I've never even read that book, but I probably should.
As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says,
we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be.
But ultimately it's still the same person making those decisions, typing those words and decepting those other people, who may not be all that honest themselves.
Not to be compared with murder, obviously, but I feel like the same principle applies.
> As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says, we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be.
See also the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" from 2004:
I would just add that internet requires some effort (great effort) to find the original person.
And in the book, the distiction is a bit different: whatever someone does in "real life", his body, face, voice... it's all the same. In small villages it's impossible to hide. In bigger cities at that time, it wasn't so big, people still know each other among his social circle. And it was easy to notice someone leaving his own circle and appearing in another.
So, what internet gives you as a basic (easy to be anonymous, in the sense that commmon people perceive it, I'm not talking about using tor and so on), Jekyll had to blame on his drink. And blaming saves his face: wasn't he blaming it, he couldn't say that the "monster" was doing things that, in the end, he was trying to.... hyde.
This is all absolutely correct, but what I feel it misses is that the mythic power of the story lies in our enjoying it, reading it naively. In other words we deliberately read it ourselves in repressed mode. If we read it the first time with the kind of clarity suggested here then we don't actually feel its power: we are merely interested - rather than complicit.
Astute observation, succinctly put. I would additionally add that it also works the other way; if a story's themes and metaphors are too clear before the story is over, it can damage suspension of disbelief and hurt enjoyment.
This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually given the chance to read the story in its entirety before it is dissected to death, chapter by chapter.
Well, the irony is they really don't have better things to do and someday they'll regret not putting the time into such things when it was available to them. But you know the old saw -- youth is wasted on the young.
There were some required reading books that I enjoyed and learned from, and some that I still don't see the point of. On the other hand, some things that I did in my own time in high school laid the foundations for my career and current interests. I can't see that as completely wasted time.
This may sound strange, but I'm sometimes grateful that, when I was a wee lad, Internet wasn't invented and computers took up whole rooms. I think I'd have wasted even more time than I did.
It means I read a lot of great books, for example. I used to read them and then write about them. I'd spend almost as much time writing and thinking as I did reading the books. I'd make notes, quotes, and tie things in with other literary works.
If I'd had computers and the Internet, I'd have spent that time watching porn and posting fart jokes.
Some of the comments from people whom I infer are significantly younger than I, seem aghast at the idea of having enjoyed the non-connected life as a youth. They are similarly quizzical when they learn that I seldom carry a cell phone and still maintain a landline.
That was the reasoning for my pointing out that it may sound strange.
Even as a well-grown adult, I still go outside and play, sans any compute devices at all. I often hike, snowmobile, ski, snowshoe, ride an ATV, etc and don't even bother with a GPS unit or bring a cell phone. Mentioning this sometimes nets some responses expressing everything from curiosity to suggesting that I'm recklessly endangering myself and others.
Yes, yes I have had (online) people tell me that my doing so is actively endangering others who may need to come rescue me. I'm never quite sure how to respond politely to those types of comments. I guess it is difficult for some people to understand that life existed before the ubiquity of communication devices and always-on networks. They sometimes express more dismay when I point out that, in some locations, not even cellular service is available.
Ah well... But, yeah, it sounds strange to some folks - given the responses I've had to similar commentary.
Yeah, I think that's true for a lot of people. The other aspect of this is that your enjoyment/appreciation of a book can greatly depend on what's going on in your life at the moment.
So, it's not just if a book is good or not; it's also if it finds you at the right time. I don't just mean maturity; I also mean what big ideas are swirling around your head at the time.
For example, I read One Hundred Years of Solitude in HS and hated it. I read it again several years later, having mostly forgotten it, and I loved it, thought it was a masterpiece. I recently reread it, several years passing and having mostly forgotten it again, and I couldn't finish it, just didn't resonate the same way and moved too slowly to keep my attention.
If you try reading a classic and are still hating it after 50 pages or so, I recommend just putting down and trying again later in life. Of course, that doesn't work so well for required reading when a teacher wants everyone in the class to discuss the same book.
Why would you not read the book in it entirety first as home work or in the holiday before you are due to cover the book in class?
Because not everyone has that sort of luxury. Pre-college, I never had an actual syllubus detailing such things. Sometimes we'd get told we'd start a book every x weeks or something, but we never actually knew.
