THE MONADOLOGY OF FRANKENSTEIN AND HIS CREATION
It is intriguing to remark that in spite of stylistic differences in their work and language, writers of different eras separated by more than a century may nevertheless hold the same, or rather very similar, viewpoints on a particular philosophical concept. In the case of the concept of creation, Mary Shelley, a writer of the Romantic literary movement, and Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, a prominent figure of western philosophy in the seventeenth century, share similar perspectives on one basic premise of the rationalistic notion of creation: that an individual who holds ultimate power and knowledge, is the sole creator, and thus the sole being that unites all the elements of a substance to create one harmonious conception.
Both Shelley and Leibniz articulate their attitudes on this shared philosophical concept of creation through their own very different literary
works. While Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz centralizes his rationalistic notion of creation on God, and designates Him to the position of the individual who possesses ultimate power and knowledge, Mary Shelley does not, and rather, illustrates with various elements of plot in her own literary work, the inability of man to put himself in such an all-knowing and all-powerful position. For it is because of man’s given—one may say—inability to be all-knowing and all-powerful that he thus brings subsequent misfortunes upon himself.
The subject of creation is a recurring theme throughout Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz’s philosophy. In his Discourse on Metaphysics and The Monadology, Leibniz articulates his theory on creation, using the power God possesses over a vast spread of life as a basis for his reasoning, thereby designating such an act of cultivating one’s given knowledge and power to God and God only. Leibniz dissertates that God is all-knowing and possesses the ultimate knowledge and power to bring about his creation—the universe—and retains the ability to foresee the effects of such a creation. This being so, Leibniz further makes the reasoning, in his Discourse on Metaphysics, that God’s creations are designed in the best possible manner and for the best possible outcomes: “The greatest knowledge, however, and omnipotence contain no impossibility. Consequently power and knowledge do admit of perfection, and in so far as they pertain to God they have no limits” (Leibniz, 409). As God had created the best of all possible worlds, He had considered all the possible combinations of substances and chose to create the best one. With his philosophical notion of God having created “the best of all possible worlds” as a common premise throughout his philosophization, Leibniz further develops another theory explaining the means through which God fabricates his creations.
According to Leibniz’s ontology on this particular theory, explained in The Monadology, real things are substances. These substances are further subdivided into simpler substances which are not composites of other substances, and called monads. Monads are the simplest parts of a substance—a creation—and thus “have no windows, through which anything could come in or go out.” That is, these monads have no means of being changed or altered internally by any other creature, since nothing may be rearranged or conceived in them (Leibniz, Section 7). And thus, no monad is alike in shape or composition. “For in nature, there are never two beings which are perfectly alike and in which it is not possible to find an internal difference, or at least a difference founded upon an intrinsic quality [denomination]” (Leibniz, Section 9). However, in order to structure one harmonious and balanced creation, these monads must act harmoniously with one another. One particular analogy that Leibniz uses to illustrate this concept of a pre-established harmony is that of a chorus, from which each singer occupies a different room. Harmony among these singers is obtained by singing from the same score, beginning at the same time and in the same tempo. But it is important to note the necessity of a pre-determined mutual agreement of these singers to create this harmony, for any deviation from this accord would lead to disharmony (Mattey, 2002). Consequently, it may be concluded that according to Leibniz, the actions and responsibilities of these parts, or monads, of such creations in our universe are perfect and pre-determined by one infinitely perfect being, God.
Thus, it may be argued that Mary Shelley’s viewpoint on the notion of man daring to step over the line dividing what is deemed sufficient and harmless in terms of bearing knowledge, and what will eventually become ethically dangerous and detrimental to obtain results from such desired knowledge, does not stray so far from Leibniz’s own attitude on creation. Mary Shelley realizes with her albeit fictional, but emotionally riveting novel, Frankenstein, Leibniz’s theory of creation. The theory holds the premise that essentially describes the impossibility of creating harmony among contradictory or conflicting monads. Shelley exemplifies this perspective with elements of plot in her novel, using Dr. Victor Frankenstein’s thirst for ultimate knowledge and the misfortunes that happen to him as a result of his supernatural creation. Shelley demonstrates, in the tale of Dr. Victor Frankenstein and his creature, an additional idea deduced from the rationalistic notion of creation that she shares with Leibniz: that for man to create with his own hands, and in such a supernatural manner, another form of life possessing a far greater capacity than humankind for emotional sensations, physical strength and power, as well as intellect and competency, may be far overreaching beyond what man is meant in his already fragile, yet fully capable position to bring unto himself.
