MIT OpenCourseWare


» 進階搜尋
 課程首頁
 教學大綱
 教學時程
 相關閱讀資料
 作業
 下載課程

作業


本頁翻譯進度

燈號說明

審定:無
翻譯:陳秀萍(簡介並寄信)
編輯:吳貞芳(Doris Wu)(簡介並寄信)


作業

  • 作業1(PDF)
  • 作業2(PDF)
  • 作業3(PDF)
指定閱讀資料

第一堂課:序言 - 舊約創世紀中宇宙自然的形象。

第二堂課:福斯特〈機器休止〉

  1. 〈機器休止〉(The Machine Stops) 文中,機器停止運作的條件取決於人際關係的差異性,也就是透過身體語言和微妙的表達來傳遞訊息及維繫交情,例如挑戰者號太空梭失事之前與地面進行的視訊會議,就是由機器運作主導的通訊。視訊會議被當作是「直接經驗」(direct experience),且機器世界的居民對之憎惡反感,這種對立態度的真實性如何? 我們是否曾經彼此正面衝突針鋒相對? 我們的社會身分有諸多面向,而這諸多面向經常與錯綜複雜的社會交際情況有著密切連繫;明確和含糊的規範和習慣都溢於言表,並傳遞交流彼此的經驗。為何電話交談時必須壓低音量,有什麼比董事會議或是總統官邸中的應對進退和官腔官調的交談來得更不直接?
  1. 網路駭客和沉迷網路聊天室的人跳出了平凡無奇的社會認同,體驗著一種全新的自由,還經常聲稱他們建立了一系列新的社會認同,並賦予神秘、誤導、或是好笑的名稱。媒體是表達另類社會認同的工具嗎?思考工具和機器的差別,我們知道,工具可以變成我們身體延伸的部分 (視障者經常說他們可以感覺到柺杖所碰觸到的東西,而不僅是手指觸摸到的柺杖而已)。腳踏車是工具還是機器?汽車是我們身體的延伸嗎?駭客和電腦之間又是什麼關係呢? 
  1. 生活在機器中意謂什麼呢?機器只是一個形上指涉,還是福斯特尖銳批判的人際關係特性的替身?或者,是否這個故事除了跟機器有關之外,還提到當人際關係被機器左右時所產生的後果,特別是溝通方式的問題?這些質疑都有正面答案嗎 - 或許可以思考,這個故事講述的是人性 (而這是福斯特不贊同的),但是人性不是由機器的存在來決定,而是人類利用機器來處理人際關係,並因此產生與日劇增的互賴關係?
  1. 人是不是機器的一部分(或者像機器般的工作)?你認為組裝線上的工人是為輸送帶幹活的嗎?因為輸送帶上運載著一連串的組裝任務,而工人則不需要掌握其任務內容,我們可不可以把工廠當作是一台機器,而工人則是零件呢?
  1. 如果工人可以是機械系統中的零件,那其他職員和管理階層呢?任何有組織規章的團體(例如政府或企業)都是一個系統,而此系統將素材轉成產品輸出的過程當中,每一個成員分工合作各自負責一個獨特的任務。因此,是否需要去了解,此系統之下的附屬元素如何在每一個階段有效的發揮運作?
  1. 這裡將討論幾個針對〈機器休止〉文中的問題: Vashti 同意「單獨」與Kuno交談時,當她不能把自己「隔離」時,現場是否「人山人海」? 為什麼當她同意只與一個人交談,她覺得是「浪費時間」? 當Kuno 說人類是所有事情的指標時,他是什麼意思呢? 機器規章 (The Book of the Machine) 是一套指令及各項公共設施的時間表,住在巢室裡的機器世界的居民依據此規章來操作巢室,Vashti恭敬的捧著這本規章,輕吻再三,一股「默許的狂喜」(the delirium of acquiescence)由然而生,她默許的是什麼? 書中把機器當作是一個宗教膜拜的錯體形式,然而又有諸多對話提及現代人早已揚棄迷信,這是一個矛盾嗎? 每一年(第263頁)機器將更有效率,但是更不聰明,這個概念是代表什麼? 仰望著滿天星辰或是喜馬拉雅山時,Vashti覺得「這裡了無新意」(no ideas here),凝望著星星山脈諸如此類的自然景象,誰能想出什麼點子呢?

第三堂課:遠古時期的自然觀點:亞里斯多德,《物理學》,第二冊。西塞羅,選讀《論神:巴爾布斯的論述》

物理學,第二冊。

  1. 希臘文的物理 (physis) 一字意指本質 (nature);所以,這本書的書名也可以稱為萬物的本質 (The Nature of Things)。亞里斯多德主張,欲了解任何事物須先辨認出其類別,而這個辨認則決定於我們是否能辨識出事物在外表、位置、和行動中固有(inherent)的變化原則。我們是否相信變化是事物的固有本質?或者因為受到外在形式而產生變化?還是兩者的合併?
  1. 了解萬物本質的第一步,是提出正確的問題,對亞里斯多德而言,答案是aitai–這個字通常譯為原因 (causes),但譯之為因為 (becauses)較妥當,理由在於這些是回答某個既有問題何以如此的答案,亞里斯多德提出了四個aitai是什麼?應該如何解釋?
  1. 我們可以輕而易舉的列舉出某些無知識意涵的事物 (例如所有出現在最靠近我們的一面牆的五英吋範圍內的物品),或是某些有意義但卻不存在的事物 (例如燃素*1、女巫);但是,亞里斯多德認為,日常的感官和智能訓練都有助於理解事物的本質 - 掌握萬物變化的固有本質,這是不是一個幼稚的假設?這個假設在今天是否還有效?
  1. 亞里斯多德將變化之固有原則命名為 eidos by Aristotle–一般譯之為形式 (form),但是這個字在古希臘文中含有概念 (idea) 種類 (species) 的意思,你覺得這些指涉之間有任何關聯嗎?在物理學第二冊第一章中,亞里斯多德和哲學家安提豐(Antiphon)兩人為了爭議eidos究竟是固有還是外在原則而唇槍舌戰,這場論戰的意涵是什麼?
  1. 亞里斯多德主張,世界上有兩大特徵無法幫助我們理解事物的本質 - 一個是運氣(luck)或偶然(chance, tyche),另一個是突發性(spontaneity)或巧合性 (coincidence, automaton)。亞里斯多德對此兩大特徵的理解是什麼?這和我們今天所理解的又有什麼差別?
  1. 變化之固有原則使得每一個變化都擁有其特殊的形式,此形式稱之為變化的最終目的(telos)、結果(end)、目的(aim)、目標(goal)。世界萬物都擁有其最終目的,而人類的行為意圖都只是一種宇宙目的論的活動,我們今天是否仍以這種宇宙目的論來描述萬物的本質和行動?如果萬物都可以用宇宙目的論的觀點來看待,那是否每一事物都遵循其目標呢?
  1. 1. 在書中第八章,亞里斯多德主張,事情發生並非「事出有因」,換句話說,並不是為了屈就某一個結果、目的、或目標,而只是因為必須如此,「就像雨並非為了五榖豐收而下,而是該下雨則下雨」,他的反對論調為何?

巴爾布斯(Balbus)論神之本性

《論神之本性》是西賽羅的著作,書中提到了三個古代如何看待宇宙本質的概念。本書第二部分的爭辯由三名論戰者之一的巴爾布斯(Balbus)闡述斯多葛學派的觀點,他認為萬物的宇宙目的論是不言而明,否認這個事實形同睜眼說瞎話,這個觀點跟亞里斯多德的主張有何差別?

第四堂課:蒙田 (Montaigne),《食人族所有》﹔培根 (Francis Bacon),「新大西洋島」;德雷頓 (Drayton),《維吉尼亞之旅》;馬葦爾 (Marvell),《百慕達》;莎士比亞,《暴風雨》

  1. 蒙田對食人族生活的陳述有何重要性?他們主要的生活特徵是什麼?是什麼因素讓他們過著那種生活?有沒有可能把食人族的組織制度引進蒙田那個時代的歐洲?蒙田筆下的食人族是否比歐洲人活得更順應自然?
  1. 德雷頓的詩作是十六世紀晚期和十七世紀早期對新大陸的典型描述,詩中所描述的世界特色有什麼引人入勝之處? 與後期馬葦爾的《百慕達》相比又如何?
  1. 比較蒙田的食人族和新大西洋島居民的差別,他們的組織有何不同?如果你必須在二地擇一處居住,你會選那裡?為什麼新大西洋島的居民千方百計不讓歐洲人發現他們?新大西洋島的主要建築物是所羅門教堂 (the House of Solomon);為什麼那裡的活動都不能讓一般人知道?因為有「查禁的知識」嗎?這件事情是否與伊甸園中禁止亞當求知發問有關?所羅門教堂的目的和活動是什麼?箇中有任何知識的合理概念嗎?所羅門教堂的活動之一是跟自然生物玩耍,例如照顧花草、餵養動物,與培根同時代的人視其為倫常之事嗎?那我們呢?
  1. 1. 假設普洛斯彼羅(Prospero)在所羅門教堂,他會稱心如意嗎?他的魔法與新大西洋島居民的知識相比如何?他的魔法範圍為何?為什麼他要求野人凱列班(Caliban)來讓他使喚,而且說:「沒有他的話,就什麼也做不成了」?凱列班和蒙田筆下的食人族相比又如何?其中一位朝臣(和善正直的貢柴羅Gonzalo)引述了蒙田(莎士比亞時期的譯本)所闡述的一個理想聯邦國家的本質,卻遭到其他弄臣的譏諷,這段引述是不智之舉嗎?凱列班究竟是無惡不做還是天真無邪?為什麼普洛斯彼羅回到歐洲後就不再施法術了?精靈愛麗兒(Ariel)和凱列班兩人都渴望自由,愛麗兒最後如願以償;而凱列班則選擇繼續為奴,這個對比所要闡述的「自由」是什麼?普洛斯彼羅(暫時)差遣腓迪南(Ferdinand)來供其使喚以作為考驗,在今天,當人奴役為人使喚有其正面價值嗎?在戲劇中,當人奴役所要說明的是什麼價值?什麼是邪惡的知識,為何我們應該讓小孩子遠離邪惡的知識? 天真無邪又是什麼,為什麼應該要珍惜赤子之心?在什麼情況下「天真無邪」成為一般百姓的天職?純潔的價值是什麼?純潔神奇嗎?這世界純潔樸實嗎?富麗堂皇的化裝舞會以及愛與美的女神阿佛洛狄特(Aphrodite)和愛神愛羅斯(Eros)倆母子的缺席所指涉的是什麼?

