How can we gain our knowledge?

Although Star Trek is an old movie that is released around 1970, I have to say that it reminds me another famous science fiction movie: Matrix. Both movies engage me to consider the reliability of our sensation. According to my understanding, sensation is the only connection between our minds and the outer world, but is sensation trustful?

In the Matrix, the whole human world is created by computer program. People's senses are triggered by electric signals, which means that human judgements toward the "real world" are totally controlled computer. In the Star Trek, Captain Pike's sensation is also controlled by aliens, and he cannot tell the difference between the real world and the illusions.

In fact, the reliability of sensation has been discussed for a long time. Some people think that our sensation varies in different situation and is largely affected by our emotions. Sometimes, we cannot even distinguish dreams from reality. However, most our knowledge is derived from the sensation (knowledge like ice is cold and translucent). If sensation is not trustful, how can we gain and justify the knowledge?

What makes us human?

I had never seen Star Trek before today, but I sincerely enjoyed the story-line and the questions it proposed: What makes us human? I think a more interesting question is when do we stop becoming human? During wars in the past, soldiers have called the enemy nicknames which degrade them to a sub-human level. Franz Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" calls into question the way we treat the sick or the old once they "stop contributing" (monetarily or otherwise). Can you guys think of other ways that we sub-humanize people?

I think the question of morality in the Frankenstein universe is a great question to explore. Victor devoted almost 2 solid years of his life, ignoring health, friends, and more, in order to achieve his goals. However, he never really contemplated the consequences of such a lofty objective, and only after he had given the Creature life does he realize how "wrong" he was. How often do you think scientists overlook the consequences of their research like Victor does? He wanted to give life to a creature that had none, and that is all he saw. Did he see no further? Did he not analyze what else had to be accomplished in order to call this experiment a success? Ultimately, this failure of foresight led to the unfortunate deaths of William and Justine.

So, do you think Victor deserves what happens to him after his supposed error in moral judgement? And going back to the question in class, Was it even morally OK to do this to begin with?

I feel like, in the book's universe at least, that this experiment was indeed morally wrong. Many of the personalities in the book display traits that remind me of the philosophical era (Thoreau, Emerson, etc.) where life is life and whatever happens, happens. So , for Victor to go against this grain goes against the will of most people in the Frankenstein Universe.