Shannon Ryan
April 27, 2009
Frankenstein Blog 1
New Millennium Studies
To Rhonda,
Today In class we had to read fifty-three pages of Frankenstein. In those fifty-three pages, much of the plot’s undertone focused on the theme of companionship.
Throughout the first fifty-three chapters, the author explores many relationships between the characters. Walden writes letters to his sister Margret to pass the time in order to provide himself with company while he is alone on his journey. Elizabeth and Victor play together as children, and continue to keep correspondence as they are adults in order to appease the wish of Victor’s mother that they someday marry. The Frankenstein family is close and spends a lot of quality time together that they are upset when they are apart from each other. Examples of this include their confusion of why Victor has kept himself away from home for three years, they are devastated when Caroline, the mother risks her own life to sit at Elizabeth’s sickbed, when the youngest son William is murdered and the accuser is Justine, a friend of Elizabeth’s because it breaks their “complete” family unit.
These examples further the theme in the novel about companionship. They seem to sum up a message about companionship. This message is that we need to keep or create someone in their life who they can confide in and by doing so, will be reminded who they are.
One quote from the book that supports this theme is the quote from Walden to his sister Margret on page 10: “I have no friend Margret, when I am glowing with enthusiasm of success, there will be no one to participate my joy; if I am assailed by success, no one will endeavor to sustain me in dejection. I shall commit to my thoughts to paper, its true; but that would be a poor medium for communication and feeling. I desire the company of a man who could sympathize with me; whose eyes would reply to mine. You may deem me romantic, my sister, but I bitterly feel the want of a friend.”
With love,
~Shannon
Monday, April 27, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
April 14th homework
Shannon Ryan
April 14, 2009
The piece that I have chosen from Shaun Slifer’s website is a piece entitled “We,” which is based on the childhood tin can experiment to communicate with a tin can and a string like some sort of phone. I think what draws me to this sculpture is that it reminds me of the games I used to play with my friends as a child. I think because I have used the method of communication in the past, I am fascinated by the model that Slifer has built. A question that I would like Slifer is class is what was the personal reason behind this piece? I would also like to ask Shaun Slifer what did you want your audience to consider while studying this work of art?
April 14, 2009
The piece that I have chosen from Shaun Slifer’s website is a piece entitled “We,” which is based on the childhood tin can experiment to communicate with a tin can and a string like some sort of phone. I think what draws me to this sculpture is that it reminds me of the games I used to play with my friends as a child. I think because I have used the method of communication in the past, I am fascinated by the model that Slifer has built. A question that I would like Slifer is class is what was the personal reason behind this piece? I would also like to ask Shaun Slifer what did you want your audience to consider while studying this work of art?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Project 3 Proposal
Shannon Ryan
April 11, 2009
New Millennium Studies
Project #3 Proposal
For my third New Millennium Studies Project, I have decided to create a fictional, short story based off the information in the stem cell research articles (pbs.org, wgbh, nova and science now) for the Ethical Perspective Assignment.
The guiding questions that I would like my project to focus is how can an ethnical code be formed to honor the beliefs and values of the past, but still support the changing values and scientific methods of the future at the same time, even if these advancements go against the ways of the past or our religious beliefs.
The story will most likely be similar to the story of the girl with diabetes in the documentary we watched in class. The plot will focus on a young child with a serious disability or disease who is going to receive stem cell research. As the family prepares for the process, the family reflects on their hope that it will work and the negative criticism they have received from their neighbors about the process because of religious and vegetarianism beliefs. They wonders if stem cell research is the right thing to do. In the end, they decide that stem cell research is the right thing to do, because their hope that it will work is more important to them then the ways of the past or the values of others.
I will fill the story with scientific information from the articles to characterize the neighbors and their reasons against stem cell research (religious beliefs and vegetarians) as well as those characters who believe that stem cell research is the right course for the child because of the hope that it could make a difference in the child’s condition.
The undertone of this story will be to teach my audience that only they can create their ethnical code by deciding what matters to them most, what they have been taught by mentors, parents and experiences, as well as how their ethnical code guides their decisions.
April 11, 2009
New Millennium Studies
Project #3 Proposal
For my third New Millennium Studies Project, I have decided to create a fictional, short story based off the information in the stem cell research articles (pbs.org, wgbh, nova and science now) for the Ethical Perspective Assignment.
The guiding questions that I would like my project to focus is how can an ethnical code be formed to honor the beliefs and values of the past, but still support the changing values and scientific methods of the future at the same time, even if these advancements go against the ways of the past or our religious beliefs.
The story will most likely be similar to the story of the girl with diabetes in the documentary we watched in class. The plot will focus on a young child with a serious disability or disease who is going to receive stem cell research. As the family prepares for the process, the family reflects on their hope that it will work and the negative criticism they have received from their neighbors about the process because of religious and vegetarianism beliefs. They wonders if stem cell research is the right thing to do. In the end, they decide that stem cell research is the right thing to do, because their hope that it will work is more important to them then the ways of the past or the values of others.