第五堂課:莎士比亞,《暴風雨》(續)

第六堂課:迪福,《魯濱遜漂流記》

  1. 魯濱遜早期的冒險經歷通常不見於這本書的廣泛討論中,以至於新的讀者會對這些段落感到驚訝。從魯濱遜的這些故事我們可以學到什麼?例如他跟一個名叫佐立(Xury)的小奴工的關係,你認為迪福的讀者會贊同魯濱遜視奴役為理所當然的行為嗎?
  1. 故事進展到三分之一時,魯濱遜宣稱「我被迫回到原始的自然狀態」,真的嗎?幾世紀後的讀者認為,魯濱遜從船上搶救出文明器具以便在荒島上使用,此舉將故事破壞殆盡。讀者的批評有沒有道理,或者他們誤解了書的原意?
  1. 書中所要陳述的「自然」是什麼?魯濱遜的無人島(暗指加諸在魯濱遜身上的諸多限制)與蒙田的食人族或普洛斯彼羅的島嶼有何不同?
  1. 魯濱遜說:「我必須學而時習之」,這是什麼意思呢?這是一個值得重視或是敬而遠之的情況?這句話背後的意義,對於了解福斯特〈機器休止〉書中人物的生活條件有沒有幫助?
  1. 魯濱遜經常大舉工程,卻總是徒勞無功,但這並不是因為他缺乏遠見。例如:為了要有一艘更好的獨木舟,他便監督建造了一艘巨大的獨木舟,然而一切都是無心插柳,為何要在故事中加入這一類的插曲呢?
  1. 有人說,迪福的著作是讚頌清教徒工作倫理和勞動尊嚴的聖歌,你對此觀點的看法是什麼?

第七堂課:迪福,《魯濱遜漂流記》(續)

第八堂課:林奈,《大自然的組織法則》摘錄;懷特,《塞爾伯恩的自然歷史學》摘錄;休謨《自然宗教對話錄》摘錄

《自然宗教對話錄》

  1. 書中對話一開始時(這裡不再翻印),其中一名聽眾說到「(這是)克里安堤斯(Cleanthes*2)嚴謹的哲學趨勢」,「斐羅(Philo)漫不經意的懷疑論」,「迪密亞(Demea)僵化頑固的老套論調」。摘錄內容中的第一段說明了迪密亞的立場,箇中有所謂的僵化頑固的老套論調嗎?
  1. 克里安堤斯將宇宙比喻為一由較小機器組成的龐大機械組織,你覺得這種說法適當嗎?此論調與西賽羅的對話錄中巴爾布斯(Balbus)所提倡的有何差別?
  1. 克里安堤斯在摘錄內容及之後篇幅當中提出的論點,和亞里斯多德針對telos所發展的論述是否接近?
  1. 在書中的第二部分,斐羅論述,觀念(ideas)本身即內含著組織的原則,而且缺乏經驗的人可能以為物質本身也包含了組織的原則。但是,經驗告訴我們的似乎不是如此,於是斐羅說,這正是克里安堤斯論點的核心,即宇宙的組織特質指涉一位神聖的造物主,亞里斯多德會如何評論斐羅對物質和心靈所做的區別?
  1. 請論述克里安堤斯有關於綠園(vegetable library)的觀點,此訴求從何而來?他所類推的例子是否有效?
  1. 克里安堤斯主張,沒有了神人同形同性論,拜神等於無神論,這種說法的說服力或有效性何在?
  1. (在第四部分中)克里安堤斯說,爾等以為只要追本溯源了解創造機器的意念,就可以充分解釋它的由來。斐羅則認為這種想法就像是,把地球的運轉歸諸於一頭天象把地球扛在背上。他們唇槍舌劍爭議的是什麼?誰比較有說服力?
  1. 在第三部份中,克里安堤斯對於眼睛的論述是否有力?你會怎麼反駁?
  1. (在第五部分)斐羅以船和造船的木匠為例,克里安堤斯則主張,聰明絕頂學識淵博的設計師,透過其創作將才華表露無疑,請比較這兩種說法,這是個有效的辯駁嗎?
  1. (在第七部分)斐羅再次強調,宇宙不是機械組織,而是一棵植物,只是看似有理的論調,這種說法有效嗎?它要申述的是什麼?它是否暗示克里安堤斯的聲明有錯?
  1. (在第八部分)斐羅提出,在一個無止盡的時間條件中,原子的偶發性運動有朝一夕將創造出一個有次序的宇宙,克里安堤斯則反駁,他認為宇宙不只是有次序的,而且是有善意的(benevolently)1. 次序。對錯與否,斐羅直覺性的看出,條理分明的概念,與一團混亂或雜亂無章的事物兩者之間的差別;是否憑著直覺就能明白宇宙萬物的佈局是善意的安排?假設那看似善意性的安排:為何在一無止盡的時間中,原子的隨機運動不能創造出這樣的結果?無論如何,這個改變是個新說法,還是一個道德概念,實際上要說的是世間的每一環節都是環環相扣?
  1. 在第十部份,斐羅言簡意賅的提出了「魔鬼的問題」(the problem of evil)。你對這個問題的想法是什麼?這真的是一個問題嗎?克里安堤斯主張這個問題正好不偏不倚突顯出他對上帝的有力申述,當真如此?
  1. 對話終了時,抄寫員認為克里安堤斯的辯論表現最傑出,大多數學者認為,休謨在書末了做了如此安排是為了平息多數的讀者群,在宗教議題上,這些人可能尚未接受激進懷疑論;提出此論點的學者則認為,斐羅的論證最好,你的想法呢?

第九堂課::休謨,《自然宗教對話錄》摘錄 (續)

第十堂課:盧梭,《論人類不平等的起源和基礎》摘錄

  1. 描述盧梭筆下的自然狀態(the state of nature),這跟霍布斯(Hobbes)的自然狀態差別何在?
  1. 霍布斯認為他所構思的自然狀態也許從未「普遍的」存在郭過。盧梭主張自然狀態是人類的普遍性條件,但也許從未存在過。以上兩種主張足以說明兩位哲學家之間的差別嗎?即使盧梭所說的自然狀態並不存在,他的論證(或者,他似乎是抱持這種想法)仍絲毫不為所動,為何如此?
  1. 盧梭所聲稱的「完美性」是什麼?(為了他所提出的論點而創造了這個字)。這個完美性是否足以勝任描述人性精髓的任務?
  1. 盧梭抨擊以前的哲學家,指責他們一昧以人類文明特徵作為對人類自然狀態的討論,他的攻擊是否適切?這個批評是否也針對盧梭自己?
  1. 文末了,盧梭說道,跟一個加勒比海人(在盧梭的時代,加勒比海人正是生活在自然的典型代表)說明部長或是現代公職人員的生活,無疑是對牛彈琴,因為他無法明白為何有人能以那種方式過日子,這裡盧梭想表達什麼?這個難題-假設我們也承認它是個難題-是否證明部長和公職人員的生活方式不正確?
  1. 盧梭以大篇幅敘述「人類將成為自己和自然的獨裁者」,你能解釋這句話嗎?有人能欺壓自己嗎?有人能欺壓大自然嗎?
  1. 盧梭如何闡述歷史中人類逐漸開化的演進過程?主要階段為何?盧梭主張,法律是有產階級創造用來詐騙無產階級的詭計,這個說法成立嗎?
  1. 盧梭支持擁護進步論嗎?你相信在進步的過程當中,文明機制的發展是會留下痕跡的嗎?

