The main aspect of this paper is to examine the opinions of the author of ‘Frankenstein’, Mary Shelley, on the Scientific Revolution and her criticism of the same. It can be said that this novel highlighted the issue of experimentation without sensible caveats, and that it may be important to have ethical restrictions on inventors and innovators. However, with the advantage of hindsight in the 21st century, it can also be said that since the majority of progress made by humanity has been through the scientific method, this concern can be attributed more for the minority of scientists who may be too conceited in their pursuit of innovation. Hence, this paper would attempt to address the hypothesis that the consequences of an innovation depends
…show more content…
He was the murderer!” after he realizes that his brother had been killed by his creation. Over the chapters, many such calamities befall Victor. The reader may be led to believe that the monster created is a sadistic killing machine; however, it turns that it is quite the polar opposite, when he meets his creator in chapter II, volume two. Shelley tries to highlight the instinctiveness and immaturity of human nature, when the creature turns out to be an eloquent and sensitive human-like figure contrary to what was previously presumed, when he says to Victor, “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall be virtuous again.” (Shelley, 103). The author describes the presumptuousness of human nature, quick to place a verdict without testing, evidenced in the manner in which the creature was shunned by humans simply because of his appearance. The same could be said of the experimentalist, embodied by Victor; had he been less reckless, he may have understood his creation better and looked for measures to improve upon it, rather than abandoning what he came up with. As such, his obsession with creation came at a price, that of him losing his loved ones at the hands of the same thing that he engineered. By also implying elements of Romanticism, Shelley implicitly criticizes the prevailing notion at the time that was probably influenced by materialism, presumably brought on by the technological boons of the Scientific Revolution. Following up on an innovation is an important ethical step for every
He was the murderer!” after he realizes that his brother had been killed by his creation. Over the chapters, many such calamities befall Victor. The reader may be led to believe that the monster created is a sadistic killing machine; however, it turns that it is quite the polar opposite, when he meets his creator in chapter II, volume two. Shelley tries to highlight the instinctiveness and immaturity of human nature, when the creature turns out to be an eloquent and sensitive human-like figure contrary to what was previously presumed, when he says to Victor, “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall be virtuous again.” (Shelley, 103). The author describes the presumptuousness of human nature, quick to place a verdict without testing, evidenced in the manner in which the creature was shunned by humans simply because of his appearance. The same could be said of the experimentalist, embodied by Victor; had he been less reckless, he may have understood his creation better and looked for measures to improve upon it, rather than abandoning what he came up with. As such, his obsession with creation came at a price, that of him losing his loved ones at the hands of the same thing that he engineered. By also implying elements of Romanticism, Shelley implicitly criticizes the prevailing notion at the time that was probably influenced by materialism, presumably brought on by the technological boons of the Scientific Revolution. Following up on an innovation is an important ethical step for every