Most common method of introducing books was to hand them out in class, giving a reading assignment for that night with discussion beginning the next day.
From my own experience, I didn't have the slightest bit of trust for any book recommended by the school, mostly due to the generally horrible treatment they give in class discussion.
I didn't even realize the picked books might have any value until I accidentally read 1984 on a friend's recommendation, not realizing I'd have it for class the following semester.
And I still couldn't stand the class discussion of it.
So if I was going to do any reading, I had more incentive than not to avoid anything the school recommended: they'd kill anything I liked about the book anyways.
I think my worst experience was being assigned voltaire (candide iirc), and realizing no else one was laughing, not even the teacher
And then they have assignments that assume that you have not read the book and that you will fail if you have, unless you carefully disguise this fact.
I feel like people get way too carried away with this criticism. I remember a comic circulating making fun of overactive seeking of symbolism, and the example they chose was Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven." I mean, really, could someone have possibly chosen a worse example to argue for the primacy of surface meaning?
When you take something apart to understand it, of course you can never quite put it back together again the same way and see it holistically. But there's no other way to gain a good understanding of the component parts, so this is a worthwhile exercise, even if they don't enjoy it in the same way as other reading.
I'd contend very few teenagers are really ready to enjoy Sense and Sensibility or similar texts anyway because of their different and short experience of life, but they are in a position to learn some of the techniques and vocabulary used.
> This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually given the chance to read the story in its entirety before it is dissected to death, chapter by chapter.
Maybe, but I think the bigger reason is just that teenagers have generally not developed the kind of maturity where reading a classic work of literature is very enjoyable.
I haven't read the original story, but in all the film adaptations I've seen, I've always interpreted Hyde as the violent, visceral side which Jekyll would express more often if he weren't so restrained by his veneer of civility.
It's also why I found the TV series _Angel_ (the _Buffy_ spin-off) so unsatisfying. There is a truly fascinating story to be told about a vampire whose soul has been restored to him, and who is always at war with his own evil nature. But _Angel_ is not it. Instead, the eponymous character is essentially entirely good except when some supernatural agency transforms him back into Angelus, his evil form. All the conflict is externalised.
That's a particularly surprising and disappointing mis-step given _Angel_'s provenance. Joss Whedon is exactly the kind of person who I'd have expected to be interested in exploring the _inherent_ contradictions within the Angel character, and showing how they are analogous to the questions that we all face.
I think a modern fictional character that would come closer to the Jekyll-and-Hyde relationship as espoused in the parent article is the CW show Arrow. Oliver Queen is a harmless playboy in the public view (and in the last season, the mayor of his city), but he puts on the hood and does things, sometimes unspeakable things like torture and murder, in order to achieve his greater goal of "saving his city" from crime while leaving his public persona untarnished. He struggles with the notion that perhaps the Green Arrow persona is his true nature rather than the one he presents to the public.
Of course, that character assessment essentially apes Batman/Bruce Wayne as well; Batman is Hyde, Bruce is Jekyll, but Hyde and Jekyll are the same person with the same drives and impulses.
It's a struggle sometimes, and I wonder if it's down to who is writing and/or directing a specific episode. There was an episode last season that dealt with gun control in a 80s style "very special episode" way. It was clumsy, awkward, and did very little for the overall story arc.
Overall though, it's a good show with a darker theme than most current superhero fare. Though, I may be biased as the Green Arrow was my favorite comic book character as a kid.
The real issue with Batman as a lens into this conflict is that Batman only seems controversial. He has bad PR in Gotham, but nothing he does is really bad. Punch an attempted rapist? They might have to send you to jail but no one is booing you. If Arrow has the main character murder and torture, that's a real exploration of hidden darkness. Color me interested.
Much better in this aspect is Fargo season 3, where Varga character - played brilliantly by David Thewlis - is sort of a Mr. Hyde to the protagonist's (Emmit Stussy) Jekyll - in my interpration.
Interestingly, I feel that the character of Angel/Angelus, with his entirely black/white toggle-switch morality, is actually just acting as a foil to all of the other characters, almost becoming a supporting character in his own show! I don't think this is accidental either.
