Shelley, Rousseau, Hobbes/Creative Project

While it seemed to me at first that Hobbes’s “state of war” philosophy related much more closely to Shelley’s Frankenstein, after reconsidering it, I realized that Rousseau’s “state of nature” better describes the circumstances in Frankenstein. While Hobbes argues that men are inherently bad and that the “bad” nature of most and the desire and right of others to defend themselves will ultimately lead to a state of constant war among all men, Rousseau argues that men are neither inherently good nor bad. Although the monster’s chief instinct seemed to be to kill, he was the only “destructive” character in the book, which does not coincide with Hobbes’s philosophy. Rousseau’s theory, on the other hand, relates to Frankenstein much more in my opinion because it seems that at first, the monster is not interested in killing people, but only when he is cast out by society and sentenced to eternal loneliness does he begin to act violently.

As cliché as it may sound, the biggest, most troublesome, and most constant problem that I have encountered in my eighteen years is my inability to accept what so many people seem to simply accept as being “just the way things are.” For example, while it seems like far too many people around the world are numb or just plain apathetic towards the enormous amount of casualties that occur every day simply because of selfishness and greed, I find it difficult to ignore. Furthermore, I find it even more troubling to think that even if people did care more, so many global issues are so far beyond simple resolutions that it’s exhausting to even think about. Some of the countless examples include the war in Iraq, the numerous civil wars throughout Africa, global poverty, etc. I think it’s frightening how many people automatically respond to these topics by honestly thinking “that doesn’t affect me,” because if these conflicts are ever going to be resolved, more people are going to have to start taking interest and taking action.

-Allie Hicks