World Views and Gattaca Reflection

Within Gattaca, I noted that the movie was especially naturalistic in its themes, though sometimes it did breach some of the ideals of naturalism. For example, the fact that the entire plot revolves around and actually supports Vincent in his effort to achieve his dreams by breaching the law. However, despite his criminal activities, the film presents Jerome as a noble figure, who is chasing his desires, which suggests the naturalistic in which you must take action regardless of consequences. This idea is even placed more obviously when Vincent states that he won the game of chicken by not thinking about the swim back to the shore, further demonstrating the concept of gaining success without thinking about the action's repercussions. In terms of meaning, the film suggests the theme of living life accordingly to what you want and what your desires are regardless of its effects to other people and any external consequences.

In terms of the movie itself, I found it fairly entertaining. The story was a very creative concept in sci-fi which isn't as over the top as a movie like star wars and a fun adaptation on our near future. I also found the conventions of the movie fairly good. Of course, it wasn't a masterpiece in my opinion, as in some points it felt fairly dull and I feel like the character of Anton wasn't very deep as he rarely showed much emotion. However, there were also good parts, specifically in the character of Jerome/Eugene who was the comedic relief of Gattaca.

Departing from the film, the two world-views of naturalism and transcendentalism are widely different. Concerning origin, naturalism does not contain anything specific but it does have the concept of there being a beginning and among naturalists many have a believe in the big bang and evolution. In morality naturalism is based on the idea that humanity defines their own morals as nature and the universe provides none though a popular ideal from this is the idea of doing whatever you want as long as you don't affect anybody and in transcendentalism morality is relative to finding meaning in nature and the universe. On meaning naturalism also has the concept of man defining their own meaning, though many subscribe to ideas involving a happy life. Transcendentalism on the other hand, defines meaning as a pursuit to reconnect with the spiritual entity that is the universe, for example, in nirvana. Naturalism doesn't really have a main view on destiny, though most naturalists tend to believe that death involves a transition from life into non-existence, or simply, nothing. Transcendentalism though, primarily believes that depending on your life's actions death will result in either reincarnation or a union with the godliness of nature through giving up one's individuality, which is also very similar to the Buddhist concept of Nirvana. In order to sum this up though, I would say that naturalism is the idea that the physical world is all there is and that transcendentalism revolves around the concept that all the universe is one being and that man has a part to play within that being.

In personal experiences, I'd say that I've been heavily exposed to naturalistic views but less so with transcendentalism. Our popular culture is dominated with naturalistic views, which tend to be expressed in more adult works that promote drinking and debauchery. There's also naturalism in school in which we study the natural world through science, which typically excludes a spiritual side of the universe, if any. I also personally consider myself to have many naturalistic views, I do believe in evolution and the big bang as the best concepts on the origins of the universe and I also believe that man's morality and meaning are those we give to ourselves. Regarding transcendentalism, there isn't much that I've experienced. There is of course, the world religions class in which we studied Buddhism, and the fact that some transcendentalist ideas are found in culture, such as these new age spiritual movements, but other than that, I find that I don't believe in many transcendentalist ideas and haven't really had experiences with them.

In media, I feel like the strongest piece that has influenced my world view would have to involve varying nature documentaries such as Life or Planet Earth. These works helped me realize the beauty of the universe and nature and helped me identify myself with more naturalistic views in my realization in the importance of the natural world. Other than this though, I can't pinpoint any other specifics on media that has changed my worldview, though I'm sure many others have discreetly influenced me.

2 Corinthians 4:18's main message is meant to emphasize the importance of the spiritual realm and its eternal nature in contrast to the temporary nature of the physical world. This world view is practically a polar opposite to naturalism, which states that nature and the physical world is all there is, yet this aligns with transcendentalism, which also stresses spirituality.

Word Count: 834

Opinions on Genetic Modification

Regarding the idea that some knowledge is best left untouched, I disagree with this assertion. My belief is that when presented with the opportunity to further human knowledge and human understanding, there should be an obligation for people to pursue this, as I also believe that all knowledge is good. My main reason for this is that the only alternative to the pursuit of knowledge is ignorance and that while it can sometimes provide comfort, should not be ideal in a progressive society due to the fact that a great society has to adapt and discover new things. Narrow this down to the morality of genetic modification, I strongly believe that this science should not be suppressed but rather encouraged. First of all, there is genetic modification in our farms which have reduced crop failure, increased resistance to pests and diseases, and has also increased the amount of yield per crop. So why shouldn't this be banned? After all, it is one of the leading contributors to the fight against world hunger. Of course, this isn't the point of contention. Human modification should be advanced further. Why shouldn't we give babies resistance to disease or give them increased physicality? It would be one of the best ways to reduce mortality rates and greatly increase human lifespan. Of course I do disagree with some things regarding this. There is the modification of personality, which, if possible, should not be used as this is comparable to mind control. There is also the concept that genetic modification would be a sign of wealth and discrimination which is certainly credible. That's why I believe that the most suitable way to access this science within society would be to have genetic success in babies be seen as a universal right or utility so that people of all classes would have access to healthier children. However, this is a very hard task which is why pioneers of this field should advance this science of genetics but should also be careful in the integration of commercial usage within this.