oh leo...

two posts in one day...exciting, no? :-)...this is actually from a fantastic email exchange i had over the break, so this is a, um, recycled mini-post....:-)

...going to back to War and Peace, I think I might have found one of the most significant parts in the whole novel– near the beginning of Part Three, Tolstoy writes “Man lives consciously for himself, but is an unconscious instrument in the attainment of the historic, universal, aims of humanity. A deed done is irrevocable, and its result coinciding in time with the actions of millions of other men assumes an historic significance. The higher a man stands on the social ladder, the more people he is connected with and the more power he has over others, the more evident is the predestination and inevitability of his every action. ‘The king’s heart is in the hands of the Lord.’ A king is history’s slave. History, that is the unconscious, general, swarm-life of mankind, uses every moment of the life of kings as a tool for its own purposes.”
At first glance, I felt almost as if Tolstoy was stating the obvious – of course every thing we do has a ripple effect/chain-reaction that is much broader and deeper than might at first be evident – this is an idea that has been brought up and re-hashed for ages (e.g., the rather odd movie “The Butterfly Effect” that came out a few years ago). However, after some thought, and then reading the following Tolstoy quote (“Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary, and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.”), I realize that there is something much more profound at work in Tolstoy’s historical “philosophy,” particularly his emphasis on the role of individuals in positions of power, and the thought-provoking concept of being an “unconscious” part in a movement/process whose goal or main end is simply impossible to ascertain."

whew. this deserves a follow up too. dang it. i've already got homework assignments for my blog ;-).

a brave new world?

currently reading Fukuyama's "Our Posthuman Future" for Crowe's Public Policy class...i read it junior year and found it interesting, but its been more enlightening so far this second time around. Some thoughts from Fukuyama's first chapter struck me last night. He states that the "aim of this book is to argue that Huxley ["Brave New World"] was right, that the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology is the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a "posthuman" stage of history. This is important...because human nature exists, is a meaningful concept, and has provided a stable continuity to our experience as a species. It is, conjointly with religion, what defines our most basic values" (p.7).
This is a very serious claim being made by Mr. Fukuyama, and I can not even begin to give it justice through a simple blog. I will note though, that Fukuyama includes within human nature both the good and the bad, the desirable and the undesirable. Feeling lonely or depressed, experiencing pain and suffering, are all qualities of human nature that at our deepest roots each one of us would earnestly like to be freed from. But to accept human nature as being vital and worth preserving, Fukuyama argues that we are in essence accepting these bad qualities along with the feelings of love, happiness, and so forth. Attempting to eliminate the undesirable qualities from human nature could prove to be disastrous - Fukuyama points to Huxley's "Brave New World" and notes that the "happiness" and "health" that the people experience is in fact soul-less and empty. They abdicated their status as humans for the sake of a freakishly hollow "paradise."
I'm not quite sure exactly what i think about this... while i agree completely that a comprehensive acceptance of the existence of a unique "human nature" will have to include the good and the undesirable (pain, loneliness, etc.), and also that there are potentially dangerous tendencies that are inherent with biotechnological advances...i'm not sure if i should look with suspicion at every new advance in pharmacology - is there a "middle ground"?.... i might analyze this more later, in addition to possibly discussing a little about the role of "modernity" (modern science, modern philosophy, etc.) in our changing perception about nature....
...and to think - this was just from the first 8 pages of Fukuyama's book - its going to be an interesting semester....