Phill Oostdyk
Dr. Adam Johns
Have we lost our collective meaning? According to Bill McKibben in his book Enough, he believes that we are on our way. I feel that this is not possible. Our collective meaning is open for debate, but I feel that our meaning is just to be ourselves and live our lives. We spend our lives making decisions and making goals. This is why I feel like it is not possible to loose our collective meaning. People are always striving for something. They always have some sort of goal they push for. The goals could be as simple as going to the store or getting out of bed, or as extravagant as being rich and famous.
McKibben uses Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's term of 'flow', the state of joyful absorption, to give a point. “It's clear, then, that souping someone up genetically will not increase his opportunities to fall into this flow state” (p. 52). McKibben is saying that with genetically engineering one's body to be better at something (i.e. rock climbing, sports, painting), one will not feel the same joy as if they were not engineered to do this. He says that engineering your body will not give more joy. “Instead, it might well sap joy, because forgetting the self seems to be a key part of falling into the flow. My round-about connection to my point is that, why being engineered to excel at a particular thing, you will always have goals to strive for. The reaching these goals is what bring people the joy they feel. Take, for example, an unaltered person who has tried climbing the same mountain over and over again, but has never completely succeeded. This person makes a goal to make it a little farther than he ever has before. They will not feel the joy or reach his state of flow, to use McKibben's term, if he does not reach his goal. Now take a person who is genetically altered to climb mountains. Their goal is to reach the top faster than they ever have before. This person will reach their state of flow when they make up the mountain two minutes faster. The point is that no matter if someone is engineered or not, they will always have goals to strive for. Reaching these goals will bring people joy, the state of flow. This is, what I feel, is our collective meaning. So, to counter McKibben's argument, losing our collective meaning could never happen.
In Jimmy Corrigan the Smartest Kid on Earth by Chris Ware, McKibben might see what human life would be like if we lost our collective meaning. He would see a person who has no motivation, totally isolated, with no flow. Jimmy is a person who is depressed and tired of his life, he seems to have no meaning. I see this book as the complete opposite. I see it as an example of my point. Jimmy goes through life without anyone, except his mother and his fantasy of Superman. His goal is to find some sort of connection with someone else. Whether it is a father/son, brother/sister, or just a friend. Jimmy might not acknowledge this goal aloud, or even know that it is there, but it is there. This book seems to be his journey to reach his goal. At the end of the book, when all hope to be lost, Jimmy seems to finally reach his goal. The final frame showing Jimmy overlooking the cubicle to Tammy, there seems to be a moment of flow.
McKibben's claim that we are losing our collective meaning is false. As humans, we will always have a collective meaning as long as we have lives to live and goals to reach. Even if we get to a point where we are engineering ourselves to be better at sports, painting, or higher IQ's, there will always be someone else right there with them. There will always be that goal to be better than the other or to figure out the next scientific mystery. Goals are what drive us, what makes up our lives, how we are ourselves. Goals will never fade, thus making the argument of losing our collective meaning, meaningless. Our goals, no matter how obscure or unsaid, will always be there and reachable, just ask Jimmy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I like your examples in this paper. Even though I don't totally agree with you on this topic, I can see where you are coming from. I think you need to strengthen the counter argument a little bit more. People always have goals to strive for, but what happens when it becomes too easy to reach these goals (as is for an engineered person). Sure the person is made to be good at the things that he or she wants, it gets to a point that there is no more joy in achieving the goals set forth because they are met too easily. What I'm getting at is that engineered people receive no joy in achieving their goals. When everything comes easy to everybody, this is what causes the collective meaning to be lost. It's just repetition. All goals are achieved by everybody with flying colors. There is no difficulty or bumps in the road. People are engineered to do the things they want to do. They do these things and receive no joy due to the lack of challenge. Just try to develop the counter argument and it will pull everything together.