With an insight and awareness of Leibniz’s ideas on metaphysics and his premise on monadology, it may be thus extrapolated the means by which Shelley offers her response to Leibniz’s ideas on creation in her novel, Frankenstein. The story is centered on the incidents and emotional turmoil shared between a monster and his young, ambitious, and well-educated creator. Through these incidents and the emotional turmoil the two characters experience, Shelley is able to make her commentary on the dangers and ultimate inability of man to mix his unquenchable thirst for unlimited knowledge with science and the supernatural world. Characterization in this novel becomes, consequently, a principal technique through which our Romantic writer accomplishes this. At the start of the novel, Shelley presents to the reader the protagonist of the novel, a creator, Dr. Victor Frankenstein. In the beginning, Victor Frankenstein reveals himself to be a young individual who is fully capable, determined, and fascinated by the prospects of science and research to fashion, in his endeavor to attest to the secret of life, a creature out of the body parts of old corpses. As the novel progresses, however, Victor Frankenstein begins to experience the emotional burden brought on by the consequences of creating such a monster. Victor eventually changes over the course of the novel into an embittered, guilt-ridden man, and makes the decision to destroy the product of his own scientific undertaking. As he undergoes this emotional alteration, Victor further loses his own sense of humanity, vowing to take vengeance on his creature for the death of his loved ones. The creator ultimately brings upon himself, his own fate of becoming an individual quite comparable to that of his perception of his own creation: a single-minded, aggressive, and animalistic being capable of only bringing destruction and pain upon others. Along with the downfall of his character, Victor brings upon himself emotional unrest and suffering, feeling a constant fear and anxiety within himself:
I had been calm during the day; but so soon as night obscured the shapes of objects, a
thousand fears rose in my mind. I was anxious and watchful, while my right hand
grasped a pistol which was hidden in my bosom; every sound terrified me; but I resolved
that I would sell my life dearly, and not shrink from the conflict until my own life, or
that of my adversary, was extinguished. (Shelley, 167).
This passage taken from Chapter XXIII of Frankenstein showcases to the reader the outcome of Victor’s gradual deterioration in character. Shelley’s characterization of the creator as an emotionally burdened individual ultimately becomes a significant tool with which she reveals her stance on the philosophical concept of creation. To her, creation is an act designated to only those who understand their limits in the abilities and powers they are given by a greater force. This passage, in effect, reflects the ill-fated outcomes of that which is discussed in the secondary notion that Shelley derives from Leibniz’s main premise. She derives that for an individual to create with his own hands another form of life possessing a far greater capacity than man himself for sensation, strength, and competency, may be far overreaching beyond what he is already meant to bring unto himself.
Like Leibniz, Mary Shelley addresses the ability of an individual to fabricate from simpler parts a greater and harmonious conception, and designates this ability to an individual who holds unlimited power and knowledge. One may then further make the conjecture that our Romantic writer illustrates, by means of her emotional and vivid style of writing, as well as her devoted attention to and incorporation of descriptive language and imagery, Leibniz’s own theory of monadology. Shelley presents to the reader an analogy of sorts of the concept of monads and how they are integrated into one harmonious substance. Victor Frankenstein’s creation is, in essence, a living assemblage of parts of different dead individuals. These parts are consequently contradictory, as they are taken from individuals of different genders, colors, and proportions, and thus produce what Victor’s creature has come to reveal itself to be—an unharmonious creation. In the end, Mary Shelley presents to the reader, a finale to the existence of such an unharmonious creation, artfully communicating to the public her own similar, but embellished perspective on the philosophy of creation conceived and so often addressed by her literary and truth-seeking predecessors—that man would endanger and doom himself to his own deterioration of his morals and values should he attempt to replicate the extent of an omnipotent individual’s power and faculty within himself.
|
