The creator vs the creation: Dr. Frankenstein's Dilemma!

[Sushan]

In the novel written by Mary Shelley, the monster first tries to be good in his creator's eyes. But when he is dismissed by his creator, he revolts against the creator, Dr. Frankenstein.

This revolting against the creator is seen in many contexts, including revolting against the God in religious context, revolting against the father in family context, revolting against 'selfdom' in social context.

We all are creators of something from one hand, while being creations of something else from the other hand.Why do we see this tendency of revolting against the creator more often, without giving the respect and showing the obedience as necessary towards the creator.

It's because of identifiable historical events especially the large changes brought about by the agricultural and industrial revolutions. These events brought the creator , the established cultures, into disarray as workers became displaced from their traditional communities and in the commercialised communities they replaced the established church or established ethnicity with dissenting models, chaos, or atheism.

During intervening centuries , revolutions and religions have not stopped commercialised greed. Worldwide simultaneous pestilences, fires, and floods will stop the bolting horses market forces and nationalism.

I would like to add some thoughts for yours. The earlier days the kings and the cour members made themselves the representatives of the God (the creator), and their subordinates (the creation) had to work and feed the creator. But later on, mainly due to education, the creation understood their ability to bargain as well as their strength in their number. So they started revolting, and the remaining details are written in the history books.

[Sushan]

Many people don't condone slavery. We see the status of a slave as sub-human - that to exist for the purpose of taking orders from others with no opportunity to pursue one's own ends is to be something less than fully human.

The difference between the slave and the servant is that the servant can walk away. The servant has agency, making an ongoing choice to trade his service for things he wants. It is the permanence of the slave's condition which is agency-denying and thus objectionable.

A creator's demand for obedience from his creation thus becomes tyrannical when it becomes permanent (or lifelong, which amounts to the same thing). The child with a clear vision of their imminent pathway to autonomous adulthood does not justly rebel.

But monsterhood is permanent...

But if the monster can think and act for himself, does he hold much difference to a normal human. Even Pinocchio was given the chance to become a real human boy. Why should Frankenstein's monster remain as a monster forever?

[Belindi]

In the novel written by Mary Shelley, the monster first tries to be good in his creator's eyes. But when he is dismissed by his creator, he revolts against the creator, Dr. Frankenstein.

This revolting against the creator is seen in many contexts, including revolting against the God in religious context, revolting against the father in family context, revolting against 'selfdom' in social context.

We all are creators of something from one hand, while being creations of something else from the other hand.Why do we see this tendency of revolting against the creator more often, without giving the respect and showing the obedience as necessary towards the creator.

It's because of identifiable historical events especially the large changes brought about by the agricultural and industrial revolutions. These events brought the creator , the established cultures, into disarray as workers became displaced from their traditional communities and in the commercialised communities they replaced the established church or established ethnicity with dissenting models, chaos, or atheism.

During intervening centuries , revolutions and religions have not stopped commercialised greed. Worldwide simultaneous pestilences, fires, and floods will stop the bolting horses market forces and nationalism.

I would like to add some thoughts for yours. The earlier days the kings and the cour members made themselves the representatives of the God (the creator), and their subordinates (the creation) had to work and feed the creator. But later on, mainly due to education, the creation understood their ability to bargain as well as their strength in their number. So they started revolting, and the remaining details are written in the history books.

The main idea that inspired the revolt is the individual man matters. This idea of the rights of the individual man is still going strong. It's a good idea to divide the world's regimes exclusively into those which support human rights or those which support ideologies.

[Sushan]

In the novel written by Mary Shelley, the monster first tries to be good in his creator's eyes. But when he is dismissed by his creator, he revolts against the creator, Dr. Frankenstein.

This revolting against the creator is seen in many contexts, including revolting against the God in religious context, revolting against the father in family context, revolting against 'selfdom' in social context.

We all are creators of something from one hand, while being creations of something else from the other hand.Why do we see this tendency of revolting against the creator more often, without giving the respect and showing the obedience as necessary towards the creator.

It's because of identifiable historical events especially the large changes brought about by the agricultural and industrial revolutions. These events brought the creator , the established cultures, into disarray as workers became displaced from their traditional communities and in the commercialised communities they replaced the established church or established ethnicity with dissenting models, chaos, or atheism.