第十一堂課:盧梭,《論人類不平等的起源和基礎》摘錄 (續),以及華滋華斯,選讀《序曲》

第十二堂課:華滋華斯,選讀《序曲》(續)

第十三堂課:華滋華斯,選讀《序曲》(續)

第十四堂課:梭羅,《湖濱散記》摘錄

  1. 梭羅在他二十八歲時隱居森林,以嘗試新的生活,他曾對此加以說明,但是,他那說話的語氣似乎沒能讓我們明白事情的原由,你會如何表達?
  1. 他時常走路到他母親家或是朋友家吃晚飯,每週把髒衣物帶去給他母親洗,還有錢有閒可以去度假,當大多數二十多歲的人正為生活重擔忙得不可開交之際,他卻好像無憂無慮了無煩惱,你難道不會對他的新生活試驗存疑?
  1. 「大部分的人一生都是隨波逐流」,什麼是隨波逐流,為何大多數的人亦對此不滿?
  1. 梭羅所透露的訊息讓我們覺得他是自我矛盾的,隨便舉個例子:「如果我有什麼好懊悔的,可能是我的安分守己」,他的人生哲學究竟是怎麼一回事?為何說話自相矛盾?
  1. 梭羅要表達的寓意之一與其觀念有關,他說,人都是為那些以為需要但實際上沒有任何用處的東西汲汲營營,說來就是為「大而無用」的東西操勞,好像一起迷失在幻想中;另一個寓意就是與自然為伍。梭羅的這兩大面向彼此有密切關聯嗎?我們可以崇尚其中一種看法並譴責另一種嗎?
  1. 梭羅提到他自己的心願是循規蹈矩的生活,他也呼籲讀者要「像大自然般從容不迫的過一天」。這是什麼意思,又要如何實踐?
  1. 梭羅偶爾會提及當地的印地安人,並對他們早期移居開拓的生活佩服不已,他讚嘆印地安人的什麼?
  1. 在省思文明生活(與印地安人的原始生活對照)是否代表人類真正的進步時,梭羅建議我們想想看,比起以帳棚為家,定居的生活方式是否讓我們付出了更大的代價,我們如何計算為生活所付出的代價?
  1. 雖然距離文明之處不遠,交通也方便,梭羅認為我們應該體諒他離群索居自給自足的生活,他強調他生活簡樸不浪費,完全沒什麼見不得人的,他更辯稱,他學到了不依靠一般人認為不可或缺的東西過日子,像是鹽巴、煙草、和酵母麵包,在這樣的情況下,他和因命運作弄而生活在孤島上的魯濱遜似乎同病相憐。你要如何比較他們兩人對其生活條件的態度?如果梭羅被迫要與福斯特〈機器休止〉中的Vashti和Kuno一同生活,他會如何因應?
  1. 梭羅觀察到了,讓他足不出戶的雨水其實對豆子有益,萬一久雨不停而造成豆子種子腐爛的話,那對山丘上的綠茵也有好處,所以,最終對他也是好事一件。你如何抽絲剝繭推敲這份情愫?可以跟克里安堤斯(休謨的《對話錄》)所言,自然是環環相扣的機制的觀點做比較嗎?
  1. 梭羅對美洲印地安人的評語頗佳,卻對一位愛爾蘭移民冷嘲熱諷,他說那個愛爾蘭人不要窩在箱子裡,而設法在小破屋住,成天擔心未來的種種,還想法子改善家人的生活。在倍克農莊那一章中,梭羅毫不留情的批評曾在暴風雨時好心讓他躲雨的貧困愛爾蘭家庭。「John Field是一個老實、勤奮、但不中用的人,他起床後就是茶、咖啡、奶油、牛肉,所以他就必須努力工作好賺取這些食物,為了更賣力工作,他又必須吃得更多,好補充流失的體力 ……」面對這位沒招惹他卻惹來一身腥的愛爾蘭人,梭羅是怎麼為自己的批評辯護?
  1. 梭羅是怎麼評斷《創世紀》所言,人們被告知地球已遭天譴,亞當的過失讓我們必須日復一日的工作(像John Field般)好維持溫飽?
  1. 梭羅說他所居住的都市外圍的環境不只是大自然,而且是「原始粗曠」。什麼是原始粗曠?新英格蘭鄉下的矮樹叢怎麼會是原始粗曠呢?
  1. 在第十七章中,梭羅以長篇大道討論我們都需要「原始的洗禮」,看到和聞到一頭腐壞的馬屍讓他得知大自然運作良好,他說:「我很高興看到大自然對生命是如此的慷慨,多得數不完的畜生可以作為祭祀他人五臟廟的祭品。」大自然不是綠草如茵的殿堂。弱肉強食和彼此殘殺的呼聲要如何與梭羅的人生觀點唱和?看到一頭死去的馬,是不是每個人都會想到斐羅(休謨的《對話錄》)所提出的「魔鬼的問題」?

第十五堂課:梭羅,《湖濱散記》摘錄 (續).

第十六堂課:梭羅,《湖濱散記》摘錄 (續);濟慈,《蟈蟈與蛐蛐》「秋賦」

第十七堂課:達爾文,選讀《物種起源》

  1. 達爾文一開始討論的是蓄養家畜時有意的篩選 (deliberate selection) ,然後筆鋒便轉到無意識的選擇 (unconscious selection),這種寫作策略的目的是什麼?無意識的選擇是如何運作的?人類的意識所選擇的是什麼?無意識選擇的又是什麼?
  1. 達爾文曾經煞費苦心的說,他的理論是一個天擇 (Natural Selection) 的理論,而不是演化的理論 (a theory of evolution),事實上,「演化」(evolution) 這個字從未在他書中出現;頂多用到「逐步發展」(evolved) 這個跟「演化」同一語根的字,你認為為何如此?
  1. (在第三章中)達爾文提及「大自然微妙的平衡機制」,這句話意味著什麼?要在何種範圍下才能貼切符合達爾文這句話?
  1. 第三章的標題是「生存競爭」 (The Struggle for Existence),在物種起源這個基準之下,何處競爭最為嚴酷?
  1. 為了解釋大自然是無時無刻由「複雜的關係網路」所組成,達爾文自創了個例子,說是某個村落中的「老女人們」和大量種植的紅苜蓿是相關的,這個例子的道德觀是什麼?某些理論家以全球大災難這個虛構的概念,來解釋地球的地質記錄顯示物種突然滅絕的事件,此一事件和達爾文的例子有何關聯?
  1. 請討論第四章一開始,達爾文將大自然擬人化 (personification),對於他將大自然當作是天擇推手的論戰,這個作法有助於加強論點還是幫倒忙?
  1. 為了避免捲入上述論戰,達爾文接受了同事的建議,借用哲學家史賓塞 (Herbert Spencer)「適者生存」(the survival of fittest )這句話,以取代原有的「天擇」,這句話是否如達爾文所願適切的表達了他的意圖?
  1. 綜合達爾文的概念,以樹作為族譜概念的類比象徵 (the idea of tree) – 達爾文自己用來指涉生物世代傳延的典型意像 – 是否恰當?
  1. 達爾文也煞費苦心的強調,大自然在進行選擇時,以「體念萬物之長」為依歸,似乎大自然就是個受益者。這隱喻對他的理論來說是否恰當?就達爾文來看,生命的歷史是否就是進步和改革的歷史?如果是的話,進步的方向是什麼?什麼獲得了改進?在那個層面有所改進?
  1. 何謂趨同演化 (convergent evolution)?達爾文對此概念抱以什麼想法?為何他要如此看待這個概念?
  1. 達爾文主張那些得以適應的傾向 (adaptative traits,他用的是特徵characters這個字) 對物種而言都是有益的。研究他所舉的幾個例子,你會不會因此而推論,擁有這些傾向對物種中的個體也是有益處的?
  1. 第一次研讀達爾文著作的人很容易混淆「個別差異」 (individual differences) 和「單一變異」 (single variations) 之間的差別,究竟差別何在?如果這兩個概念本來就被混為一談,又為何成為混淆的起源?
  1. 《物種起源》的第一版中,達爾文主張生物的習性和本能行為,如同其構造特徵一般,可能代代相傳,但在之後的版本,達爾文刪掉了這個想法,你認為其刪除原因為何?
  1. 如同大部分重要的概念,適應 (adaptation) 這個概念並非一目了然。有人可能認為,羊可以同時在山區和草原生存,所以,在這兩種地形之間悠然生活的羊群,比那些只能屈就其中某一地形生存的羊來得優越,但是,達爾文的論點卻背道而馳,箇中原因為何?對他的理論而言,此原因之重要性何在?
  1. 休謨的《對話錄》已闡述了眼睛乃是「極至完美的器官」的概念,這是一個固若金城的觀念,也是早期批評達爾文理論的依據,「極至完美的器官」這個觀念對達爾文理論造成什麼衝擊?他妥當處理了嗎?在他的研究中,完美這個概念演變成什麼樣子?
  1. 另外,在達爾文的時代,另一個重量級的觀念是,每一種生物都會因其結構需要和滿足習慣的理由,而具高度的適應能力,這種結構習性的適應力和生物對其棲息處的適應能力,是特定創造 (special creation) 理論的關鍵,何謂特定創造論?在視生物圈為一個整體的條件下,特定創造理論衍生的結果是什麼?達爾文對這個理論的主張是什麼?為什麼他會有此主張?
  1. 達爾文使用相似性 (analogy)相同性 (homology) 這兩個觀念來區別不同物種之間的「特徵」(characters) 或是傾向 (traits),這兩個概念的差別是什麼?對達爾文主張生物因其環境而衍生適應能力的概念有何重要性?
  1. 林奈曾大力探討達爾文所謂的「神的旨意」 (providential design),這個概念是達爾文討論響尾蛇爬行時所發出的聲音所提出,許多人認為響尾蛇的聲音是神善意的安排,好用來提醒其它生物注意危險的響尾蛇,達爾文對此觀點的用詞是功利主義論 (utilitarian theory),意即生物某些特徵的首要功能是為了維護其它生物的利益;其實,這種看法最初是西賽羅在巴爾布斯 (Balbus) (當巴爾布斯注意到公牛非常適合犁田時) 一書中所提出。達爾文是怎麼處理功利主義理論?他如何解釋響尾蛇尾巴的響聲?
  1. 「功利主義論」的有力例證是群居昆蟲對其團體整體利益的貢獻,最熟悉的例子就是蜜蜂的尾刺,一旦用尾刺去攻擊敵人時,蜜蜂也同歸於盡。為何這個例子對達爾文理論造成了衝擊?而達爾文又如何自圓其說?
  1. 達爾文在他書中數次引述以下格言:「大自然對多樣性很慷慨,但對發明卻很吝嗇」,這句話代表著什麼?他深信他的理論可以解釋這項真理,而「特定創造」理論則無此效力,為什麼?在你看來,這項真理只侷限在生物界嗎,或者也可以應用於文明?
  1. 在接近書本末了,達爾文再次提及休謨以原始落後族群為思考基點而類推的內容,這些野人把船視為超乎人類想像不可思議的創作。請以達爾文論證為脈絡來探究這個類推,達爾文同意誰的論點?斐羅還是克里安堤斯?
  1. 假設達爾文跨越時空來到現代,湊巧看到「環境」這字眼,他會怎麼說?