I think the story that WAS told was just as interesting... Angel isn't about the duality of his nature. That was a character device to actually explore Redemption. I think the show did very well at exploring that issue. Angel goes through several phases of trying to cope with what it means to be redeemed... At first, his hardline do gooder stance, where it was never acceptable to "do wrong", which, given his profession actually ended up doing more harm than good. The story continued with him having to deal with "walking the line" and ultimately, allowing others to ALSO redeem themselves, through their own journey, accepting that the path to redemption was as unique as the person who was seeking it.
In a lot of ways, I actually found Angel to be much deeper than Buffy, especially as Buffy progressed through later seasons. The shows were definitely dealing with two entirely different aspects of human nature, so it is difficult to compare them fairly.
The 2010's version of this is a well-educated, well-raised, mild-mannered, socially-liberal, employed, tech-savvy millennial who starts on 4chan, moves on to /r/redpill and /r/mensrights, graduates to trolling and doxxing women on twitter, all for the LULZ.
Eventually his freedom to "act as he can't in real life" leads to electing Donald Trump and a full on embracement of the alt-right agenda.
Could well be selection bias. I've been gradually removing more and more of the fascist left from my monkeysphere (and it's been great for my overall wellbeing - if someone tells me that a person doesn't deserve a voice because of their gender or skin colour then they're not my friend), so that would be skewing my news sources compared with someone who hasn't been culling in that way.
Yes, but 4chan is so over the top you can at least pretend it's completely detached from reality (or at least you could until the 2016 Election).
I wouldn't be concerned about a teenager expressing some random hormonal rage on 4chan any more than I would be over their specific interest in video games/music/pornography.
/r/redpill and /r/mensrights are taking the same rage and turning it into practical philosophy - to analyze intellectually, discuss deeply, and put into application in real life.
I would think so. A direct comparison has been written about in literature long after both the story/concept were introduced [1]:
'A man who is possessed by his shadow is always standing in his own light and falling into his own traps ... living below his own level': hence, in terms of the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 'it must be Jekyll, the conscious personality, who integrates the shadow ... and not vice versa. Otherwise the conscious becomes the slave of the autonomous shadow'.
Somewhat similar points were made, decades ago, by Nabokov in his essay on this story in his Lectures on Literature. Of course Nabokov goes, as well, in much deeper and subtler directions.
Mr. Robot comes to mind when thinking about this. I don't know that Elliot wants Mr. Robot, but maybe in the beginning he did. He certainly needed him.
I'd argue this is exactly what the author is saying jeckyll and Hyde _isnt_.
> Jekyll is not unaware or out of control when he’s Hyde. He does not wake up with no memory of what happened the night before. He remembers perfectly everything he does as Hyde, because he was in control the whole time.
Seems the only plausible explanation of the recent "Las Vegas massacre": described by friends & family as a perfect nice guy (rich even), the few records revealed so far indicate he led a possibly violent double life - culminating a self-destructive slaughter. Doctor Jekyll kept up the pure front to indulge his Hyde desires with no further ulterior motive; likewise perhaps Stephen Paddock, in an unsatisfying truth, committed horrors simply because he wanted to.
It's a good two decades since last I read the book but... I always read it as an allegory for repression and a potion which let Hyde live out his own desires and drives without the mores of society or upbringing holding sway, without guilt etc. etc.
However I suppose I did think the potion did something to release him from this, rather than being merely an excuse.
Well of course in Stevenson's time many more readers would have reached the same understanding of the text, because the Christian faith acknowledges just that: we all have a “sin nature“ (Mr Hyde) in us, tempted towards selfish and evil behaviour, at least sometimes longing to act out without consequences. Unfortunately so many Christian teachers have failed to pass on the rest of the message - that this does not make any one of us more inherently “evil“ than any other, and that there is a clear and effective path to liberation from these desires - that the faith itself is just as universally musunderstood as this marvellous book.
"Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don’t want to be punished?"
It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing you're crazy." When I heard this I was just hoping he wasn't applying it to things other than the speed limit. Sometimes I feel you have to do the right thing, because it is the right thing.
Another similar case was when I was reading my economics book which said altruism only exists due to incentives, and it wouldn't exist otherwise; I personally believe there are people who act altruistically despite incentive going either way. Although, I also find personally if I do the right thing despite incentives for me to lie or do otherwise people will often make up the difference.
The idea that it only exists due to incentives. Behaving altruistically doesn't feel like it depends on external rewards. In fact, one of the reasons I chose not to be altruistic is the costs of doing so.
