WEEKLY QUESTIONS

Helpful Websites:

Information about Homo Faber:

http://comenius.aag-cuxhaven.net/ergebnisse/faber/all.htm

http://www.uncommonreadings.com/homofaber1.html

The Ludovisi Throne:

http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/Collection/Ludovisi_Throne.html

http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~snlrc/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/hetairai/apelles.html

http://www.hatii.arts.gla.ac.uk/MultimediaStudentProjects/96-97/9341361t/project/htm/ludo.htm

The Erinyes, Eumenidies, Furies:

http://www.theoi.com/Ouranos/Erinyes.html

http://64.172.206.2/Internet/StudentLife/Projects/Mythology/Art_Monsters/The_Erinyes_Web_Page.html

Back to Syllabus

WEEK TWO—Reading Questions for Homo Faber (pp. 1-106)

Due Tuesday, September 9^th:

Theme: Walter Faber, Modern Man and Technologist:

1) What do you think is the significance of Frisch’s title for this novel? (Hint: “Faber” comes from the Latin for “maker” or “fabricator.”)

2) What is the mythological significance of the name for Walter Faber’s portable typewriter: Baby Hermes? What do you think he would make of this significance? (You will need to look up the Greek god Hermes!)

3) As Faber looks up to the moon over the Tamaulipas Desert, what is his vision of the world? What do you think of his claim that he does not have “experiences” but sees things as they are?

4) What do you think Marcel means, when he states on p. 50: “The American Way of Life was an attempt to cosmeticize life, but you couldn’t cosmeticize life…” Do you agree and why or why not? (Before answering this, take a look at Faber’s further thoughts on this claim on pp. 185-86.)

5) Reread Faber’s description on pp. 85-86 of his finding Joachim hanging by a wire. What do you think of Faber’s answer to Sabeth’s question, “Why did he do it?” Can reasons be given for the disasters—both great and small—of existence: a friend’s suicide, the Holocaust, a plane crash? What sort of reasons are best to give?

6) What do you think of Faber’s claim on p. 85: “Unfortunately, my Guatemala films hadn’t been developed yet, you can’t describe it, you have to see what a man looks like dangling at the end of the wire.” Should such pictures be made available to us? Why? Is the contemporary world more civilized, or at least more knowing, because we have photographs of such events?

7) What do you think of Faber’s estimation on pp. 75-76 that mechanical brains could be superior to organic ones? What do you think is the relationship of your brain to who you are?

WEEK THREE—Reading Questions for Homo Faber (pp. 107-end)

Due Tuesday September 16^th:

Theme: Walter Faber as Oedipus, the Man who is Marries his Daughter (instead of his mother!)

1) In regard to his interest in Sabeth, Faber concludes on p. 81: “It was all so natural.” What do you think the meaning of “natural” is in this sentence? Does nature say we should not marry our sons or daughters? Or is that an injunction of society? What exactly is wrong with marrying one’s child? (There can be multiple reasons here!)

2) Faber claims on p. 108: “Nature everywhere ensures the survival of the species by overproduction.” If this is so, does this fact function as an argument against the “sanctity of life”? Why or why not?

3) On p. 109 Faber rails against the idea of destiny. Is there such a thing as “destiny”? Why or why not?

4) On p. 109 Faber argues, “We live technologically, with man as the master of nature.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why or why not? Can man or woman always be the master of nature? Should she or he always try to be the master of nature?

5) Does Faber finally have an “experience,” as opposed to knowing what is actually so, when he and Sabeth view the Ludovisi Throne? If so, what is it? (For more views of and information about the Ludovisi Throne, go to websites above)

The Birth of Venus: Ludovisi Throne

Erinyes: From Bullfinch’s Mythology

6) What does Hannah mean when she tells Faber he “had only one life” (p. 141).

7) On p. 146, Faber discovers Hannah believes in myths and fate and that “she talked about myths as we talk about the theory of heat.” Can we speak of myths in the same way as we speak of the theory of heat? In what way might myths, in particular the myth of Oedipus,, be true?

8) On p. 210, Faber remarks: “To be eternal means to have existed.” What do you think he means by this statement? Do you agree with his claim? Why or why not?

9) What does Hannah charge is the problem with the technologist on pp. 178-79? What does she mean when she tells Faber: “You have no relationship to time, because you have no relationship to death.”

WEEK FOUR—Hurricane Isabel

WEEK FIVE—Discussion Questions on Consilience (pp. 1-71)

You do not need to turn in definitions for the following terms, but you should, in the interest of class discussion and your own understanding of the material, come up with working definitions of the following terms as you go through this week’s readings. I would recommend that you actually write these down in your personal notes. Please also note any passages that either confuse, delight, or enrage you.

Ionian Enchantment Consilience Enlightenment Romantics

Postmodernism Science Objective Truth

1.) What does it meant that Wilson describes the I.E. in terms of religious experience and Greek mythology? Have you, in Wilson’s terms, “experienced” the Ionian Enchantment? (defined on pp. 4-7.)