第十八堂課:達爾文,選讀《物種起源》(續);佛羅斯特,「Design」, 「Come In」, 「the Most of It」

第十九堂課:威爾斯,《蒙羅醫生之島》

  1. 許多讀者經常會對本書大失所望,因為就素材看來,本書缺乏一個清晰的論點。因此,很多人辯稱這是一個反對活體解剖的觀點,即本書反對動物實驗這種殘酷形式,要如何反駁這種論點?
  1. 讀了本書之後,第一章提到救生艇上的人們考慮同類相殘以食人習俗來延續自己的生命,你認為本章的重點為何?
  1. 在書本末尾,島上的什麼讓Prendrick喘不過氣-當他因為某種精神上的重負而痛苦不堪-在那裡毫無目標可言。這個無目標性和達爾文式看待地球生物的觀點,是否有異曲同工之妙?
  1. Prendrick最初猜測蒙羅醫生的工作時,懷疑他是要把人類改變成動物;但Prendrick明白,事實完全不是這麼回事。在這兩種想法中,其中一個是否比另一個來的更站不住腳,或者兩種一樣可怕?你認為威爾斯為何要在主人翁的思緒中寫入這個錯誤?
  1. 蒙羅醫生認為他自己的所作所為理所當然,並且爭辯痛苦是毫無意義的說辭。在Prendick 看來,蒙羅實驗的錯誤是在於動物所遭受的苦痛程度,或是在於蒙羅本身對於痛苦的感受另有所指?
  1. Prendick說,如果所有的苦痛都是為了人道理由,那他可能會「體諒」蒙羅的做法,這是個有力的辯駁嗎?
  1. Prendick沉想著島上動物的遭遇:以前他們還是禽獸的時候,他們的本能是就地取材,處之泰然,現在則背負著人類的枷鎖,動彈不得,生活在無止盡的恐懼中,也因為無法理解法律而焦躁煩憂;他們對可笑的人類生存方式,一開始是極度不安,後來則成為漫長的內心交戰,非常畏懼蒙羅醫生 -畏懼什麼?放肆荒唐胡作非為讓我不得安寧 (第98頁,Signet版本)。達爾文會如何解釋以上段落所引述的的「適切性」(fitness)?動物變成人類之後,開始「無法適應」(unfit)-無法適應自然,這個想法代表的是什麼?
  1. 請思考諾貝爾生物學得獎主賈克莫諾(Jacques Monod,在其著作《機會與 需求》(Chance and Necessity)中,針對語言和智能的發展所提出的意見:

    「…最近以一頭年輕黑猩猩所做的實驗顯示,猿類動物沒有學習口說語言的能力,但能吸收和使用與聾啞人士溝通的手語。因此,我們可以大膽假設,語言符號表達能力的習得,可能發生在某些神經生理變異非必要但卻微妙精細的動物身上,而且這種動物不比今天的黑猩猩來得聰明… 很明顯的是,一旦出現了語言的徵兆,即使是很粗糙的,就能大大的提升才智的生存價值,也因此依照腦力的發展順勢創造出,既龐大且以選擇為導向的壓力,沒有言語的動物是無法體會這樣的壓力… 我們可以看到的是…言語所產生的選擇性的壓力,促使中樞神經系統的演化朝向一種特定的智能:此智能最適合用來開發展這種特殊的、獨特的、無限可能語言行為。」
    Monod這段話是否與蒙羅醫生在書中第十四章所言有關?如果書中蒙羅的論調有任何可怕之處,Monod的主張是否也是如此?
  1. 蒙羅醫生埋怨他就是無沒忍受情緒的變動,也就是他所謂的「人性之惡」,所以他想創造一種高度理性的生物,但是情緒讓他事半功倍。蒙羅醫生本身是否就具有讓他嘮叨不已的情緒問題?他努力打造的理性動物是否就是「他自己的寫照」?這會不會讓生物更(不)人性化?另外,情緒化的問題是否就同蒙羅醫生所言乃「禽獸之性」?
  1. 文章末了,蒙羅醫生對於人性的觀點,即「人類缺乏一個理性靈魂的平和威信」,似乎說服了Prendick。最後,讓他感到慰藉的是天文和宇宙玄思,而非行星的本質。請比較此情況與達爾文《物種起源》的最後一句話,宇宙的本質能夠提供我們什麼慰藉?你要怎麼描述Prendick的態度?那是本書所強調的嗎?

第二十堂課:威爾斯,選讀《蒙羅醫生之島》(續)

第二十一堂課:赫胥黎(Huxley, T.H.*3),「天演論」;哈丁,「公共的災難」

  1. 赫胥黎論點的來由是什麼?他嘗試反駁的是達爾文主義影射的那個主張?
  1. 赫胥黎反對自然狀態 (The State of Nature) 和人為狀態 (the Human State of Art) (也就是技巧,即事物的智能管理)並堅持這兩者是互相衝突的,並且堅持這兩種情況是彼此衝突的。亞里斯多德是怎麼看待這兩狀態之間的關係?聰明的達爾文主義者要如何反駁赫胥黎的衝突論?
  1. 赫胥黎將自然狀態和宇宙本質 (Cosmic Nature)連接起來,並主張世間人類的巧計都是宇宙本質的產物,如果這論點看似自我矛盾,那麼,如果有人說藝術創造正是為了抵抗宇宙的本質,赫胥黎認為那實在是不合邏輯的說法,那些持反對論調的是否在邏輯上站不住腳?你的論點的依據又是什麼?
  1. 赫胥黎所選擇的技巧象徵是花園-就隱喻而言,是一幅自然的景象,但又完全在人為控制中,「在花園裡,每一株植物和每一種低下的動物都應該順從人類的慾望,如果沒有了人類的監督和呵護,他們的生命就會逐漸枯萎。」這幅花園景象與創世紀中的花園相比如何呢?監督花園與達爾文《物種起源》開宗明義所言的豢養動物的概念相比又如何呢?
  1. 花園之後搖身一變成了殖民地,殖民地 (即世界上「未開發」的地方)和文明地區之間的類比有些什麼含意?赫胥黎會接受嗎?
  1. 在殖民區域,不管是人類,還是他們豢養的物種,所有為了生存做出的掙扎都會徹底瓦解。如果〈機器休止〉的作者福斯特 (M. Forster)面臨同一情況,你認為他的看法是什麼?
  1. 赫胥黎對於大同世界的見解是什麼?花園裡的蛇代表了什麼?依赫胥黎之見,理想雖是好的但卻不實際,或者只不過是一個謬論,一個原本就錯誤的想法?或者,以上兩者都對,也就是一個絕妙卻無法實現的妄想,一旦有人起心動念把它當作付諸行動的指導原則時,說穿了也是糟糕的念頭?若要回答這些問題,我們先考慮赫胥黎的論調吧,他說不需要一舉挑選出最優秀的人才,原因並不只是因為我們缺乏選擇精英的知識,還因為「如果沒有一連串的打擊,以及凝聚社會力量的毀滅,就不可能發生」。
  1. 在總結其主張時,赫胥黎討論那些反擊天擇論者,「這是一個倫理的程序」,也就是,「那是與宇宙演進和諧對比 (harmonious contrast),以促進團隊的效率」,「在大自然或是其它社會裡的生存競爭」,但也「有可能因此扼殺了最可能在生存競爭中成功的才能。」赫胥黎聲稱的「和諧對比」是什麼?人類的存在似乎是天擇所選擇的結果,從這個「兩面夾攻腹背受敵」 (double-bind) 的情勢,他推論出的結果是什麼?發展人類獨特本質的努力是否與自我破壞處於唇亡齒寒的狀態?
  1. 就某角度來看,哈丁似乎與赫胥黎的論點相唱和-人類智慧的運用走到了一個兩面夾攻腹背受敵的地步,因此開始顛覆自身存在,哈丁如何解釋這個兩面夾攻腹背受敵的地步?他的解釋與赫胥黎的解釋又何不同?另外,哈丁的結論並和赫胥黎的並不相同;他堅持人類智慧能夠洞悉合作的需要,而有為的領導人能夠從旁推波助瀾,然而,領導人更應該能夠決定兩項或更多項無與倫比但必須割捨的美德,不能夠選擇算計街結果比較好的,因為好的是「不能計量的」。Hardin說天擇就是這一套做法,他的意見是對的嗎?領導人不僅取代天擇的職務,而且以天擇的方式行事,是這樣嗎?
  1. 威廉斯認為赫胥黎持保留的態度:天擇不僅是道德中立的,它是邪惡的。他聲稱的邪惡是什麼意思?他的意見是對的嗎?
  1. 赫胥黎認為道德生活的難處在於平息自我和他人看法之間的紛爭。而威廉斯關心的則是人類利益和遺傳因子利益之間的論爭。這種改變對於受非難的天擇有何影響?談論「遺傳因子的利益」有何道理?
  1. 大自然之道可能提供人類道德規勸,威廉斯對於這個想法沒有太多的空間,他認為高等動物有某些特質是物種基因組合天擇後的產物,請討論這些特質。在威廉斯的書中,你能不能找到任何論點可以激勵那些奉獻犧牲的環境主義者?

