Controlling nuclear weapons; democracy versus guardianship Book

OK. I am not finished reading it, but here is may take.

The author starts out analyzing a couple of ancient forbidden knowledge myths: Prometheus and the Garden of Eden. The analysis is OK, but I go for Joseph Campbell's any day.

Next we proceed to a couple of modern myths: Frankenstein and Faust. Along the way, a tenuous link is made between the quest for scientific knowledge and sexual promiscuity. I don't know how it happens, but it happens in this section. I always viewed Frankenstein and Faust as cautionary tales against an excess of ambition, not necessarily about the quest for forbidden knowledge. I never viewed either tale as overtly sexual. I guess I missed something.

Then we proceed to The Princess de Clèves and Emily Dickinson. I guess the point here is chastity is good? I am not sure. The "Princess de Clèves" reeks of courtly love which is by its nature fake. Emily Dickinson was a slightly bookish and strange individual and not someone to model your life after. Who goes into years long seclusion because their boyfriend dumps them? More to the point: what do these two have anything to do with science or the quest for scientific knowledge? I cannot associate either "Princess de Clèves" or Emily Dickinson with scientific thought or research in anyway shape or form. I guess that what the author is trying to get at is that limiting sex and scientific research are both moral choices.

Now comes Robert Oppenheimer and the Human Genome Project. Again, the author is making tenuous associations between the morality of the Manhattan Project and the Human Genome Project. I don't get it. The Manhattan Project was pretty much directly responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whether or not you believe that using the bomb on two undefended cities with high civilian populations was morally justifiable or not, I can't see how the Human Genome Project really compares. Somewhere the practice of eugenics by the Himmler and the Nazi's is discussed in a ridiculous manner. I missed the point.

Next we have a critique of Melville's "Billy Bud" and "The Stranger" by Albert Camus. The point the author is attempting to make (there is always a point)is that empathy can be dangerous. If we try too hard to understand something, we could end sympathizing with it. In the cases sited above, an accidental (or not) murder takes place that is described first by the perpetrator and then in a court setting. Yes I agree with the author here, murder cannot be forgiven even if you understand or sympathize with the person who committed it. I guess he is making a case against relativism, There are absolute rights and wrongs.

Here comes the tour de force. A discussion on the works of the Marquis de Sade. I tend to agree with the author about de Sade. Sexual freedom is OK and all, but a line is crossed when de Sade talks about rape, torture, and murder. OK so de Sade should not be viewed as a literary great or moral philosopher, I get that, but then the author takes a step further and states that the availability of works like de Sade are the direct cause of mass murderers like Ted Bundy. Hold on there. So how would censorship actually improve anything? Bundy was sick and twisted. He would have did what he did even if the Marquis de Sade was completely banned and unavailable.

This book is well written and has some interesting sections so I can't really give it one star, but I have no idea how the author can justify some of his conclusions. This book is best when it sticks to the literary criticism, but goes off track a little when it tries to extend its views into a more general moral system. There are some real leaps in logic that make my brain squirm. After thinking about it over the weekend, I think the thing that bothers me most about this book is the use of literary examples as "cases" like case studies in a more scientific work. Almost all of the cases are fictional except Robert Oppenheimer, Emily Dickinson, Himmler, the Human Genome Project, and Ted Bundy (there are a couple more minor examples in there too). How do you prove something with fictional cases to back you up? I suppose the author backs this methodology up by stating that artistic accomplishments are more real and everlasting than other types of accomplishments. I don't buy it.