Colin Conner
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
24 September 2008
A Wealth of Knowledge
To live by enlightenment, you need to, “Have courage to use your own understanding!” (Kant). According to Immanuel Kant in his article “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” this is the motto of enlightenment. The Enlightenment was an era when political, religious and intellectual freedom erupted throughout the Western World. This era was very important to mankind because with all of this increased knowledge trickling down to the public scientific and philosophical fields could flourish like never before. People were able to question religion and their beliefs for the first time, allowing them to make their own choices and explore what was available to them. Kant’s definition of enlightenment seems to connect well with Silver’s thought that people need to open up and give biotechnology a chance to reach its full potential.
I think that allowing people the freedom to obtain knowledge about religion and science so that they can make their own decisions on what to put their faith into is great for our society. I can relate this to my own life because my dad has donated stem cells from white blood cells in order to try and save someone’s life. If my dad had not been well informed of what stem cells could do for someone, he may never have been willing to give some of his stem cells up for the benefit of another. Also if he did not have an open mind in his faith, what he may have been taught by a priest could have swayed him away from helping dying people. He has donated stem cells twice and has personally been thanked by one person who has recovered from severe leukemia and is now able to live their life and watch their children grow up. I know my dad felt a real sense of fulfillment that he was able to give another person life, and I’m sure he could never have imagined the impact he would make. If more people were as knowledgeable and open as my dad, so many more people’s lives could be changed for the better.
Silver is afraid that if people are not educated on what biotechnology can do for people, that progress will not continue and die out as a science. In his passage, “As long as the vast majority of a country’s citizens are strongly opposed to the use of a controversial technology that is not required to save existing human lives, mainstream scientists will not proceed” (Silver 345), Silver shows that people do not believe in science enough to drift away from their religious beliefs and give biotechnology a chance. And as Kant says, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another” (Kant). Kant’s idea relates to Silver’s because if no one is able to teach people what biotechnology can bring to the table, no one will break out of their shell and think outside of the box at the infinite possibilities. I agree with both Kant and Silver here and think that people have been shut out for too long on what biotechnologies can do for the betterment of our species. I know that I am not completely convinced that biotechnologies is going to be the saving grace for the human race, since I have not been enlightened and still do not know much about what biotechnology is. But I am willing to listen.
America is in a great position to experience a new era of enlightenment that allows people to explore new and even controversial religions and sciences. Because America has no national religion and freedom of speech, this permits people to explore their deeper feelings and stimulate their brains. But what if everyone does become enlightened and finds a religion (or non religion) and the majority of people decide that biotechnology is too dangerous and feel that it should be banned? Will Silver want everything to go back to the way it was so that at least small steps in biotechnology could be made over a long period of time? Or will he decide that maybe biotechnology is just to extreme for human kind? I feel that maybe if everyone knew exactly what biotechnology is that they would not want to be involved, and would even hope that it could be banned so that a superior race could never be created. Do you want to know more about biotechnology, or just let it evolve on its own?
3 comments:
Enlightenment has proven to be a difficult word to define. Is it the transformation of one’s mind into a mature state free from influencing forces? Or is it the progression of the acceptance of modern technology regardless of religious beliefs? More so than the latter I believe that enlightenment can only be truly reached through the maturation of one’s mind by coming to terms with their beliefs. These matured beliefs can only be reached through knowledge, however.
Knowledge is power, the power to make important decisions that we can base our thoughts, actions, and beliefs off of. It is also the knowledge to progress our existence. With this knowledge we can evaluate our beliefs and morals, an important part of every human’s existence. It is true that without continuing knowledge our society may not flourish. It is not true to say, however, that enlightenment would not occur without people embracing this new found knowledge.
One can choose to embrace new found science like biotechnology, but without it will they not be enlightened? Are those who follow religion and its old fashion beliefs not as enlightened as those who follow modern science instead? I believe that enlightenment comes solely from knowledge of all facts. This does not mean that we must accept all the knowledge, only that we should be conscious of it before we can we be mature enough to stand confident behind our beliefs and morals.