Yeah I think that's true. Maybe the point my economics book was trying to make was altruism doesn't exist and it only appears to exist due to incentives. I agree with you true altruism shouldn't depend on incentive.
Also, I disagree with my economics book I believe true altruism does exist. I just believe people aren't perfect, but their desires and character can make them truly altruistic.
There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully."
It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered.
A good example might be: "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because I'm forced to." vs. "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it's the right thing to do." There is yet another option of "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it has economic benefits and because I don't want to personally deal with the homeless everywhere I go." The last one might sound heartless, but I think that it might appeal to more conservative members of society, and it also turns out to be true.
Good argument. To me the reason for not speeding due to it being a net benefit to society is just a specific case of speeding due to it being the right thing to do. One point I got from your argument (though not directly stated) is that it's often important to clarify why the thing you are saying is the right thing to do is in fact right.
I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire to do wrong things in the first place.
If you taboo the words "virtue" and "virtuous", what are you left with? Seems like it can be reduced to utilitarianism. If utilitarianism is "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function", this idea of virtue maximizing can be restated as "what is right is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function, which states its highest utility is that which makes me act more virtuously, with these comparison heuristics to determine 'more' or 'less' virtuous". My own criticism of utilitarianism is that utility functions aren't always objective, and for different people or different contexts can output different values. If you can agree on a function it can be a useful tool in moral reasoning (and especially uncovering inconsistencies if you've agreed to a few functions then find a contradiction with intuition and what the calculations say) but typically we want to know how we should agree on a function in the first place.
A slightly different wording of that last one would make it compassionate, IMO. "Because I can't be happy if I have merely 'won' the soc-ec game, while so many around me have 'lost' and are suffering."
> There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully."
But, really, as a single driver, your behavior doesn't have that much influence on others.
To use a blunted instrument as a descriptor, you cause an accident and it results in complete stoppage of traffic.
However, much smaller things can actually impact the flow of traffic in a significant manner. Brake late and hard and you can watch the ripple effect for many cars behind you. It can actually cause a ripple that goes back for miles and has effects lasting for much longer than you might think - on the order of minutes to as long as a half hour in extreme situations.
All that from just braking late and hard under the right circumstances...
If you want to improve the flow of traffic, as a single individual, leave space between you and the car in front of you, allow people to merge, and strive to maintain a constant speed. You may actually reach your destination faster, though it isn't intuitive.
Edited to add: I modeled traffic. That is what my business did. I started with vehicular traffic and would later expand to model pedestrian traffic. Traffic is a fascinating subject that is chaotic in nature.
You may be interested in George Price. There are a few documentaries that cover his life and work. He was very interested in altruism and his efforts to figure that out are believed to be why he killed himself. Basically, it drove him insane to think about altruism and if it was actually possible to be altruistic.
You should do the right thing because it is the right thing.
However, with speed limits your teacher framed the question incorrectly. There is not right or wrong to a speed limit. 35 miles an hour is no more right than 38 miles an hour. The real question is why do we obey a law when there is no clear right or wrong to it? In the case of the speed limit our right/wrong choice is to obey the law or not. (And while speed has no right or wrong unsafe driving absolutely does, which could be unsafe due to the speed.)
It is worth pointing out that, in one sense, the "misreading" and the "proper reading" are the same. One is just metaphorical and the other is literal.
To state it more clearly, even if you believe that Hyde is the evil in Jekyll's soul, and not just Jekyll acting out his fantasy, the former is a metaphor for the latter.
I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil. (Hyde is the unadulterated evil, in other words).
> I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil.
Given it is Jekyll himself that makes that observation, it may not be all that "clear". Jekyll is a very unreliable narrator in the book, and "I only have a little bit of evil inside, it's small really" is probably one of his lesser delusions.
86 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] threadAs it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says, we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be.
But ultimately it's still the same person making those decisions, typing those words and decepting those other people, who may not be all that honest themselves.
Not to be compared with murder, obviously, but I feel like the same principle applies.
See also the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" from 2004:
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
And in the book, the distiction is a bit different: whatever someone does in "real life", his body, face, voice... it's all the same. In small villages it's impossible to hide. In bigger cities at that time, it wasn't so big, people still know each other among his social circle. And it was easy to notice someone leaving his own circle and appearing in another.
