Lack Of Knowledge In Frankenstein

757 Words2 Pages

Throughout Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, knowledge of the existence of his human creator has a devastating effect on the creature as he struggles to define his own self perception as well as his desire to attain acceptance from this creator. This of course parallels man's relationship to a divine creator in christian mythology. Ironically, however the idea that knowledge must be taught or passed down by a divine creator is deconstructed. In the end, Shelley concludes that moral and spiritual development can be reached without dogmatic belief structures, resulting in the elimination of god as the only vehicle of self realization.

Religious references and biblical parallels cannot be ignored throughout. Frankenstein contains a fair amount …show more content…

He established a code of behavior despite the lack of cultivation and learning in the morals and ethics of Christianity. Thus, morality derives not from the knowledge of a creator or a God, but from an instinctual place within oneself. .”Many things I read surpassed my understanding and experience. I had a very confused knowledge of kingdoms, wide extents of the country, mighty rivers and boundless seas” (143). The monster clearly has very limited knowledge and complete lack of education, yet he is able to differentiate between right and wrong. The first paragraph on page 143 depicts the monster with his innate ability to recognize immoral actions in others, more than that the monsters reaction was that of disapproval and disgust. The monster serves as the perfect experiment. The question being: “Can morals be taught without the presence of a God or a divine creator?” The experiment is perfect because all other variables are held at a constant. The creature is isolated, without parents or divine creator or other religious …show more content…

I felt the greatest ardor for virtue rise within me, and abhorrence for vice, as far as I understood the signification of those terms, relative as they were, as I applied them, to pleasure and pain alone”(143). The creature forms his own sense of right and wrong without the influence of religion. His standards are human and reactionary, based only on the ideas of “pleasure and pain”, yet they are crucial to his development of his sense of self. As he struggles with the concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, he soon realizes his desire to become a full fledged member of society. “Such was the history of my beloved cottagers. It impressed me deeply. I learned, from the views of social life which it developed, to admire their virtues and to deprecate the vices of mankind” (141). Instead of learning from a religious source, the creature learns from his beloved cottagers. Through their example, the cottagers serve as the primary teachers to the creature. Through their unknowing teachings they imparted a strong sense or morality and virtuous behavior by their simple day to day interactions. Our surroundings and who we surround ourselves with often determine our moral code. The phrase “ we are the company we keep” comes to mind. The creature’s experience with the cottagers applies to the ongoing motif that runs throughout the book of knowledge, and more specifically how it is gathered.

Open Document