During intervening centuries , revolutions and religions have not stopped commercialised greed. Worldwide simultaneous pestilences, fires, and floods will stop the bolting horses market forces and nationalism.

I would like to add some thoughts for yours. The earlier days the kings and the cour members made themselves the representatives of the God (the creator), and their subordinates (the creation) had to work and feed the creator. But later on, mainly due to education, the creation understood their ability to bargain as well as their strength in their number. So they started revolting, and the remaining details are written in the history books.

The main idea that inspired the revolt is the individual man matters. This idea of the rights of the individual man is still going strong. It's a good idea to divide the world's regimes exclusively into those which support human rights or those which support ideologies.

I can agree with that. But the issue that we face today is the clash between human rights and all the other responsibilities, rights of the customers and clients, work ethics, job agreements, etc. The society and the system have become far more complex, and the necessity of revolting to achieve anything is greatly increased.

[Belindi]

It's because of identifiable historical events especially the large changes brought about by the agricultural and industrial revolutions. These events brought the creator , the established cultures, into disarray as workers became displaced from their traditional communities and in the commercialised communities they replaced the established church or established ethnicity with dissenting models, chaos, or atheism.

During intervening centuries , revolutions and religions have not stopped commercialised greed. Worldwide simultaneous pestilences, fires, and floods will stop the bolting horses market forces and nationalism.

I would like to add some thoughts for yours. The earlier days the kings and the cour members made themselves the representatives of the God (the creator), and their subordinates (the creation) had to work and feed the creator. But later on, mainly due to education, the creation understood their ability to bargain as well as their strength in their number. So they started revolting, and the remaining details are written in the history books.

The main idea that inspired the revolt is the individual man matters. This idea of the rights of the individual man is still going strong. It's a good idea to divide the world's regimes exclusively into those which support human rights or those which support ideologies.

I can agree with that. But the issue that we face today is the clash between human rights and all the other responsibilities, rights of the customers and clients, work ethics, job agreements, etc. The society and the system have become far more complex, and the necessity of revolting to achieve anything is greatly increased.

Sorry, Sushan.

I have tried to understand your reply, above, and I can't.
How might individuals' duties to customers, clients, employers, work ethic, and contracts clash with human rights? Whose human rights?

Also, who would have to revolt, and to achieve what?

[Good_Egg]

Philosophers are revolting...

[Sushan]

I would like to add some thoughts for yours. The earlier days the kings and the cour members made themselves the representatives of the God (the creator), and their subordinates (the creation) had to work and feed the creator. But later on, mainly due to education, the creation understood their ability to bargain as well as their strength in their number. So they started revolting, and the remaining details are written in the history books.

The main idea that inspired the revolt is the individual man matters. This idea of the rights of the individual man is still going strong. It's a good idea to divide the world's regimes exclusively into those which support human rights or those which support ideologies.

I can agree with that. But the issue that we face today is the clash between human rights and all the other responsibilities, rights of the customers and clients, work ethics, job agreements, etc. The society and the system have become far more complex, and the necessity of revolting to achieve anything is greatly increased.

Sorry, Sushan.

I have tried to understand your reply, above, and I can't.
How might individuals' duties to customers, clients, employers, work ethic, and contracts clash with human rights? Whose human rights?

Also, who would have to revolt, and to achieve what?

Sorry for the delayed response.

Let me take an example. The ones who work in customer care services are supposed to be polite to their customer, regardless of their personal or any other matters. But it is not rare when customers blame these customer service agents for matters that they have no responsibility at all. These people have the right to not to be blamed at them, but it is violated due to their job and the working conditions.

Likewise there are occasions that human rights are violated due to unavoidable circumstances. But even these things should be rectified, and that is when revolting becomes necessary.

[Sushan]

Philosophers are revolting...

I am sorry, but I do not see a reason to laugh at "philosophers are revolting". Maybe philosophers are a group that only talks but does nothing. But that is far better than remaining silent while looking at the faults and mistakes.

[Sy Borg]

Sometimes creations dominate their creators. Consider the monolithic structures that humanity creates - cities, corporations, economies, technologies, societies - institutions and phenomena that control us, rather than the other way around. And, often, it's the creators revolting against the control exerted on them by their creations, rather than the other way around.

[Belindi]

The main idea that inspired the revolt is the individual man matters. This idea of the rights of the individual man is still going strong. It's a good idea to divide the world's regimes exclusively into those which support human rights or those which support ideologies.