So, what internet gives you as a basic (easy to be anonymous, in the sense that commmon people perceive it, I'm not talking about using tor and so on), Jekyll had to blame on his drink. And blaming saves his face: wasn't he blaming it, he couldn't say that the "monster" was doing things that, in the end, he was trying to.... hyde.
This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually given the chance to read the story in its entirety before it is dissected to death, chapter by chapter.
I certainly read all of my assigned texts an din the case of classical studies several other books and plays in the cannon.
Because they're teenagers with better things to do with their time than reading old 'boring' books by a bunch of pointless dead people.
It means I read a lot of great books, for example. I used to read them and then write about them. I'd spend almost as much time writing and thinking as I did reading the books. I'd make notes, quotes, and tie things in with other literary works.
If I'd had computers and the Internet, I'd have spent that time watching porn and posting fart jokes.
That was the reasoning for my pointing out that it may sound strange.
Even as a well-grown adult, I still go outside and play, sans any compute devices at all. I often hike, snowmobile, ski, snowshoe, ride an ATV, etc and don't even bother with a GPS unit or bring a cell phone. Mentioning this sometimes nets some responses expressing everything from curiosity to suggesting that I'm recklessly endangering myself and others.
Yes, yes I have had (online) people tell me that my doing so is actively endangering others who may need to come rescue me. I'm never quite sure how to respond politely to those types of comments. I guess it is difficult for some people to understand that life existed before the ubiquity of communication devices and always-on networks. They sometimes express more dismay when I point out that, in some locations, not even cellular service is available.
Ah well... But, yeah, it sounds strange to some folks - given the responses I've had to similar commentary.
So, it's not just if a book is good or not; it's also if it finds you at the right time. I don't just mean maturity; I also mean what big ideas are swirling around your head at the time.
For example, I read One Hundred Years of Solitude in HS and hated it. I read it again several years later, having mostly forgotten it, and I loved it, thought it was a masterpiece. I recently reread it, several years passing and having mostly forgotten it again, and I couldn't finish it, just didn't resonate the same way and moved too slowly to keep my attention.
If you try reading a classic and are still hating it after 50 pages or so, I recommend just putting down and trying again later in life. Of course, that doesn't work so well for required reading when a teacher wants everyone in the class to discuss the same book.
Because not everyone has that sort of luxury. Pre-college, I never had an actual syllubus detailing such things. Sometimes we'd get told we'd start a book every x weeks or something, but we never actually knew.
Most common method of introducing books was to hand them out in class, giving a reading assignment for that night with discussion beginning the next day.
I didn't even realize the picked books might have any value until I accidentally read 1984 on a friend's recommendation, not realizing I'd have it for class the following semester.
And I still couldn't stand the class discussion of it.
So if I was going to do any reading, I had more incentive than not to avoid anything the school recommended: they'd kill anything I liked about the book anyways.
I think my worst experience was being assigned voltaire (candide iirc), and realizing no else one was laughing, not even the teacher
And then they have assignments that assume that you have not read the book and that you will fail if you have, unless you carefully disguise this fact.
[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/augury
I'd contend very few teenagers are really ready to enjoy Sense and Sensibility or similar texts anyway because of their different and short experience of life, but they are in a position to learn some of the techniques and vocabulary used.
Maybe, but I think the bigger reason is just that teenagers have generally not developed the kind of maturity where reading a classic work of literature is very enjoyable.
It's also why I found the TV series _Angel_ (the _Buffy_ spin-off) so unsatisfying. There is a truly fascinating story to be told about a vampire whose soul has been restored to him, and who is always at war with his own evil nature. But _Angel_ is not it. Instead, the eponymous character is essentially entirely good except when some supernatural agency transforms him back into Angelus, his evil form. All the conflict is externalised.
That's a particularly surprising and disappointing mis-step given _Angel_'s provenance. Joss Whedon is exactly the kind of person who I'd have expected to be interested in exploring the _inherent_ contradictions within the Angel character, and showing how they are analogous to the questions that we all face.
Of course, that character assessment essentially apes Batman/Bruce Wayne as well; Batman is Hyde, Bruce is Jekyll, but Hyde and Jekyll are the same person with the same drives and impulses.