2.) How do you respond to Wilson’s claim in chapter 2 that environmental problems demonstrate the need for consilience?

3.) Are you, in Wilson’s terms, a romantic or an enlightenment thinker? In what ways?

4.) On pp. 50-51, Wilson writes, “Mysticism, the strongest prescientific probe into the unknown, has yielded zero. No Shaman’s spell or fast upon a sacred mountain can summon the electromagnetic spectrum.” On p. 53 he quotes Eugene Wigner, “The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it. It is not at all natural that ‘laws of nature’ exist, much less that man is able to discover them. The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.” What do you make of these two passages? What is the role of mysticism in science? How does it differ from imagination?

Week Six (Disussion Questions on Consilience, pp. 72-196)

As with week Five, I would encourage you to come up with working definitions of the following terms as you go through this week's readings. Understanding these terms (or dyads) will help a great deal in understanding Wilson's argument.

Reductionism/Holism (Analyze/Synthesize)

Complexity Theory

Brain vs. Mind

Free Will

gene‑culture coevolution (p. 138)

epigenetic rules

heritability

OGOD principle

prepared learning

Human Nature

1.) What would the implications be (for scientists, for Wilson, and for consilience) of giving up on the possibility of synthesis (you might start by looking at p. 91, where Wilson outlines some of the difficulties involved in synthesis). (you might also think about Wilson's joke ‑ that biologists suffer from physics envy ‑ in deciding upon your answer).

2.) How would you compare Wilson's discussion of "experience" and subjectivity (see, for a start, p. 127 and following) with our discussions thus far? How do you understand "experience?"

3.) How do epigenetic rules differ from pure genetic determinism? Do you find this concept appealing?

4.) Compare Wilson's discussion of incest in chapter 8 ("the fitness of human nature") with Homo Faber.

5.) How would Wilson explain apparently destructive cultural behaviors (such as the current widespread destruction of the biosphere that nourishes us) in light of gene‑culture coevolution? Shouldn't such behaviors have been eliminated by natural selection?

Week Seven (Disussion Questions on Consilience, chps. 9 and 10)

Terms for your notes (not to be turned in):

social sciences

folk psychology

natural history and hermeneutics

population genetics

heuristics

rational choice

interpretation

archetypes

bioaesthetics (p. 250)

Questions to be turned in:

1.) Wilson complains (p. 205) that "the clash of antipodean views [genetic determinism vs. the SSSM] is a staple of popular culture, and it is unfortunately perpetuated by journalists and college teachers. When the matter is drawn this way, scholars spring to their archaic defensive postures. Confusion continues to reign, and angry emotions flare." Does this class, in the way it is structured, in the content of discussions, or the thrust of our questions, or do you, perpetuate the overeasy dichotomy that Wilson resists?

2.) On pp. 227‑8, Wilson contrasts the flaws of "philosophy" with those of "science," namely, philosophy's cynicism and despair, vs. science's blind faith. Is this accurate? What are the negative consequences (for people, for the world) of each of these? Which are you more tolerant of?

3.) From whence comes artistic genius ‑ according to Wilson, and to you?

4.) Wilson argues that the arts arose from the disjuncture between genetic evolution and the rapidity of cultural evolution ‑ that art "filled the gap." (p. 246). He continues that "the arts still perform this primal function ... Their quality is measured by their humanness, by the precision of their adherence to human nature. To an overwhelming degree that is what we mean when we speak of the true and beautiful in the arts." Comment on this interpretation.

5.) I was struck by his consilient dream on p. 258, that begins with "Poet in my heart ..." Can you share this dream ‑ do you long to be the poet scientist?

Week Eight (Discussion Questions for Consilience, chapters 11-12 (due October 21))

1.) Are you a transcendentalist or empiricist with regard to the origin of ethics (see p. 260 to get a start, but I also imagine you will need to consider carefully Wilson’s statement of both positions)? Does he do both sides justice?

2.) How does your understanding of good and evil mesh with Wilson’s understanding of ethics as evolved behaviors to which we are predisposed via epigenetic rules? (see p. 275, also p. 288, when he uses the pragmatic argument that “ one code of ethics is not as good – at least, not as durable – as another.”)

3.) I think the heart of Wilson’s feelings on religion are summed up in these three quotes: (p. 286): “The human mind evolved to believe in the gods. It did not evolve to believe in biology.” And secondly, (p. 289): “But we cannot live without them. People need a sacred narrative.” Third, (p. 289): “The true evolutionary epic, retold as poetry, is as intrinsically ennobling as any religious epic. Material reality discovered by science already possesses more content and grandeur than all religious cosmologies combined.” What do you think of these ideas?

4.) Is Homo proteus really Homo faber?