Colin Conner
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
24 September 2008
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith,
no explanation is possible.” -- St. Thomas Aquinas
“'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true” -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Perhaps to be human is to be in a state of perpetual contradiction. Both St. Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche would have been able to defend their opposing points of view with great eloquence and impact. In the end, which one would win the argument over the meaning of faith? Immanuel Kant, who was alive after Aquinas and before Nietzsche might have argued that both of them won. He advocated for mankind to live by enlightenment; a state of mind in which you need to, “Have courage to use your own understanding!” (Kant). According to Immanuel Kant in his article “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” this is the motto of enlightenment. In that article, Kant described the conditions in which enlightenment could occur: the use of personal reason, not accepting as absolute whatever came down from on high from either the ruler or the priests. The Enlightenment was an era when political, religious and intellectual freedom erupted throughout the Western World. This period was very important to mankind because increased knowledge trickled down to a public not previously empowered in this manner. Science and philosophy flourished like never before. People open to the concept of enlightenment could gain the knowledge, enabling them to question religion and their beliefs for the first time, allowing them to make their own choices and explore what was available to them. Previously, the masses followed the beliefs imposed on them by their clergy and monarchy. Kant’s definition of enlightenment remains a milestone in the evolution of philosophy and thought, providing a bridge from our caveman past to our present state of development. The reader might even argue that a refresher in enlightenment is in order for our society. The current state of affairs in our social life, where politics and religion are tightly combined, resulting in a president and presidential candidates who use God and religion as justification for their actions and the basis for their national agenda is frightening to me. My reason tells me that there are many others who also do not want to go along with these politicians, but that there are also a large number of people, religious fundamentalists, for example, who either believe in these ideas just as much, or prefer not to use reason and go with the flow.
In his book “Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life,” Lee Silver aligns himself with Kant by arguing for the use of reason as it relates to biotechnology. Silver’s premise is that we must suspend our religion-based prejudices and allow the development of biotechnology. By doing that, Silver believes that we can obtain many benefits to human life and nature. Silver is a molecular biologist, someone who plays with the building blocks of life itself. We only need to turn on the TV or read the internet news feeds to see daily that there are people who disagree with playing in God’s sandbox, even playing the role of God by creating human life. Silver pleads his case for applied reason by pointing out that man has interfered with life for a long, long time. One recalls that a monk, Gregor Mendel was one of the first men to explore genetics and develop a set of basic laws explaining how it works. We learn Mendel’s Laws in high school biology, but we do not learn whether or not he was questioned about interfering with the work of God. Silver asks that we resist the messages of the religious fundamentalists in our society to realize the good that can come from biotechnology.
In my own life, there has been evidence of the benefits of biotechnology. My father has donated stem cells extracted from his white blood cells in order to try and save someone’s life. If my dad had not become knowledgeable about what stem cells could do for someone, he may never have been willing to give some of his stem cells up for the benefit of another. Also, if he did not have an open mind in his faith, what he may have been taught by a priest could have swayed him away from helping dying people. He has donated stem cells twice and has personally been thanked by one person who has recovered from severe leukemia and is now able to live their life and watch their children grow up. I know my dad felt a real sense of fulfillment that he was able to give another person life, and I’m sure he could never have imagined the impact he would make. Contrast that with our President, who has prevented stem cell research, mainly due to the pressure from religious lobbyists. More lives could be saved, and more diseases prevented or even exterminated if there could be more stem cell research and increased public knowledge on the subject.
Silver is afraid that if people are not educated on what biotechnology can do for mankind, that progress will not continue and die out as a science. In his words, “As long as the vast majority of a country’s citizens are strongly opposed to the use of a controversial technology that is not required to save existing human lives, mainstream scientists will not proceed” (Silver 345), Silver shows that people do not believe in science enough to drift away from their religious beliefs and give biotechnology a chance. And as Kant says, “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another” (Kant). Kant’s idea relates to Silver’s because if no one is able to teach people what biotechnology can bring to the table, no one will break out of their shell and think outside of the box at the infinite possibilities. I agree with both Kant and Silver here and think that people have been shut out for too long on what biotechnologies can do for the betterment of our species. I know that I am not completely convinced that biotechnologies is going to be the saving grace for the human race, since I have not been enlightened and still do not have much knowledge about what biotechnology is. But I am willing to learn.
Chris - there's some interesting material in there, but ultimately I was a little confused about your main line of argument, especially in relationship to religion.
Colin - Your opening use of the quotes is clever and engaging. The long paragraph which follows has benefits and problems. On the plus side, you make clear the importance of some of the ideas you're dealing with. On the other hand, you are in danger of getting bogged down in a historical discussion which remains on a rather general & abstract level. If you need the historical background, maybe you should be researching and citing; if it's not really so important, you could present it more compactly. As far as the thesis goes - are you arguing that we need a refresher course? If not, why bring it up?
The paragraph on Mendel and Silver is also vague. Not stupid or irrelevant, by any means - but it lacks a strong direction.
The paragraph on your father, on the other hand, is great stuff. Probably the paper should have begun at this point - or, at least, you could have used this to follow up your discussion of the quotes as a way of illustrating them. You are personalizing complex, abstract issues. If you had done so from the beginning, this could have been an exceptional paper.
Your final paragraph would have made for a stronger conclusion if you'd had a more definite point through the paper; this would have followed naturally from a paper more focused on your father's actions.
Short version: you have some great material, but you focus too much on the so-so abstract/general material, when you have precise and personal material you could be using instead.
Post a Comment