Overall though, it's a good show with a darker theme than most current superhero fare. Though, I may be biased as the Green Arrow was my favorite comic book character as a kid.
Besides, if you want a vampire character at war with his own evil nature, surely that's basically Spike's arc?
In a lot of ways, I actually found Angel to be much deeper than Buffy, especially as Buffy progressed through later seasons. The shows were definitely dealing with two entirely different aspects of human nature, so it is difficult to compare them fairly.
Eventually his freedom to "act as he can't in real life" leads to electing Donald Trump and a full on embracement of the alt-right agenda.
And are there many excellent people "on both sides"?
Your follow up comment suggests you are now of the opinion that liberals and minorities are the racist ones. You're a lost cause.
You have that in reverse. All of the worst subreddits of that nature are just Diet /pol/ at the end of the day.
I wouldn't be concerned about a teenager expressing some random hormonal rage on 4chan any more than I would be over their specific interest in video games/music/pornography.
/r/redpill and /r/mensrights are taking the same rage and turning it into practical philosophy - to analyze intellectually, discuss deeply, and put into application in real life.
That is much scarier, and much harder to fight.
'A man who is possessed by his shadow is always standing in his own light and falling into his own traps ... living below his own level': hence, in terms of the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 'it must be Jekyll, the conscious personality, who integrates the shadow ... and not vice versa. Otherwise the conscious becomes the slave of the autonomous shadow'.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)
> Jekyll is not unaware or out of control when he’s Hyde. He does not wake up with no memory of what happened the night before. He remembers perfectly everything he does as Hyde, because he was in control the whole time.
However I suppose I did think the potion did something to release him from this, rather than being merely an excuse.
It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing you're crazy." When I heard this I was just hoping he wasn't applying it to things other than the speed limit. Sometimes I feel you have to do the right thing, because it is the right thing.
Another similar case was when I was reading my economics book which said altruism only exists due to incentives, and it wouldn't exist otherwise; I personally believe there are people who act altruistically despite incentive going either way. Although, I also find personally if I do the right thing despite incentives for me to lie or do otherwise people will often make up the difference.
Further, I'll suggest that there is something wrong with that take on altruism, simply because that's not how altruism feels.
Also, I disagree with my economics book I believe true altruism does exist. I just believe people aren't perfect, but their desires and character can make them truly altruistic.
It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered.
A good example might be: "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because I'm forced to." vs. "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it's the right thing to do." There is yet another option of "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it has economic benefits and because I don't want to personally deal with the homeless everywhere I go." The last one might sound heartless, but I think that it might appeal to more conservative members of society, and it also turns out to be true.
I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire to do wrong things in the first place.
But, really, as a single driver, your behavior doesn't have that much influence on others.
To use a blunted instrument as a descriptor, you cause an accident and it results in complete stoppage of traffic.
However, much smaller things can actually impact the flow of traffic in a significant manner. Brake late and hard and you can watch the ripple effect for many cars behind you. It can actually cause a ripple that goes back for miles and has effects lasting for much longer than you might think - on the order of minutes to as long as a half hour in extreme situations.
All that from just braking late and hard under the right circumstances...
If you want to improve the flow of traffic, as a single individual, leave space between you and the car in front of you, allow people to merge, and strive to maintain a constant speed. You may actually reach your destination faster, though it isn't intuitive.
Edited to add: I modeled traffic. That is what my business did. I started with vehicular traffic and would later expand to model pedestrian traffic. Traffic is a fascinating subject that is chaotic in nature.
Here is a starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price
However, with speed limits your teacher framed the question incorrectly. There is not right or wrong to a speed limit. 35 miles an hour is no more right than 38 miles an hour. The real question is why do we obey a law when there is no clear right or wrong to it? In the case of the speed limit our right/wrong choice is to obey the law or not. (And while speed has no right or wrong unsafe driving absolutely does, which could be unsafe due to the speed.)
https://xkcd.com/1687/
To state it more clearly, even if you believe that Hyde is the evil in Jekyll's soul, and not just Jekyll acting out his fantasy, the former is a metaphor for the latter.
I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil. (Hyde is the unadulterated evil, in other words).
Given it is Jekyll himself that makes that observation, it may not be all that "clear". Jekyll is a very unreliable narrator in the book, and "I only have a little bit of evil inside, it's small really" is probably one of his lesser delusions.