Phill Oostdyk
Dr. Adam Johns
Have we lost our collective meaning? According to Bill McKibben in his book Enough, he believes that we are on our way to losing our meaning. I feel that this is not possible. Our collective meaning is open for debate, but I feel that our meaning is just to be ourselves and live our lives. People are always striving for something. We spend our lives making decisions and making goals. The goals could be as simple as going to the store or getting out of bed, or as extravagant as being rich and famous.
McKibben uses Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's term of 'flow', the state of joyful absorption, to say “It's clear, then, that souping someone up genetically will not increase his opportunities to fall into this flow state” (p. 52). McKibben is saying that with genetically engineering one's body to be better at something (i.e. rock climbing, sports, painting), one will not feel the same joy as if they were not engineered to do this. He says that engineering your body will not give more joy. “Instead, it might well sap joy, because forgetting the self seems to be a key part of falling into the flow. My round-about connection to my point is that, while being engineered to excel at a particular thing, you will always have goals to strive for. Then reaching these goals is what bring people the joy they feel. Take, for example, an unaltered person who has tried climbing the same mountain over and over again, but has never completely succeeded. This person creates a goal to make it a little farther than he ever has before. They will not feel the joy or reach his state of flow if he does not reach his goal. Now take a person who is genetically altered to climb mountains. Their goal is to reach the top faster than they ever have before. This person will reach their state of flow when they make up the mountain two minutes faster.
Some people will argue that this genetically engineered people will find things too easy. Cynics argue that engineered people will find no joy in reaching these goals, no reaching the state of flow. This argument seems to only take into consideration that there would be only one person with any engineered ability in one area. However, what if there were many people with the same abilities. There could be a National Engineered Football League or a Major Altered Baseball League for these individuals. Their joy, their state of flow, could be stimulated by competing against people on their level. The point is whether someone is engineered or not, they will always have goals to strive for. Reaching these goals will bring people into their state of flow. This is, what I feel, is our collective meaning. So, to counter McKibben's argument, losing our collective meaning could never happen.
In Jimmy Corrigan the Smartest Kid on Earth by Chris Ware, McKibben might see what human life would be like if we lost our collective meaning. He would see a person who has no motivation, totally isolated, with no flow. Jimmy is a person who is depressed and tired of his life, he seems to have no meaning. Critics could use this as what the world will become with genetic engineering. Everyone would be bored with their lives. People would be completely isolated and may even consider suicide.
I see this book as the complete opposite. Jimmy goes through life without anyone, except his mother and his fantasy of Superman. His goal is to find some sort of connection with someone else. Whether it is a father/son, brother/sister, or just a friend. Jimmy might not acknowledge this goal aloud, or even be aware of it, but it is there. This book seems to be his journey to reach his goal. At the end of the book, when all hope to be lost, Jimmy seems to finally reach his goal. The final frame showing Jimmy overlooking the cubicle to Tammy, there seems to be a moment of flow.
McKibben's claim that we are losing our collective meaning is false. As humans, we will always have a collective meaning as long as we have lives to live and goals to reach. Even if we get to a point where we are engineering ourselves to be better at sports, painting, or having higher IQ's, there will always be someone else right there with them. There will always be that goal to be better than the other, or to figure out the next scientific mystery. Goals are what drive us, what make up our lives, how we are ourselves. Goals will never fade, thus making the argument of losing our collective meaning, meaningless. Our goals, no matter how obscure or unsaid, will always be there and reachable, just ask Jimmy.
Glenn - pretty good response
Phil - This may be your best paper yet. I thought that both the McKibben section and the Ware section were effective, and that you connected them particularly well, forming a single seamless whole. I do agree with Glenn that your counterarguments (in re: to McKibben) aren't very strong: McKibben has material which would respond to some, although by no means all, of the issues you have raised. Still, I think your very well developed ideas about the engineered competing with one another works very well, even if you don't say as much as you could in response to McKibben.
Similarly, your reading of Jimmy as being goal-oriented is quite good and well developed; it would have been better, however, if you'd developed it more through references to particular pages and images.
Post a Comment