第二十二堂課:威廉斯,「「天演論」在社會生物學的擴張」

第二十三堂課:福克納,「熊」摘錄自《去吧,摩西》

  1. 直到Ike放棄三樣東西之後才得以看見熊,為什麼福克納選這三樣東西?它們代表的是什麼價值觀?福克納杜撰了一個很棘手的字眼-洗手不幹 (relinquishment)-以形容Ike熟能生巧的技能,這意味著什麼?讀者如何練習Ike這項專長?
  1. 福克納在書中所描述的「荒漠」 (wilderness) 是什麼?被鐵路橫貫的一百平方英哩土地,怎麼會被形容是荒漠呢?故事末了,為了伐木,這片荒漠被出售了,是否因此而失去什麼?請提出你最佳的解釋。Ike二十一歲生日當天,他和McCaslin在福利社長談時,討論到福利社所代表的價值,請說明故事中荒漠一詞所欲表達的價值及福利社的價值。
  1. 在故事尾聲,Ike碰到了一條毒蛇,他便舉手,以Sam老爹教他的印地安禮儀向這隻蛇打招呼,還稱呼牠一聲「老爺子」,這禮數的意義是什麼?
  1. 為什麼 Sam 和 Ike想殺死熊?借由一隻名叫小子的笨狗之力,他們把熊逼到一角,但是並沒有射殺牠,McCaslin認為他知道原因何在,他的想法正確嗎?最終這隻熊是被一隻名叫Lion的瞎眼狗制伏,如果這隻熊代表著荒漠的精神象徵,那Lion又代表著什麼?
  1. 評論家批評小說中漫長篇幅的家庭故事就是所謂的「意識流」 (Stream of consciousness) 手法,不過卻因此腰截了這近乎完美的小說,而現有版本把那段故事整個刪掉了(幾乎是小說的一半),其實,當福克納首次在雜誌以連載方式發表小說時,這段家庭故事是整個被抽掉的,又把它加進去是不是個錯誤?
  1. 如同某些希臘悲劇,福克納小說中的某些人物亦受到詛咒的折磨,故事中詛咒的本質是什麼?是成就?是提升?還是贖罪?小說裡有三次因相同舉動的結果所造成的死亡,這些死因彼此的牽連關係是什麼?有沒有任何其中一樁可被視為悲劇?
  1. 讓我們看看小說的第三段,其中蘊含故事重心,並且貫穿全局。請解釋文章最後一部分(第五部分)的重要性,其情節扣人心弦,例如熊爬上樹、與蛇相遇、歇斯底里的Boon和發狂的松鼠之間的關聯。

第二十四堂課:福克納,「熊」摘錄自《去吧,摩西》(續);李奧帕德,「土地倫理」


第二十五堂課:
勒瑰恩,「比帝國更大更遲鈍」


第二十六堂課:
米雷,「保護島嶼的義務」;卡理寇,「解放動物」

*1譯者注:此為古代化學用詞,在氧氣尚未被發現前,用來指涉可燃物的可燃成分。
*2譯者注:Cleanthes, 301-232B.C, 隸屬斯多葛學派。
*3譯者注:勿與《美麗新世界》的赫胥黎(Aldous Huxley, 1894-1963)混淆







Paper Assignments

  • Paper Assignment 1 (PDF)
  • Paper Assignment 2 (PDF)
  • Paper Assignment 3 (PDF)
Reading Assignments

Lecture 1: Introduction - The Image of Nature in Genesis.

Lecture 2: Forester, E. M. "The Machine Stops."

  1. The Machine Stops depends upon a difference in the relation between people where body-language and nuances of expression carry important weight and relations–such as conference-calls like the one that preceded the Challenger disaster–that are managed via the operations of machinery. The former is referred to as "direct experience" and the inhabitants of the Machine have a horror of it. How valid is this opposition? Do we ever encounter each other directly? Our social identities have many aspects, and these aspects, more often than not, are tied to the considerable variety in kinds of social situations; explicit and inexplicit codes and conventions find expression in speech and behavior and mediate our experience of one another. Why should talking down a telephone, say, be any less immediate than the ritual gestures and speech of a conversation in a board room or during a presentation at presidential mansion?
  1. Hackers and nerds who frequent internet "chat-rooms" experience a novel freedom from their everyday social identities and often claim to have developed a series of new ones, to which they give mysterious, misleading, or comic names. Can media be a vehicle for the expression of an alternate social identity? Consider the difference between tools and machines. Tools, we know, can become extensions of one's body. (The blind often claim that they feel what their canes are touching, not the cane that their fingers are touching.) Is a bicycle a tool or a machine? Can automobiles become an extension of your body? How about the hacker and his computer?
  1. What does it mean to live inside a machine? Is the machinery simply a metaphor, a stand-in for features of human relationships that Forster judged adversely? Or is the story actually about machinery and what happens to human relationships when human relationships become dependent upon machines, particularly in the way of communication? Or can these questions both be answered affirmatively—by raising the possibility that the story is about something in human nature (of which Forster does not approve) which does not depend upon the existence of machinery but which is encouraged by an increasing reliance of human beings to manage their relationships with one another by means of machines?
  1. Can people be part of a machine (or a machine-like process)? Would you regard the workers on an assembly-line as serving the conveyor belt, which embodies an idea of consecutive assembly that the workers do not have to grasp to perform their function? Can one regard the factory itself as a machine in which the workers are functioning parts?
  1. Workers might be elements of a machine-system but how about staff and management? Any corporate entity (e.g., a government or a business) with a table of organization regards each element as performing a distinct function within the system of the whole, as the system turns input into output. Is it necessary to understand how the system works at every stage to operate efficiently as a subordinate element within it?
  1. Some specific questions, among others about The Machine Stops: Vashti agrees to "isolate" herself to talk to Kuno. Is she in the presence of "several thousand people" when she hasn't "isolated" herself? Why does she feel that she is "wasting time" when she agrees to talk to only one person? What does Kuno mean when he says that mankind is the measure of all things? The Book of the Machine is a set of instructions for operating the cell inhabited by each of the people of the Machine plus a set of timetables for various public facilities. Vashti holds it "reverently", kisses it, and feels "the delirium of acquiescence." What is she "acquiescing" to? Regard for the Machine is presented in the text as a kind of misplaced form of religious worship, and yet there is much talk that the present age has successfully banished superstition. Is this a contradiction? How about the notion that each year (p. 263.) the machine is served more efficiently and less intelligently? Looking at the stars or the Himalayas, Vashti thinks, "No ideas here." What sort of ideas could one discover simply by looking at such things?

Lecture 3: Ancient Views of Nature: Aristotle. Physics. Bk II. and Cicero. Excerpt from On the Gods: The Discourse of Balbus.

Physics, Book II.

  1. The word physis in Greek means nature; the title of this book might well be The Nature of Things. Aristotle believes that understanding anything has to do with identifying the sort of thing it is and that this identification depends upon being able to identify its inherent principle of change–change in appearance, in location, in motion. Do we believe that change is inherent in things? Or is it always induced by externalities? Or a combination of both?
  1. Understanding the nature of things depends upon asking the right questions about them. The answers, for Aristotle, are aitai–a word usually translated as causes, but perhaps better translated as becauses, for they are the answer to a properly formulated question about why something is the way it is. Aristotle offers four aitai. What are they? Can you give an account of them?
  1. We can easily think of kinds of things that have no intellectual significance (Example: all physical objects that are approximately five inches from the nearest wall) or things that might have significance but do not exist (phlogiston, witches); but Aristotle believes that everyday perception and a trained intelligence can see into the nature of things–get at the inherent principle of change in things. Is this a naive assumption? Is it still in operation today?
  1. The inherent tendency to change is called eidos by Aristotle–usually translated as form, but it is also the ancient Greek word for idea and also for species. Do you see any connection between these things? He has a quarrel with the philosopher Antiphon about whether eidos is inherent or external in chapter one of Book II. What is the nature of the quarrel?
  1. Aristotle believes that there are two features of the world that do not submit to understanding the nature of things–luck or chance (tyche) and spontaneity or coincidence (automaton). What is his understanding of these features and how does it differ from our own?
  1. Inherent principles of change each make for change in a particular way. This way is called its telos, its end, its aim, its goal. Things in the world all possess a telos, and the purposeful activities of human beings constitute only one sort of teleological activity. Do we still employ teleological descriptions of the nature and activity of things? If things are properly described teleologically, does it follow that they have purposes?
  1. In chapter eight, Aristotle considers the idea that things happen, not "for the sake of something", that is, in accordance with an end, an aim, or a goal, but rather of necessity, "just as rain falls, not to make crops grow but of necessity." What is his argument against this view?

Balbus on The Nature of the Gods.

Cicero's book, The Nature of the Gods, actually gives a précis of three ancient views of the nature of the universe. The second part of the book offers an account by one of the three disputants, Balbus, of the Stoic view. It is a view which insists that the teleological nature of things is evident and its denial flies in the face of the obvious. How does it differ from Aristotle's view?

Lecture 4: Montaigne. "On Cannibals."; Bacon, Francis. "The New Atlantis."; Drayton. To the Virginia Voyage.; Marvell. Bermudas.; and Shakespeare. The Tempest.

