|
Post by Rylee Wenzel on Jun 3, 2024 3:00:01 GMT
What I found to be the most interesting were the differences between the man and the dog. Here you have a person that, seemingly lacks common sense or perhaps is just naive, and a dog that appears to be smarter if only because of instinct. I think it is interesting to compare the man and the dog in this way. Showing that the dog seems to be smarter and seems to be more fearful of the cold than the man stuck out to me. Ultimately the man's decisions led to his death and while we don't know if the dog made it to the camp or not we can assume that it maybe had an easier time than it did with the man.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Nemmers on Jun 3, 2024 14:54:30 GMT
Good point here, Rylee-- I do think we're meant to mark the distinction here. One of the key differences here is between instinct or intellect. The man repeatedly ignores his instincts that it's too cold to be out there, but the dog is perfectly suited to the climate and doesn't have to think about what it should do. I agree, as well, that while the man dies the dog just proceeds along on its way, and trusts to its instinct in order to make it to the camp, the fire, and the food.
What picture does this paint of human nature, especially with regard to humans as rational, thinking beings who can develop, advance, and adventure? How does this intersect or parley with an existentialist view of human nature?
|
|