Comparing Shelley's Frankestein And The Nature Of Man

FRANKENSTEIN AND THE NATURE OF MAN Through all ages of civilization, man strived to learn how he, the society to which he belongs, and the state to which he owes his allegiance came to form the world as he knows it today. Many tried to come up with an answer in their own ways, either scientifically, spiritually or philosophically. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” can be seen as her attempt to solve this problem. Since she was well read, and was familiar with many philosophical ideas, it is doubtless that she used the ones that affected her, in her novel. I will focus on one in particular, Jean Jacques Rousseau; and one of his earlier works: “Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men”. I will try
He sees virtue with his own eyes in the “sacred” family love. His want of a companion makes him feel the need of family love. He wants to be a part of their family. He sees how Felix and Agatha makes sacrifices for their love of their father, and this makes him understand that stealing is wrong; “I had been accustomed, during the night, to steal a part of their store for my own consumption; but when I found that in doing this I inflicted pain on the cottagers, I abstained,”. At first he is just trying to preserve himself, he is neither good nor evil. When he developes moral ideas, and stops doing it, he becomes good, and later on, when he gets inflicted by much pain, he will turn evil. On the other side of the coin (of love), we might wonder why he does not feel any sexual love, since Rousseau suggests that sexual desire is an instict. About natural man, he says, “he listens solely to the temperament he has received from nature and not to the taste he has been able to acquire, and any woman is good for him.”. I’m inclined to think that, Shelley has followed Rousseau in this matter as well, however implicit she used the idea. The Monster says, “You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being.” (p. 171, ll. 17-18). He also says, “no Eve soothed my sorrows, or shared my thoughts; I was alone.” (p. 159, ll. 4-5). These are designed to
He says, “For a long time I could not conceive how one man could go forth to murder his fellow, or even why there were laws and goverments; but when I heard details of vice and bloodshed, my wonder ceased, and I turned away with disgust and loathing.” (p.147, ll. 22-26). Since he does not yet feel completely hopeless, even after he learns about them, he still cannot comprehend why anyone would commit murder and other crimes. This leads us to think that unlike what Hobbes suggests, violence is not a part of human nature. Yet the Monster continues to feel excluded, and with the knowledge he gained upto this point, he questions his existence and what he is. He asks, “Who was I? What was I? Whence did I come? What was my destination?” (p. 156, ll. 10-11), questions civilized man has been asking himself for ages. When we combine this questioning with his previous regret of increased knowledge, where he says, “sorrow only increased with knowledge. Oh, that I had for ever remained in my native wood, nor known or felt beyond the sensations of hunger, thirst and heat!” (p.148, ll. 19-22), we see that the Monster has become a civilized man. Although there is a difference between him and civilized man, he is much more perceptive about the state in which he is. According to Rousseau, civilized man thinks that man,