  1. How serious is Montaigne's account of the life of the Cannibals? What are the chief features of their lives? What enables the cannibals to live in the manner that they do? Would it be possible to import Cannibal institutions into the Europe of Montaigne's day? Would you say that the Cannibals, as Montaigne describes them, live more or less according to nature than Europeans do?
  1. Drayton's poem is typical of verse about the New World during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. What features of the world that it describes are of particular interest? How does it compare with Marvell's Bermudas, which is somewhat later in time?
  1. Compare Montaigne's Cannibals with the people of the New Atlantis. How do their institutions differ? If you had to live among one or the other, which would you choose? Why do the Atlanteans try to keep their existence hidden from Europeans? The chief institution in the New Atlantis is the House of Solomon; why are its practices kept secret from most of the people? Should there be such a thing as "forbidden knowledge"? Does the issue bear in any way upon the knowledge forbidden Adam in the Garden of Eden? What is the purpose of the House and its practices? Does it embody a reasonable notion of knowledge? One of its practices is to fiddle with natural kinds–breeding intermediate species of plants and animals. Would Bacon's contemporaries have regarded this as ethical? Do we?
  1. Would Prospero have done well in the House of Solomon? How does his magic compare with their science? What is the scope of Prospero's magic? Why does he require the services of Caliban, of whom he says, "We cannot do without him"? How does Caliban compare with Montaigne's Cannibals? One of the courtiers (the good Gonzalo) quotes Montaigne verbatim (in the translation current in Shakespeare's day) about the nature of an ideal commonwealth. The evil courtiers mock him. Is the quotation foolish? Is Caliban evil or just innocent? Why does Prospero abandon his magic when he returns to Europe? Both Ariel and Caliban yearn for freedom. Ariel achieves it; Caliban elects to remain in servitude. What ideal of "freedom" lies behind this contrast. To test his worth, Prospero condemns Ferdinand to (temporary) servitude. Is servitude a positive value today? What is its value in the play? What is guilty knowledge and why should we want to keep children from it? What is innocence and why should it be cherished? How "innocent" is a populace of the obligations of office? What is the value of chastity? Is it magical? Is the earth chaste? What is the implication of the courtly masque and the absence of Eros and Aphrodite?

Lecture 5: Shakespeare. The Tempest. (continued)

Lecture 6: Defoe. Robinson Crusoe.

  1. The earlier adventures of Robinson are usually left out of popular discussions of the book, with the result that readers new to the text are surprised to find them there. What do we learn about Robinson from that part of the book–from his relationship with Xury, the slave-boy, for example. Do you think that the assumptions about slavery that animate Robinson's conduct were shared by the mass of Defoe's readers?
  1. "I had been reduced to the state of nature", exclaims Robinson about one third through the book. Has he? Some of Crusoe's readers in later centuries thought that it spoiled the tale to let Crusoe have all the implements of civilization that he salvages from the ship for use on his island. Is their annoyance right or do they misconceive the book?
  1. What notion of "nature" does the book rely on? How does Crusoe's island differ (by implication of the constraints that it imposes upon him) from the habitation of Montaigne's cannibals or Prospero's island?
  1. What does Robinson mean when he says, "I had to earn every experience before I had it." Is this a condition to be valued or to be avoided? Does the idea behind the phrase offer any insight into the condition of the people in Forster's The Machine Stops?
  1. Robinson often undertakes enormous labors that turn out to be useless, and not just because he has been lacking in foresight. For example: he oversees the construction of an enormous canoe, only to have a better one delivered into his hands by accident. What is the point of introducing such episodes into the story?
  1. It has been said that Defoe's book is a hymn of praise for the Protestant work-ethic and the dignity of labor. What is your view of this judgment?

Lecture 7: Defoe. Robinson Crusoe. (continued)

Lecture 8: Linnaeus. Excerpts from The Economy of Nature.; White, Gilbert. Excerpt from The Natural History of Selbourne.; and Hume, David. Excerpts from Dialogues on Natural Religion.

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

  1. At the outset of the dialogues (not reprinted here), one of the listeners refers to the "accurate philosophical turn of Cleanthes", "the careless skepticism of Philo," and "the rigid, inflexible orthodoxy of Demea." The first paragraph in our excerpt gives the basis of Demea’s position. What about it makes for "rigid, inflexible orthodoxy"?
  1. How good is Cleanthes’s case that the whole universe is one vast machine, composed in turn of lesser machines? How does it differ from the case advanced by Balbus in Cicero’s dialogue?
  1. How close is Cleanthes’s argument both here and later in the text to Aristotle’s view of telos?
  1. In Part II, Philo argues that ideas have an inherent principle of organization and that without experience, one might well suppose that material parts might have a principle of organization in themselves, too. But experience convinces us otherwise, and this, he says, is the heart of Cleanthes’s view that the organized character of the universe implies a Divine Creator. What would Aristotle say of the distinction that Philo suggests between matter and mind?
  1. Expound Cleanthe’s argument about the "vegetable library". Why is it invoked? How valid is the analogy to the case that he is making?
  1. What is the force or validity of Cleanthes claim that without anthropomorphism, the worship of deity is atheism?
  1. Cleanthes argues (in Part IV) that you have sufficiently accounted for a machine by pointing to the mind that invented it. Philo insists that this is like accounting for the movement of the earth by arguing that it is carried on the back of a celestial elephant. What is at issue in this quarrel and who has the better of it?
  1. How convincing is Cleanthes’s argument about the eye, in Part III? How would you refute it?
  1. Compare Philo’s example (in Part V) of the ship and the carpenters who made it with Cleanthes’s view that design is a mark of an intelligent and knowledgeable designer. Is it an effective refutation?
  1. At one point (in Part VII), Philo resorts to the alleged plausibility of the view that the universe is not a machine but a vegetable. Is the move valid? What issue does it address? Does it suggest a fallibility in Cleanthes’s position?
  1. When Philo (in Part VIII) introduces the notion that, given an infinity of time the chance movements of atoms alone must sooner or later create an ordered universe, Cleanthes counters with the thought that the universe is not merely ordered but is benevolently ordered. Rightly or wrongly, the difference between organized ideas and disorderly or random matter is presented as intuitively apparent by Philo; is it intuitively apparent that the arrangement of things in the world is benevolently intended? Suppose it looks like a benevolent arrangement: why cannot the random motions of atoms create it, given an infinity of time? In any case, is this turn in the argument a novelty or is their an ethical idea lurking in the very notion that the various parts of the world are well fitted to each other?
  1. In Part X, Philo succinctly poses "the problem of evil". What is your sense of this problem? Is it a real one? Cleanthes believes that the problem affords the clearest evidence of the advantage of his view of God. Is he right?
  1. At the end of the dialogue, the transcriber of them offers the judgment that Cleanthes argued best in the discussion. Most scholars believe that Hume wrote this view into the end of his text in order to pacify the majority of his readers, who were possibly not ready for outright skepticism with regard to religious matter; these scholar hold that Philo gets the best of the argument. What is your view?

Lecture 9: Hume, David. Dialogues on Natural Religion. (continued)

Lecture 10: Rousseau. Excerpts from On the Origins of Inequality.

  1. Describe the state of nature as Rousseau conceives it. How does it differ from the state of nature in Hobbes.
  1. Hobbes's says that the state of nature probably never existed "generally". Rousseau describes it as a general condition of humanity but also that it may never have existed. Does this make a difference between the two philosophers? Why does it not matter to Rousseau's argument (or so he seems to think) that the state of nature as he describes it never existed?
  1. What does "perfectibility" mean to Rousseau? (He actually invented the word for the sake of this argument.) Is it adequate to the task of indicating the decisive feature of humanity?
  1. Rousseau accuses other philosophers before himself of attributing to mankind in the state of nature only characteristics of mankind in a state of civilization. How adequate is the accusation? Can it be leveled at Rousseau as well?
  1. At the end of his text, Rousseau says that it would be impossible to explain the life of minister or a modern public official to a Caribbean (still the typical image in Rousseau's day of someone who lives naturally), who would simply not understand how anyone could come to live in that way. What does Rousseau have in mind here? Does the difficulty–assuming that we admit it–invalidate the life of the minister or official?
  1. At length, says Rousseau, "man becomes a tyrant over himself and nature". Can you explain this phrase? Can one tryrannize over oneself? Can one tyrannize over nature?
  1. How does Rousseau describe the course of history, during which humanity became progressively more civilized? What are its main stages? Rousseau describes the invention of law as a trick played by those possessing much property upon those possessing none. Is this account intelligible?
  1. Is Rousseau a partisan of the idea of progress? Do you believe in a course of progress marking the growth of civilized institutions?

Lecture 11: Rousseau. Excerpts from On the Origins of Inequality (continued), and Wordsworth. Selections from The Prelude.

Lecture 12: Wordsworth. Selections from The Prelude. (continued)

Lecture 13: Wordsworth. Selections from The Prelude. (continued)

Lecture 14: Thoreau, Henry David. Excerpts from Walden.

