Final Exam

My group chose to address the question, "how do man and nature interact?" I took this as looking at how man affects nature, and how nature shapes man. The passages we chose took various examples of humans in a natural setting, and we then analyzed the relationship. The Feral Child video depicts the natural world and civilization as being completely contradictory. In the story, a boy simply cannot fit into society because of his upbringing in the wild. It becomes clear from the movie that civilization has moved so far away from nature, that a person would not be able to effectively move between the two. Chris McCandless tried to make the opposite switch in Into the Wild, but his attempt proved fatal. In order to survive, he would have needed some aspect of human creation, like a topographical map. Through his journey, and the passage we annotated in the book, I didn't just see how far man has moved from nature. I also saw the change we have made in our relationship to nature. Every part of "nature" that humans enjoy has been disturbed by human creation, so much so that we cannot actually function without human influence.
I annotated a poem which seemed to bring all of these ideas together, in a discreet fashion. The title "Old Familiar Landscapes," suggests a struggle between the natural world and human creation. For me, the word 'landscapes' brings up the image of scenic expanses in nature. However, 'landscaping' reminds me of human manipulation of nature. In my childhood, my parents often had landscaping done to rid our yard of unwanted plants and weeds, essentially taking away the power of nature. More contradictions lie in the body of the poem. The speaker at first seems to miss the natural aspects of their old home, like the trees and singing of the birds. However, as the poem goes on, in the authors memory the natural world makes way for material and man made possessions, such as a large house. Through the texts we looked at, and through my personal annotations, I have decided that humans cannot successfully exist in pure nature because we depend on human creation even in the wilderness. Technology has become such an integral facet of our lifestyles, that we can never actually escape civilization.
I contributed to this project through my ideas. My group thought man's relationship to nature not only epitomized this course, but would be a good final idea to explore. I came with a more cynical take on the relationship, and brought this to light through sharing passages in Into the Wild and from sources like my poem. My idea on our inability to truly experience nature weaved together ideas from all of our sources. However, there are many things I would have changed about our/my process. First, I would have spent more time collaborating on the annotations, as we all picked certain sources to annotate and came up with a uniting idea after reading. Thinking of the answer to our question before doing research would have helped, as we could have used this idea in finding sources. We also had some struggles creating a final work to show, after underestimating the time constraint. In hindsight, however, I think we worked pretty well together, and all shared both our ideas and our research.

Vines

https://vine.co/v/M1OOUeXMPqh
https://vine.co/v/MJExr5AmDHz
https://vine.co/v/MJ0W3HKM6t3

A Different Side of the Story

While browsing through youtube videos documenting the life of Christopher McCandless, I immediately notice what appears to be his constant state of contentment. Whether a picture is from his early childhood or days before his death, Chris is never without a smile. Confidence radiates from his facial expression, and even through his most desperate state, he seems to be carefree. After reading the book, I know this is something that has been noted by all who knew Chris. For example, even when his food and tool supply was clearly not enough, he seemed to regard it as a non issue until his last few days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDRy6fmcSzA
But beyond this calm facade was a deep resentment of societal norms. Chris cared for little material goods, instead on a quest to "live off the land." However, how far was he actually planning to go? I wondered this as I watched more videos, and especially after learning more about a backpack Chris left behind. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNyav9g6BJY) The video may not be entirely credible, but after doing some research I found that Chris actually did possess a wallet in a hidden packet in his backpack. In the wallet was multiple forms of identification and $300. First of all, this shows that he did not actually burn all of his money. It seems odd to me that he would lie in his journal, almost as if he thought someone may read it. Second of all, he obviously thought he may need these things and kept them in a place where they would be safe. If he hated material goods so much, why would he ever keep money (which enables all possession)?
I don't think Chris believed he was risking anything until he was on the brink of death. He had a relatively privileged upbringing, and although he rejected this he never actually had to face that much hardship. Even without money, he had a good education and people generally took care of him. He experienced little trouble hitchhiking and even survived living on a bag of rice. Somewhere along the road, I think he acquired the sense, typical in young men, that he was indestructible. He had so much confidence that he wouldn't fail, it blinded his sense of reason. He probably saved his money for his return to society, and the identification for his reintegration. Although some questions about Christopher McCandless will never find an answer, it is pretty safe to say he had different intentions than Krakauer though.

