroes known.” Here he is equalizing both the unknown soldiers, which can give the implication of the opposing soldiers, and the “greatest soldiers known” which implies the glorious ones. Taking all these things into account, I was puzzled when I read the first line of the stanza Whitman writes, “Vivas to those who have fail’d!” I didn’t know what to think anymore, because not so long ago we had established that he was elevating everyone from the rest, but still if he had this mentality than why would he celebrate the failure of those who failed? Might he have been degrading the Americans self-centered egos once again? After evaluating a couple of pieces of Whitman and seeing an Anti-American trend, could he really be against them?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Chapters 6, 7, and 8
WHAT? I couldn't believe that Pangloss actually died! That was my reaction when I read that our dear educator was hung for his beliefs and opinions. Again we see Voltaire targeting the optimist people, we see here that Pangloss was a very altruist person, very humble man. Here is perfect example of the satire that Voltaire obviously possesses, Voltaire writes, "Candide was flogged in time with the anthem; the Basque and the two men who refused to eat bacon were burnt; and Pangloss was hanged, though that was not the usual practice on those occasions. The same day another earthquake ocurred and caused tremendous havoc." (37) Here we see that after Candide's flogging, after the Basque and those two men incendiary death, and Pangloss hung we see no sign of compassion, no sign of mourn for these people, the sentence follows with a informative fact of what usually doesn't happen and that another earthquake occurred. We see again that Voltaire's satirical side can be almost offending and unforgiveable. We see another example of Voltaire's satire in the Candide's flogging, Candide is flogged for merely agreeing with what Pangloss taught. It is satire because of the level of exaggeration in which Voltaire describes it to us. I'm very anxious to see what happens next in this satirical journey that Candide has embarked on and can't wait to read more of Voltaire ridiculous ideas!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Just Brilliant
Pretty funny thought: most of us probably came home today and were bummed out that Mr. Tangen had left us homework; read Walt Whitman. We probably thought it was going to be some absurd writer who probably didn’t do much in his life, a man that stayed in his basement and just wrote poems. Ridiculous I might suggest, and I choose the word ridiculous not only for its definition but simply because it just sounds right, ridiculous. As I read Walt Whitman on my 2-by-2 desk, sitting in front of my computer, eyes instinctively attached to the screen, immediately after reading the first few words, “I CELEBRATE myself;” (LoG; W.W.) Genius. Who would have ever thought that a poem writer would have the courage to begin his montage of poems in this manner, just brilliant. Or could it be a mock-like gesture? The audacity to appraise himself in that manner. I think that he not only represents “style” on so many different levels, he is the embodiment of what each writer should strive for, originality. He then proceeds in this manner, “And what I assume you shall assume; (LoG;W.W.) I gazed for a while, and began to think that the repetition was radiantly calling for attention and that’s what I focused on when reading, “what I assume you shall assume.” Speechless. It’s almost as if Whitman planned to do this, almost as if he juxtaposed these words so that they left the reader in admiration. Or could it be coincidence? Naaa, it couldn’t be. Or? Maybe, it was Withman’s wittiness that actually got something right. Whichever it may happen to be is unclear to me, I will never figure this out. So I did the obvious, turned my Ipod off, logged out of Facebook, closed my laptop shut, slowly sealed my eyes with my eye lids, and went to sleep.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Chapters 3-5 Of Candide
Voltaire must have written Candide for one reason or another, but this reasoning is ambiguous to me. Like we’ve seen many times throughout the beginning of this book, Voltaire uses satire and humor to give out his message to his viewers. An example where we see Voltaire targeting a group of people is in this conversation in between Candide and the minister, Voltaire writes, “ ‘Do you believe that the Pope is Antichrist, my friend?’ said the minister. ‘I have never heard anyone say so, ‘ replied Candide; ‘but whether he is or he isn’t. I want some food.’ ‘You don’t deserve to eat,’ said the other. ‘Be off with you, you villain, you wretch ! Don’t come near me again or you’ll suffer for it.’ (Voltaire pg. 27) Here we evidently see Voltaire targeting the church. He satirizes about stubbornness that the Church has towards people who are against or aren’t for them.
We are introduced to a peculiar character named James, the Anabaptist. James is an altruistic character and I noticed again, that Voltaire attacks the altruistic, optimistic people in this world. He does this because James tries to save a very “excited sailor who struck him a violent blow”(Voltaire 32)and the sailor lost his balance and almost fell overboard, James being the altruistic hero turns and saves the helpless sailor, when all of a sudden he slips and falls into the sea. The very selfish sailor doesn’t bother helping James who a few seconds earlier had saved his poor life. Voltaire again is targeting the Church, specifically Christian morals, the uselessness of being kind to everyone. He also criticizes the altruist, James, who doesn’t offer any good to society; in turn he is a victim of his own altruism.
We are introduced to a peculiar character named James, the Anabaptist. James is an altruistic character and I noticed again, that Voltaire attacks the altruistic, optimistic people in this world. He does this because James tries to save a very “excited sailor who struck him a violent blow”(Voltaire 32)and the sailor lost his balance and almost fell overboard, James being the altruistic hero turns and saves the helpless sailor, when all of a sudden he slips and falls into the sea. The very selfish sailor doesn’t bother helping James who a few seconds earlier had saved his poor life. Voltaire again is targeting the Church, specifically Christian morals, the uselessness of being kind to everyone. He also criticizes the altruist, James, who doesn’t offer any good to society; in turn he is a victim of his own altruism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