  1. Thoreau withdrew to the woods when he was twenty-eight to try an experiment in living. He gives his reasons, but the language of his explanations does not always make the matter clear. How would you put his reasons?
  1. Does it cast doubt upon the experiment to learn that he dined frequently at his mother's or with his friends, all of whom lived within easy walking distance, that he brought his dirty linen to his mother so that she could wash it for him every week, that he could afford to spend his time on vacation, as it were, from the burdens of life because he was largely unburdened of the responsibilities that most people have acquired by the time that they are in their mid-twenties?
  1. "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." What is quiet about desperation and why do most people suffer from it?
  1. Thoreau's message lends itself readily to paradox. To take an example at random: "If I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior." What is their about his view of life that pushes his expression to paradox?
  1. One part of Thoreau's message has to do with his sense that people crave what they do not need but think they do–they labor under the burden of "unnecessary needs", so to speak, a kind of collectively-induced illusion. The other part has to do with Nature and the need to live in right relation to it. Are the two parts deeply connected? Could one champion one part and condemn the other?
  1. Thoreau speaks of his wish to live deliberately, and he urges his readers at one point to "spend one day as deliberately as Nature". What does that mean and how can it be done?
  1. Thoreau speaks occasionally of the local Indians and reflects with admiration upon accounts of them that have come down from the early settlers. What does he admire about them?
  1. In reflecting upon whether civilization (as opposed to the savagery of the Indians) represents a real advance in the condition of man, Thoreau asks us to consider whether it costs us more life to have a better dwelling than a tepee. How would we measure the amount of life that something costs us?
  1. Despite the proximity of civilization and its easy access, Thoreau asks us to accept that he lived largely isolated and self-dependent. He insists that he has kept a careful account of everything and we may examine his figures, and he argues that he learned to do without things that other think necessary, like salt, tobacco, and bread made with yeast. In all this he resembles Robinson Crusoe, involuntarily marooned on his island. How would you compare the attitudes of each to his situation? How would Thoreau respond if he were compelled to live with Vashti and Kuno in Forster's Machine?
  1. Thoreau observes that the rain that confines him indoors is good for his beans, and if it should continue so long to rot the bean seeds, it would still be good for the grass on the hills, and therefore it would be good for him. How would you elaborate this sentiment? How does it compare with Cleanthes's view (in Hume's Dialogue) that all nature is a machine of interlocking parts?
  1. As Thoreau has good words for the American Indian, so he has harsh words for the immigrant Irish laborer, who is derided because he tries to live in a shack instead of a box, worries about the future, and tries to improve the lot of his family. In the chapter on Baker farm, Thoreau exercises his flair for paradox on a poor Irish family that has kindly offered him shelter in a rainstorm. "An honest, hard-working, but shiftless man was John Field [who] as he began with tea, and coffee, and butter, and milk, and beef, so he had to work hard to pay for them, and when he had worked hard he had to eat hard again to repair the waste of his system . . . " How would Thoreau defend himself against the charge that the Irish have done nothing to deserve this modest derision?
  1. What would Thoreau think of the passage in Genesis, in which we are told that the earth has been cursed, thanks to Adam's transgression, and that we must labor incessantly (like John Field) to sustain ourselves?
  1. Thoreau speaks of his essential suburban surroundings not merely as Nature but also as "wilderness". What is wilderness and how can the scrub forest of rural New England be identified with it?
  1. In a lengthy passage in chapter 17, which begins by saying that we need the "tonic of wilderness", Thoreau argues that the sight and smell of a decaying horse gave him assurance of the health of Nature: "I love to see that Nature is so rife with life that myriads can be afforded to be sacrificed and suffered to prey on one another." Nature is not the garden of goodness, then. How does rejoicing in predation and mutual destruction fit in with Thoreau's general views? How would anyone concerned with "the problem of evil" confronted by Philo (in Hume's Dialogues) view the dead horse?

Lecture 15: Thoreau, Henry David. Excerpts from Walden. (continued)

Lecture 16: Thoreau, Henry David. Excerpts from Walden (continued), and Keats. The Grasshopper and the Cricket, To Autumn.

Lecture 17: Darwin. Selections from On the Origin of Species.

  1. Darwin begins with the deliberate selection practiced in the breeding of stock-animals and moves to the notion of unconscious selection. What is the point of this strategy? How does unconscious selection work? What do humans consciously select for? What do they unconsciously select for?
  1. Darwin was at pains to say that his theory was a theory of Natural Selection and not a theory of evolution. In fact, the word "evolution" does not appear in the book; the last word alone, evolved, is the only place where a cognate of "evolution" is used. Why do you suppose this is so?
  1. Darwin refers at one point (in chapter 3) to "the delicate balance of nature". What does that phrase imply? To what extent is it appropriate to what Darwin is talking about?
  1. Chapter 3 is entitled, "The Struggle for Existence". Where is that struggle most intense, from the standpoint of its relevance to the origin of species?
  1. To illustrate the "web of complex relations" that constitute Nature at any moment, Darwin invents an example having to do with the presence of "old maids" in a village area and the prevalence of red clover. What is the moral of the example? What is its relevance to the notion that global cataclysms have been imagined by some theorists to explain the sudden extinction of species that is revealed in the geological record of the planet?
  1. Discuss Darwin's personification of Nature near the outset of Chapter 4. Does it help or confuse the argument to make Nature into an agent that does the selecting?
  1. To obviate possible confusions on this score, Darwin was eventually persuaded by colleagues to add to or substitute for "Natural Selection" a phrase borrowed from the philosopher Herbert Spencer, "the survival of the fittest." Is this phrase a good one for the job that Darwin wanted it to do?
  1. In the light of Darwin's over-all conception, how adequate is the idea of a tree–the typical image, which Darwin himself invokes, for representing lines of descent–to serve as an analogy for what Darwin is talking about?
  1. Darwin is also at pains to insist that Nature, in exercising selection, acts only "for the good of each being", as if Nature were a beneficent agency. How appropriate is this implication to the theory? Is the history of life in Darwin's view a history of progress and improvement? If so, what is the direction of progress? What is it that gets improved and in what respect is it improved?
  1. What is meant by convergent evolution? How does Darwin regard the idea and why does he regard it in this way?
  1. Darwin says that adaptative traits (he uses the word "characters") are always beneficial to a species. Working with some of his examples, would you say that it therefore must also be beneficial to the individual members of the species, which possess the traits in question?
  1. A source of much confusion among Darwin's first readers was the difference between "individual differences" and "single variations". What is the difference and why is it a possible source of confusion if the two ideas are mixed up?
  1. In the first edition of the Origin, Darwin suggested that the habits and instinctual behavior of a species might be transmitted from generation to generation, just as anatomical features might be, but he omitted the suggestion in subsequent editions. Can you guess at his reasons for withdrawing the suggestion?
  1. Like most important notions, the concept of adaptation is not straightforward. One might suppose that a sheep capable of browsing both on mountainsides and level plains and therefore adept at the area in between would have a selective advantage over sheep capable of just doing one or the other, but Darwin argues for the reverse conclusion. What is his reasoning and how important is the issue to his theory?
  1. The idea of the eye as an "organ of extreme perfection" was already dealt with in Hume's Dialogue. It was a well-entrenched idea and the source of much early criticism of Darwin's views. What difficulty does the idea of "organs of extreme perfection" raise for Darwin's theory? How well does he deal with it? What becomes of the notion of perfection in his hands?
  1. In this connection, an important idea in Darwin's time was the notion that every sort of creature is extremely well-adjusted by reason of its anatomy to its necessities and to the habits that go with satisfying them. This adjustment of habit with anatomy and of both to the creature's habitat was an important point in the theory of special creation. What is the theory of special creation? What are its ramifications in thinking about the biosphere as a whole? What is Darwin's view of this theory and why does he take the position that he occupies with respect to it?
  1. Darwin distinguished between analogy and homology in identifying the "characters" or traits of different species. What is this distinction and how important is it to Darwin's conception of the adaptiveness of organisms to their habitats?
  1. Linnaeus talks a good deal about what Darwin calls "providential design", a notion that Darwin touches upon when he talks about the rattle of the rattlesnake, which many believed was put there by a benevolent Providence to warn other creatures of the danger posed by the rattlesnake. Darwin's term for this sort of notion is the utilitarian theory, the idea that creatures have traits whose primary function is to benefit other creatures; we first met this idea in Cicero's Balbus (when Balbus observes that the ox was obviously designed for plowing.) How does Darwin deal with the "utilitarian theory"? How would he explain the existence of the rattle in the tail of the rattlesnake?
  1. A prime example of the "utilitarian theory" concerned the adaptation of the social insects to the interests of the group, the most familiar instance being the sting of the bee, which is fatal to the insect that uses it. Why does this instance raise a difficulty for Darwin's theory and how does he deal with it?
  1. Several times in the book, Darwin cites the maxim: "Nature is prodigal in variety, though niggard in invention." What does this phrase mean? He believes that his theory can explain the truth of the maxim and the theory of "special creation" cannot. Why? In your view, is the truth of the maxim confined to the biological world or does it apply to civilization as well?
  1. Near the end of his book, Darwin repeats Hume's analogy about the savage, looking on a ship as a wondrous contrivance quite beyond human comprehension. Explore the analogy in the context of Darwin's argument. Which side would Darwin have taken, Philo's or Cleanthes's?
  1. How would Darwin speak about "the environment", should he have been transported to the present and stumbled across this phrase?

Lecture 18: Darwin. Selections from On the Origin of Species (continued), and Frost, Robert. Design, Come In, The Most of It.

Lecture 19: Wells, H. G. The Island of Dr. Moreau.