I can agree with that. But the issue that we face today is the clash between human rights and all the other responsibilities, rights of the customers and clients, work ethics, job agreements, etc. The society and the system have become far more complex, and the necessity of revolting to achieve anything is greatly increased.

Sorry, Sushan.

I have tried to understand your reply, above, and I can't.
How might individuals' duties to customers, clients, employers, work ethic, and contracts clash with human rights? Whose human rights?

Also, who would have to revolt, and to achieve what?

Sorry for the delayed response.

Let me take an example. The ones who work in customer care services are supposed to be polite to their customer, regardless of their personal or any other matters. But it is not rare when customers blame these customer service agents for matters that they have no responsibility at all. These people have the right to not to be blamed at them, but it is violated due to their job and the working conditions.

Likewise there are occasions that human rights are violated due to unavoidable circumstances. But even these things should be rectified, and that is when revolting becomes necessary.

If you are making a case for trade unions I whole heartededly agree

[Sushan]

I can agree with that. But the issue that we face today is the clash between human rights and all the other responsibilities, rights of the customers and clients, work ethics, job agreements, etc. The society and the system have become far more complex, and the necessity of revolting to achieve anything is greatly increased.

Sorry, Sushan.

I have tried to understand your reply, above, and I can't.
How might individuals' duties to customers, clients, employers, work ethic, and contracts clash with human rights? Whose human rights?

Also, who would have to revolt, and to achieve what?

Sorry for the delayed response.

Let me take an example. The ones who work in customer care services are supposed to be polite to their customer, regardless of their personal or any other matters. But it is not rare when customers blame these customer service agents for matters that they have no responsibility at all. These people have the right to not to be blamed at them, but it is violated due to their job and the working conditions.

Likewise there are occasions that human rights are violated due to unavoidable circumstances. But even these things should be rectified, and that is when revolting becomes necessary.

If you are making a case for trade unions I whole heartededly agree

I am not in favour of trade unions or their acts because I have seen their political and selfish agendas more than acting honestly regarding the problems of the members. But, yes, the point that I have raised is a matter that should have been addressed by trade unions.

[Sushan]

Sometimes creations dominate their creators. Consider the monolithic structures that humanity creates - cities, corporations, economies, technologies, societies - institutions and phenomena that control us, rather than the other way around. And, often, it's the creators revolting against the control exerted on them by their creations, rather than the other way around.

Is it really a dominance over the creators? I see it like the humans (the creation) have become creators themselves, and creating stuff for their own selves rather than waiting for someone else to do it. Maybe the value of the old creator is gone now because the humans can create things. But is it really a exertion of control over the creator by the creation?

[Sy Borg]

Sometimes creations dominate their creators. Consider the monolithic structures that humanity creates - cities, corporations, economies, technologies, societies - institutions and phenomena that control us, rather than the other way around. And, often, it's the creators revolting against the control exerted on them by their creations, rather than the other way around.

Is it really a dominance over the creators? I see it like the humans (the creation) have become creators themselves, and creating stuff for their own selves rather than waiting for someone else to do it. Maybe the value of the old creator is gone now because the humans can create things. But is it really a exertion of control over the creator by the creation?

Theists might see it as a hierarchy of creation. Really, if we want to credit anything for our creation, I'd put the Sun first, then Earth, then the Moon, then life on Earth, then humanity, then family. Some would place "culture" between humanity and family, and others may point to the Milky Way's role in our becoming too.

And now we are creating ever smarter and more capable technology. I would agree that there's a feedback loop of control between humans and their creations, but there's growing areas of technological dominance as ever more jobs are replaced by machines and algorithms.

[Belindi]

I don't know Mary Shelley's interpretation of her own creation but I see the monster as a symbol for humanity which , as created by God, has turned out to be a monster that endangers the rest of God's creation. For this reason Frankenstein qua God who is a moral being must pursue and try to extinguish the evil any which way.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, although the unfortunate monster never enjoyed a taste of Eden, but instead woke up in hell. Tough gig.

The monster is apparently an expression of Mary Shelley's life struggles, especially with infant mortality. There was also a message about science being conducted incautiously, with humans not properly respecting the awesome forces of nature. She was probably the first. Since the, countless others operating in the horror and sci-fi genres have a theme of "science gone mad".

Dr Frankenstein would have been literature's first mad scientist ... if you don't count God :)