Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > History Book Reviews > Historum Book Discussion
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Historum Book Discussion History Book Discussion Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 3rd, 2011, 05:39 PM   #31

okamido's Avatar
knows what the bee knows
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: land of Califia
Posts: 29,886
Blog Entries: 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacuss View Post
Okamido asks if the Traveler has a right to be disgusted, and if he should accept the natural course of things. Yes, I would say he has the right to be repulsed by what he sees, given that he comes from a time when what he now witnesses was inconcievable. Yet in the context of the time he now observes, that right exists only unto himself
Due to the revulsion and since the Traveler can move freely within the time-stream, does he have the moral right to alter the future as he sees fit? I am not so sure. Even knowing that when he returns to the past, what he witnessed hasn't transpired, by altering even the smallest piece of the puzzle can be construed as murder, can it not?
okamido is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 3rd, 2011, 09:31 PM   #32

Spartacuss's Avatar
mmmmph! mmmMMMMmmph!!
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,575

Quote:
Originally Posted by okamido View Post
Due to the revulsion and since the Traveler can move freely within the time-stream, does he have the moral right to alter the future as he sees fit? I am not so sure. Even knowing that when he returns to the past, what he witnessed hasn't transpired, by altering even the smallest piece of the puzzle can be construed as murder, can it not?
No, we would hold that he would have no moral right, and the overt altering of events could indeed be taken as murder. Yet I would say that the burden of restraint in the face of that known future would be too great for his mind to bear. He dares not interfere for fear of altering the course, or perhaps starting a new sequence that comes to a more abrupt and even more terrible conclusion. And still, if his knowledge was kept to himself it nontheless governs his conduct and still alters the paradigm of his relation to his time. If he warns, he is doomed. If he is silent, he is doomed. Mankind is doomed regardless.

I know of no way to escape the scenario absent the purely random appearance of some great individual or group that sets the ills right. But surely the Traveler would not know it, as he has met his doom in madness. Pretty grim take, huh?
Spartacuss is offline  
Old March 4th, 2011, 09:20 PM   #33

Patito de Hule's Avatar
Quack
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 3,333
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by okamido View Post
Due to the revulsion and since the Traveler can move freely within the time-stream, does he have the moral right to alter the future as he sees fit? I am not so sure. Even knowing that when he returns to the past, what he witnessed hasn't transpired, by altering even the smallest piece of the puzzle can be construed as murder, can it not?
That, of course, is the fundamental absurdity of time travel to begin with.

From a Kantian standpoint, the answer to the question would be "unknowable" and the question can have no answer. Since the "question" is intrinsically unanswerable, it is not a question, but an absurdity.

Suppose that we have travelled to the future and don't like what we see. So, on our return, we act to make the outcome we saw impossible. Then we have not been to the future, but to an alternative world contrary to our initial hypothesis. So the supposition is an absurdity.

When we read a SF novel, Time Machine in this case, we suspend belief/disbelief about the premises of the novel. Still, as any writer well knows, the author must continue with believable actions of the actors given the premises. Did H.G. Wells do that for his novel? Given time travel, does the rest of the novel seem believable?
Patito de Hule is offline  
Old March 4th, 2011, 09:27 PM   #34

okamido's Avatar
knows what the bee knows
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: land of Califia
Posts: 29,886
Blog Entries: 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patito de Hule View Post
That, of course, is the fundamental absurdity of time travel to begin with.

From a Kantian standpoint, the answer to the question would be "unknowable" and the question can have no answer. Since the "question" is intrinsically unanswerable, it is not a question, but an absurdity.

Suppose that we have travelled to the future and don't like what we see. So, on our return, we act to make the outcome we saw impossible. Then we have not been to the future, but to an alternative world contrary to our initial hypothesis. So the supposition is an absurdity.
I read a paper once in regards to time travel. It pointed out how many divergent realities were created by Doc Brown and Marty McFly in Back to the Future...something in excess of 10,000 if I remember correctly. Absurdity doesn't begin to cover it.
okamido is offline  
Old March 4th, 2011, 10:09 PM   #35

Patito de Hule's Avatar
Quack
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 3,333
Blog Entries: 9

My daughter was a fan of Back to the Future. It didn't interest me so much (I watched a couple of movies with her, of course.)

My dad was a friend of H.G.Wells until shortly before I was born. So I had to grow up interested in all of his works.

My remark was intended to point out:
1. Any answer to an absurd question is inherently absurd and
2. I mean absurd in the proper sense, not just "silly"

Cheers.
Patito de Hule is offline  
Old August 18th, 2013, 06:19 AM   #36

larkin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,626
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorian View Post
So the book is about taking the English Class divisions to their (il)logical conclusion.

The Working classes becoming ugly and cannibalistic, devouring the beautiful, but useless, Upper class children while keeping the machinery of civilization still operating.

To be honest, the Morlocks should be considered the heroes of the story. I think the Inventor picked the wrong side to support.
Perhaps you are right, I don't know..In the meantime, I spend my time with the beautiful and useless.
larkin is offline  
Old November 3rd, 2013, 03:18 PM   #37

okamido's Avatar
knows what the bee knows
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: land of Califia
Posts: 29,886
Blog Entries: 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorian View Post
So the book is about taking the English Class divisions to their (il)logical conclusion.

The Working classes becoming ugly and cannibalistic, devouring the beautiful, but useless, Upper class children while keeping the machinery of civilization still operating.

To be honest, the Morlocks should be considered the heroes of the story. I think the Inventor picked the wrong side to support.
Were the people of Victorian England not somewhat trained to "accept their place" in life? (That's an actual question as I don't know.) If that is so, and Wells was himself, aspiring to the upper-class, then it might makes sense that he still places importance on the "Useless."
okamido is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > History Book Reviews > Historum Book Discussion

Tags
machine, wells



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Time machine Perix Speculative History 25 March 19th, 2010 09:58 AM
HG Wells- The Outline of History Leonidas History Book Reviews 0 January 26th, 2010 09:29 PM
If you had a time machine... History General History 29 November 26th, 2009 09:41 PM
HG Wells Commander General History 4 September 27th, 2006 04:39 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.