I will fill the story with scientific information from the articles to characterize the neighbors and their reasons against stem cell research (religious beliefs and vegetarians) as well as those characters who believe that stem cell research is the right course for the child because of the hope that it could make a difference in the child’s condition.
The undertone of this story will be to teach my audience that only they can create their ethnical code by deciding what matters to them most, what they have been taught by mentors, parents and experiences, as well as how their ethnical code guides their decisions.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Singer Article Questions
Shannon Ryan
April 3, 2009
New Millennium Studies
1.My ethical perspective is that mammals and vertebrates are similar to humans because of their genetic makeup and because they are not pests, thus they should be allowed to live freely, outside of human control. I regrettably say that I am a meat eater, and have no problem with these animals (pigs, chickens etc.) being killed (because I like the taste of steak, chicken, eggs etc. and would not be okay giving up those courses all together). I suppose that in some ways, that that would make me selfish. However, I don’t believe that these animals should be killed in their youth or immediately after they have their own children (I formed that opinion when I was five and saw the movie Babe, about a pig whose mother is slaughtered when he was no more then a few weeks old), but rather when their children are grown and capable of caring for themselves, or if they are seriously injured. It is also hard for me to say that we shouldn’t have animals in zoos or circuses because those are aspects of entertainment that I grew up with. Thus, I feel that zoos and circuses should keep animals that the save from injury and breed them rather then put animals into captivity by hunting and trapping them. I do think that animal testing is immoral. However, it is difficult for me to feel bad for pests like mosquitoes and because they have only infected irritation and pain on my skin, the exception being bees because I respect their use to mankind to make honey. I formed this perspective through my own experiences with insects, visits to the zoo and circus, Biology Class, seeing movies and reading articles for class about animal testing, breeding and animal slaughter as I’ve grown older.
2. I wouldn’t say that my ethical code is similar to Singer’s other then the fact that we both agree that animal testing is wrong.
However, my ethical code is different from Singer’s because while he seems to argue that we should do away with all captivity and animal slaughter for food, I believe that it should still be done, but in a way that is more just (injury and sickness rather then outright captivity and slaughter).
3. The following of Singer’s arguments are the most convincing in his article, regardless of my inclination to agree or disagree with his opinions. First, Singer’s argument that compares the testing done to a lab rat that could be done to a baby or mentally because all three can’t defend themselves from the impending danger. This argument is strong because by asking the audience to substitute a
animal or insect with a innocent, abused and helpless human (something that is considered immoral in today’s society), the author prompts guilt and interest from the audience, thus making the comparison plausible and powerful. Another of Singer’s most convincing arguments is when he talks about the monkey behavior experiment and that animals can feel pain because just like the comparison to a innocent and helpless child, it is plausible because the grotesqueness of it inflicts disgust in the audience enough that side with his thesis.
April 3, 2009
New Millennium Studies
1.My ethical perspective is that mammals and vertebrates are similar to humans because of their genetic makeup and because they are not pests, thus they should be allowed to live freely, outside of human control. I regrettably say that I am a meat eater, and have no problem with these animals (pigs, chickens etc.) being killed (because I like the taste of steak, chicken, eggs etc. and would not be okay giving up those courses all together). I suppose that in some ways, that that would make me selfish. However, I don’t believe that these animals should be killed in their youth or immediately after they have their own children (I formed that opinion when I was five and saw the movie Babe, about a pig whose mother is slaughtered when he was no more then a few weeks old), but rather when their children are grown and capable of caring for themselves, or if they are seriously injured. It is also hard for me to say that we shouldn’t have animals in zoos or circuses because those are aspects of entertainment that I grew up with. Thus, I feel that zoos and circuses should keep animals that the save from injury and breed them rather then put animals into captivity by hunting and trapping them. I do think that animal testing is immoral. However, it is difficult for me to feel bad for pests like mosquitoes and because they have only infected irritation and pain on my skin, the exception being bees because I respect their use to mankind to make honey. I formed this perspective through my own experiences with insects, visits to the zoo and circus, Biology Class, seeing movies and reading articles for class about animal testing, breeding and animal slaughter as I’ve grown older.
2. I wouldn’t say that my ethical code is similar to Singer’s other then the fact that we both agree that animal testing is wrong.
However, my ethical code is different from Singer’s because while he seems to argue that we should do away with all captivity and animal slaughter for food, I believe that it should still be done, but in a way that is more just (injury and sickness rather then outright captivity and slaughter).
3. The following of Singer’s arguments are the most convincing in his article, regardless of my inclination to agree or disagree with his opinions. First, Singer’s argument that compares the testing done to a lab rat that could be done to a baby or mentally because all three can’t defend themselves from the impending danger. This argument is strong because by asking the audience to substitute a
animal or insect with a innocent, abused and helpless human (something that is considered immoral in today’s society), the author prompts guilt and interest from the audience, thus making the comparison plausible and powerful. Another of Singer’s most convincing arguments is when he talks about the monkey behavior experiment and that animals can feel pain because just like the comparison to a innocent and helpless child, it is plausible because the grotesqueness of it inflicts disgust in the audience enough that side with his thesis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