5.) Wilson’s last three sentences are shocking if you haven’t read his book carefully, for it dispels the typical simplification of his ideas found in many popular interpretations: (p. 326) “To the extent that we depend on prosthetic devices to keep ourselves and the biosphere alive, we will render everything fragile. To the extent that we banish the rest of life, we will impoverish our own species for all time. And if we should surrender our genetic nature to machine-aided ratiocination, and our ethics and art and our very meaning to a habit of careless discursion in the name of progress, imagining ourselves godlike and absolved from our ancient heritage, we will become nothing.” By the time he gets here, has he persuaded you? Why or why not?

WEEK NINE—Discussion Questions on Life is a Miracle (Ignorance and Propriety, pp. 3-22) Also on the Ethics Chapter in Consilience

1. How is cloning sheep “giving up on life” for Berry? Do you agree with his view on this issue? Why or why not?

2. Explain Berry’s claim on pg. 14: “A civilization that is destroying all its sources in nature has raised starkly the issue of propriety, whether or not it wishes to have done so.” Do you think he is correct to say our civilization lack propriety? Why or why not?

3. According to Barry, what is meant by “pure science”? Is it possible to engage in such an endeavour? Why or why not?

4. Do you agree with Berry’s claim that science is a modern religion, if not the religion of the modern? Why or why not?

5. How do you think E.O. Wilson would judge ethically the act of cloning sheep? Do you think Berry’s depiction of Wilson’s understanding of such matters is fair? Why or why not?

WEEK TEN—Discussion Questions on Life is a Miracle (E.O. Wilson’s Consilience, pp. 23-92)

1.What does Berry mean by reductionism? What is its limitation for Berry?

2. On pg. 67, Berry argues: “Though [Wilson’s] head sometimes tells him that such concessions [that knowledge can be misused, that knowledge can be lost, that culture can regress] should be made, his heart never does.” What do you think Berry means by this claim? Do you agree or disagree with him? Why?

3. C.S. Lewis is quoted on pg. 75 as speaking of “the old dream of man as God.” What is that dream and should we be wary of it?

WEEK ELEVEN—Discussion Questions on Life is a Miracle (E.O. Wilson’s Consilience, pp. 93-153)

1. What does Berry mean, when he states biblical religion is “explicitly against reductionism” (pp. 101f). Do you agree? Why or why not?

2. What objections does Berry raise to E.O. Wilson’s characterization of the arts in Consilience?

3. Do you agree with Berry’s claim on pg. 146: “Science can teach us and help us to resist death, but it can’t teach us to prepare for death or to die well.” Why or why not?

WEEK TWELVE—Discussion Questions on The Triumph of Sociobiology (pp. 3-40)

For your reading questions due Tuesday, November 18, please answer the discussion questions selected by the book's author for chapters 1 and 2. These are found in the appendix, on pages 225 and 226. There are 2 questions for chapter 1, and three questions for chapter 2. They are designed by the author to get to the heart of his argument in each chapter - have fun! You'll get to think like a scientist!

Optional: You can include a commentary after your answers in which you analyze the author's questions.

No reading questions due on Thursday of next week.

WEEK THIRTEEN: Alcock, "The Triumph of Sociobiology," chapter 8, pp. 149‑188.

1.) Compare "Conditional Strategies" with Free Will.

2.) Suggest (and elaborate) at least one additional ultimate hypothesis about the cultural variation in traditional usage of spices in foods, as opposed to the one elaborated by Alcock. How would you test and prove your theory?

3.) Discuss Alcock's interpretation of altruism ‑ do you agree or disagree that altruism is ultimately a positive adaptation?

4) How persuaded are you by Alcock's reasoning in explaining the apparently maladaptive

behavior of limiting family size in much of the developed world? Would Wilson or Berry be able to suggest to Alcock additional possibilities to consider?

WEEK FOURTEEN (Alcock: pp. 189‑223 (chapters 9 and 10))

1.) Alcock, after discussing parental love and stepfamilies, cites approvingly another study: "Without recourse to the concept of evolutionary adaptation, we could not hope to understand why parental love and altruism even exist, let alone why they sometimes fail." Analyze and respond to this statement.

2.) Discuss your reaction to Alcock's discussion of rape, and his wished‑for "evolutionarily based sex‑education class" for high schoolers.

ABRAM: pp. 31-44 (Due Thursday)

1) Why would Abram object to being told his experience of the world is "merely subjective"?

2) What is meant by the term "life-world"? How does the life world differ from the world described by the biological and physical sciences?

WEEK FIFTEEN (Abram: pp. 44-56 (T), 56-82 (Th))

1) What is the body for Merleau-Ponty?

2) In what way is perception “participatory” for Merleau-Ponty and Abram?

3) In what way does Abram charge us to “recuperate the sensuous”? From your own experience, can you give an example of such recuperation?

4) What does Abram mean by “the reciprocity of the sensuous”? How might it lead to an environmental ethics (a concern for the good and the goodness of the environment)?