Howdy everyone, this is UniScoops! We’re your go to source for brain gains, minus the awkward gym selfies.
So, without further ado…
Here’s a taste of what we’re serving today:
Philosophy: Can Taylor Swift actually make you emotional? 😢
Biology: Build-a-Baby 👶
PHILOSOPHY
Can Taylor Swift actually make you emotional? 😢
Taylor Swift
betty from Taylor Swift’s album folklore. Perhaps one of Swift’s best examples of storytelling in music. It tells the story of two fictitious characters named James and Betty and their relationship troubles, as Betty discovers that James has cheated on her (gasp!). I’ll be honest, listening to the song definitely makes me feel emotional: it makes me feel sad, angry, and then hopeful (have a listen to see what I mean).
However, philosopher Collin Radford questions whether we can actually feel emotional for James and Betty. He suggests that we could only feel true emotion if we believe that something terrible actually happened to them (i.e., they were real people who were actually going through some messy relationship troubles).
His paradox of fiction and emotion can be summed up with the following propositions:
1. We are moved by the fate of James and Betty.
2. James and Betty do not exist, and we know this.
3. Being moved by the fate of a subject requires belief in the real existence of that subject; it is impossible really to care about something that one knows does not exist.
💡 Things to consider
Proposition 3: The controversial proposition seems to be (3). The need for (3) is supposedly revealed by the following sort of case. If what we at first believed was a true account of something heart-wrenching turned out to be false, and we are later made aware of this fact, then we would no longer feel the way we once did (though we might well feel something else, such as embarrassment for having been taken in to begin with.) Therefore, Radford argues, “It would seem that I can only be moved by someone’s plight if I believe that something terrible has happened to him. If I do not believe that he has not and is not suffering or whatever, I cannot grieve or be moved to tears”. Do you find his argument for the truth of (3) convincing?
David Hume: Scottish philosopher David Hume seemingly had a solution. He raises the question of why we enjoy the distressing events that a tragedy presents when we would obviously not enjoy the same events were they to occur in real life (assuming that one is not a sadist of course). In essence, Hume argues that we are moved by artworks like betty, however, it is not that fact by itself that ‘moves’ us but rather by the artfulness with which it is presented. It is only when the sadness is ‘converted’ by artfulness into a kind of pleasure that we enjoy the tragedy in sad stories. Thus, we are being moved by the very art form rather than the fictional characters within it. When I cry listening to betty, it is not because I am sad about the fictional characters and events: I am merely reacting to Taylor Swift’s amazing singing and songwriting. Does this match up with your own experience of listening to music?
Kendall Walton: Kendall Walton suggests a different way to argue against this paradox. According to him, when we listen to songs like betty, we're actually playing a kind of pretend game. In this game, we make-believe that the events are real, and our emotions during the song are what he calls ‘quasi-emotions’ not genuine feelings. For example, we pretend for a moment that Betty and James are real people and feel a ‘kind-of-sadness’, but not the same ‘genuine sadness’ we might feel when something bad actually happens in our life. Do you think there’s a difference between ‘quasi-emotions’ and genuine emotions? What do we gain from pretending that James and Betty exist?
🔎 Find out more
Hume, David. “Of Tragedy”. Four Essays. Early Modern Texts, 2008.
Radford, Colin, and Michael Weston. "How can we be moved by the fate of Anna Karenina?." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 49 (1975): 67-93.
Walton, Kendall L. "Fearing fictions." The journal of philosophy75.1 (1978): 5-27.
BIOLOGY
Build-a-Baby 👶
Genetic modification, often called genetic engineering, is biology's superhero signature move. Picture scientists tweaking the genetic code of living beings to, in a sense, pick their superpowers. They can basically do whatever they want, changing eye colour, height, to personality traits. It’s truly amazing.
Here's the lowdown.
First, scientists pinpoint the gene they want to modify – genes being like individual recipes in the biological cookbook, dictating various physical and mental traits. Using high-tech molecular tools, like CRISPR, they snip out the old instructions and seamlessly insert the new ones.
💡 Things to consider
CRISPR: CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) technology is a revolutionary gene-editing tool that enables precise modification of DNA in living organisms.
It utilises a unique system found in bacteria to target specific genes, allowing scientists to edit, add, or remove genetic material with unprecedented accuracy.
Designer Babies?: Designer babies, a term that ignites both fascination and controversy, describe infants whose genetic composition is deliberately altered to embody specific traits chosen by their parents. Maybe they want an athletic kid, an intelligent one, and so on. Rooted in genetic engineering and assisted reproductive technologies, this concept has surged with recent advancements. Imagine those sci-fi films where parents craft their ideal children, choosing traits like intelligence and eye color. Well, designer babies bring this idea closer to reality. It involves manipulating a baby's DNA to influence characteristics. Though seemingly futuristic, this notion has quietly progressed for decades, posing ethical and societal problems along the way.
Playing God?: Designing babies raises tricky questions about what's fair and right. When we choose specific traits, it could impact how we value differences in people. Some worry this might lead to unintended problems and health issues. There's also concern that treating babies like customizable products could be a bit, well, not so great. So, the ethical side of creating designer babies is a real head-scratcher, making us think hard about the choices we make.
🔎 Find out more
This article was kindly written by Hugo at PubChat. PubChat is a daily newsletter that provides research-driven education for free. The newsletter covers topics from space tourism to the Mandela effect, which will give you great chat at the office, in the line of the canteen, or on the bus (no pub endorsements from UniScoops!)
PS - Not a sponsor: just an awesome recommendation from the UniScoops team :)
🗳️ Poll
How was today's email?
👀 Keep your eyes peeled for…
That’s it for this week! We’d like to thank this week’s writers: Gabriel Pang (Philosophy) and Hugo at PubChat (Biology).
As a reminder, submissions are now open for the UniScoops Writing Competition! Check it out by clicking here.