  1. Many readers have often found this text dissatisfying because it does not seem to contain a clear point of view upon its materials. In this connection, many have claimed that it is an argument against vivesection, a tract against cruel forms of experimentation upon animals. What can be said against this view?
  1. In the light of your reading of the book, what is the point of the first episode, where the men in the life raft consider resorting to cannibalism?
  1. What oppresses Prendrick about the island at the end of the book–when he suffers, so to speak, from a spiritual hangover–is the aimlessness of things there. Is this aimlessness in line with a Darwinian view of life on planet Earth?
  1. Prendick's first guess at what Moreau is doing leads him to suspect that he is trying to turn men into beasts; he learns that the truth is rather the reverse. Is the one occupation worse than the other or are they equally horrifying? Why do you think Well wrote this error into the thoughts of his main character?
  1. Moreau, of course, sees nothing wrong in what he is doing and argues about the meaninglessness of pain? In the view of Prendick, is the extent of the animal's sufferings what is wrong with Moreau's experiments or does his sense of horror have another source?
  1. Prendick says at one point that he might have "understood" Moreau if all this pain was administered for some humanitarian purpose. Would that be a valid justification for it?
  1. Prendick muses about the life of the animals on the island: Before they had been beasts, their instincts fitly adapted to their surroundings, and happy as living things may be. Now they stumbled in the shackles of humanity, lived in a fear that never died, fretted by a law they could not understand; their mock-human existence began in agony, was on long internal struggle, one long dread of Moreau--and for what? It was the wantonness that stirred me. (p. 98, Signet edition.) What would Darwin have made of the notion of "fitness" expressed in this passage. What are the implications of the thought that the animals, having become human beings, are now "unfit"–unadapted to their surroundings?
  1. Consider the following passage by Jacques Monod, the nobel-laurate biologist, on the development of language and intelligence, in his book Chance and Necessity: "

    ...recent experiments with a young chimpanzee seem to show that while apes are incapable of learning spoken language, they can assimilate and utilize some elements of the sign langauge deaf-mutes employ. Hence there are grounds for supposing that the acquisition of the power of articulate symbolization might have followed upon some not necessarily very elaborate neurophysicological modifications in an animal which at this stage was no more intelligent than a present-day chimpanzee. . . . It is evident that, once having made its appearance, language, however primitive, could not help but greatly increase the survival value of intelligence, and thus create, in favor of the development of the brain, a formidable and oriented selective pressure, the likes of which no speechless species could ever experience. . .. We see . . . that the selective pressure engendered by speech was bound to steer the evolution of the central nervous system in the direction of a special kind of intelligence: the kind most apt to exploit this particular, specific performance, rich in immense possibilities."
    How does Monod's argument bear upon those offered by Moreau in Chapter 14 of the book? If there is something arguably horrifying about Moreau's view of things, is there anything horrifying about Monod's remarks?
  1. Moreau complains that somehow he cannot get at the seat of emotions, which, he says, "harm humanity", that he wants to create a creature which is truly rational but the emotions thwart him. Does Moreau himself possess the sorts of emotions that he is complaining about? Is he striving to create a rational creature "in his own image"? Would this make the creature more or less human? Alternatively, is the liability to emotion a "mark of the beast", as Moreau claims?
  1. At the end of the text, Prendick seems to have adapted Moreau's view about humans, "who lack the calm authority of a reasonable soul." In the end, he takes solace from astronomy and the contemplation of cosmic rather than planetary nature. Compare this with the last sentence in Darwin's Origin. What solace can cosmic nature afford? How would you describe Prendick's attitude? Is it an attitude endorsed by the book?

Lecture 20: Wells, H. G. The Island of Dr. Moreau. (continued)

Lecture 21: Huxley, T. H. "Evolution and Ethics," and Hardin, Garret. "The Tragedy of the Commons."

  1. What is the occasion for Huxley's argument? What view of the implications of Darwinism is he trying to discredit?
  1. Huxley opposes the State of Nature and the Human State of Art (that is to say, artifice, the intelligent management of things) and insists that the two are in conflict. What was Aristotle's view of this relationship? How would an intelligent Darwinist argue against Huxley's notion of a conflict?
  1. Huxley links the State of Nature with Cosmic Nature and argues that on earth human artifice is the product of cosmic nature. If it seems contradictory, then, to speak of art as resisting cosmic nature, Huxley says, that is just too bad for logic. Is the opposition logically contradictory? What are the grounds of your answer?
  1. The emblem of artifice chosen by Huxley is the Garden–an image of nature, by implication, as thoroughly under control of human artifice as might be, "where every plant and every lower animal should be adapted to human wants and would perish if human supervision and protection were withdrawn". How does this garden compare with the garden in Genesis? How does its supervision compare with the idea of breeding domestic animals in the first chapter of Darwin's Origin?
  1. The Garden is subsequently transformed into a Colony. What are some of the implications of the analogy drawn between a colony (in allegedly "undeveloped" parts of the world) and civilization? Would Huxley accept them?
  1. In the colony, the struggle for existence would be completely abolished, among humans as well as among all species under their domestic administration. What view do you think that Forster, the author of The Machine Stops, would take of this situation?
  1. What is Huxley's opinion of this ideal? What is the serpent in the garden? Is the ideal good but impractical, in Huxley's view, or a false ideal, inherently wrongheaded? Or is it both, a wonderful fantasy but an impossible realization and therefore bad the moment one attempts to use it as a guide, to put it to any degree into practice? In answering, take into account Huxley's view that direct selection of the best humans would be undesirable not just because we lack the knowledge to select the fittest but also because it cannot "be practiced without a serious weakening, it may be the destruction, of the bonds which holds society together."
  1. In summing up his view, Huxley speaks of the force antagonist to natural selection "the ethical process," which works "in harmonious contrast with the cosmic process, by promoting the efficiency of a group, "in the struggle for existence with nature, or with other societies", but which also "tends to the suppression of the qualities best fitted for success in that struggle". What does Huxley mean by "harmonious contrast"? What conclusion does he draw from the "double-bind" that mankind seems to be placed in by the action of natural selection? Is the effort to develop our distinctly human nature bound to destroy itself?
  1. In one sense, Gilbert Hardin echoes Huxley's argument–the exercise of human intelligence finds itself ultimately in a double-bind and it leads quickly to behavior subversive of its own existence. What is Hardin's account of this double-bind. How does it differ from Huxley's? In another sense, Hardin's conclusion is not Huxley's; he insists that intelligence is capable of seeing the need for cooperation and that responsible governors can enforce it. The governor, however, must be capable of determining of two or more incommeasurable goods which are the ones to be sacrificed; it cannot rely upon calculating the greater good and choosing it, because the goods in question "do not compute". Harden says that Natural Selection works this way. Is he correct? Is the governor not only to replace Natural Selection but also act as it does?
  1. Williams believes that Huxley has understated the case: Natural Selection is not merely ethically neutral, it is evil. What does he mean by evil? Is he right?
  1. For Huxley, the difficulty of ethical life lay in a tussle between self-regarding and other-regarding impulses. For Williams, it concerns a tussle between the interests of human beings and the interests of one's genes. How does this shift in focus affect the condemnation of natural selection? What sense does it make to talk about "the interests of one's genes"?
  1. Williams does not leave much room for thinking that the ways of nature might have some ethical counsel for humanity. Discuss some of the traits in higher animals that he sees as products of natural selection upon the constitution of the species's genome. Can you find anything in Williams that would offer inspiration to a dedicated environmentalist?

Lecture 22: Williams, George. "A Sociobiological Expansion of 'Evolution and Ethics'."

Lecture 23: Faulkner, William. "The Bear." In Go Down, Moses.

  1. Ike cannot see the bear until he has relinquished three things. Why did Faulkner choose these three? What values do they represent? Faulkner coined the deliberately awkward word relinquishment to stand for a practice that Ike has mastered. What does it mean and how could the reader practice it?
  1. What is wilderness, as Faulkner describes it in The Bear? How can a mere 100 square miles cut through by a railroad be called a wilderness? Explain as best you can what is lost when the wilderness is sold for logging at the end of the story. Elucidate the values that are represented by wilderness in the story and contrast these with the values represented by the commissary, the place where Ike and McCaslin have their long discussion on Ike's twenty-first birthday.
  1. When Ike encounters a deadly snake at the end of the story, he lifts his hand and salutes it in the Indian way that he has learned from Sam Fathers, calling it "Grandfather". What is the point of the ceremony?
  1. Why do Sam and Ike want to kill the bear? They corner the bear at one point, aided by a foolish dog called "the fyce" but they do not shoot at it. McCaslin thinks he knows why. Is he right? Eventually the bear is brought to ground by Lion, the dog with empty eyes. If the bear can be said to stand in one way or another for the spirit of the wilderness, what does Lion stand for?
  1. Critics of The Bear have argued that the long passage on the history of the family, written in so-called "stream of consciousness" style is an interruption of an otherwise nearly perfect text, and editions exist which eliminate that passage (virtually one-half the text) entirely. When Faulkner, in fact, originally published the story in magazine form, he omitted that section. Did he make a mistake in including it?
  1. As in some Greek tragedies, the characters in Faulkner's The Bear labor under a curse. What is the nature of the curse in this text? Is it fulfilled? Lifted? Expiated? There are three deaths in the text and they take place as a result of the same action. How are these deaths related? Can any of them be regarded as tragic?
  1. Consider the third paragraph of The Bear, fetching out themes from it that are developed throughout the story and show their importance to the text as a whole. Explain the place of the last section of the story (section 5) with its predominant moment–the treeing of a bear, the encounter with a snake, the hysteria of Boon in connection with the frantic squirrels.

Lecture 24: Faulkner, William. "The Bear." In Go Down, Moses (continued), and Leopold, Aldo. "The Land Ethic."


Lecture 25:
Le Guin, Ursula K. "Vaster Than Empires and More Slow."


Lecture 26:
Midgley, Mary. "Duties Concerning Islands," and Callicot, J. Baird. "Animal Liberation."







 
MIT Home
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Terms of Use Privacy