Why I didn't appreciate the narrative

I noticed the pattern dialogue between the narrator and Ishmael pretty soon after starting the book, but had not idea it was part of the Socratic dialogue. At first I really liked this style of writing; it answered questions I had as a reader, without really diverging from the plot. But I quickly started to realize that there wasn't actually that much of a plot. Instead, the whole book seemed to be a question and answer session between the dense narrator and the "all-knowing" Ishmael.
 Perhaps I liked the book less and less because the narrator never became any smarter or more intuitive. I expected him to at least figure out some answers for himself, but he seemed incompetent without the guidance of Ishmael. At this point, the questioning read more like an essay and I felt Ishmael was just throwing a bunch of information at the reader. I also feel like this Socratic dialogue was a way for Quinn to throw his "great" knowledge at the reader, while still somehow writing a fiction novel. I found myself most intrigued when the narrator was describing interactions away from Ishmael, as that created some character development.
This leads me to my next concern. Because the narrator only seemed to ask "who, what, where, when, why" questions, his personality was not shown at all through the text. This, along with the fact that he never revealed his name, left me unable to connect with the narrator and think of him as just another one of Ishmael's subjects. Without knowing what is going on in the narrator's mind, I have very little faith that he could continue Ishmael's teachings. He also doesn't seem to truly understand what Ishmael tells him, because he needs to ask about everything. At one point in the story, Ishmael tells him to think for himself, but that is quickly forgotten when he starts to question again.
Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston College, writes using the Socratic dialogue to fictitiously question famous figures. This is a fun way for him to share his ideas in a more intellectual and enjoyable fashion than just writing them in an essay. I think this is just what Quinn does in Ishmael, with the only difference being that Socrates is probably much smarter than our questioner.
I seem pretty critical of Quinn's method, but I was able to get through the book without losing too much focus. The Socratic Dialogue method was effective at explicitly defining Quinn's ideas, and I was able to keep up with the complex ideas. Really, I didn't like the style because the questioner lacks any independence whatsoever, and without guidance he could not make a difference in the world, just like the human race.

What Does it Mean to be Human?

I have been thinking a lot lately about what actually makes humans unique. Some people say the distinction comes with language, but other animals have ways to communicate. Our bodies obviously differentiate us from these animals, but how much of our humanity comes from physical appearance? Maybe it is our emotion, rationale, or morals that create "humanity." Interested in the answer to this question, I searched for some concrete set of distinguishing traits. This article  outlines some physical characteristics.

While I was reading through the traits, I thought about robots like these. They have almost human features, and certainly look the part. Yes, robots don't have human brains, or the capability to think for themselves, but that is a short time coming. Animal DNA is already being replicated to produce meats, and with 3D printing and other technologies, fake humans are not impossible. Which brings up another aspect of the question of what is "human"- clones.

I recently watched "Never Let Me Go," a sci-fi film about clones who were only created as organ donors. Their whole "life" is centered around expending parts of themselves as they are not considered humans by the other people in the movie. However, they experience human emotion and awareness just as any other humans. Their most human aspect, in my opinion, is their ability and readiness to love, proving they are more than just clones. The audience can see that although they were created artificially, they are pretty individual in their thoughts and actions- a very human characteristic. This reminds me of "Robbie."Although he doesn't look human like the clones, he seems to experience human emotion, and even thinks for himself. Does something have to be made organically in order to be considered human?

There is a new movie coming out which comes at this question from a different angle. As far as I can tell, "Transcendence" involves a man who downloads his brain onto a computer as his body starts to die. Although he loses his body, his brain seems to remain human. However, he models the ever-blurring line between technology and humanity as his computer/brain becomes increasingly powerful. Yes, his body is not human, but his brain, and therefore his consciousness, is. At what point does humanity stop?

As technology becomes more advanced, and clones/ genetically modified humans become more plausible for medical reasons, I become more and more confused by what makes humans distinct. Though my exploration, I developed even more questions, not finding an answer I agreed with. However, I personally have yet to come in contact with any of these closely human examples. For the time being, I guess I will continue to define humanity as the traits I see in myself and everyone I know.