What's the point
After reading Darwin, is it possible to believe that a single human person and/or all of humanity has any real purpose or teleological end?
Moral Progression Thought Piece
Charles Darwin provides an extensive and detailed look into the physical evolution of man. He describes the advantageous variations that species undergo physically, but he does not believe that there has been moral progress made by man. In fact, he shows that morally the more depraved procreate and subsist in larger numbers than the morally virtuous because of their procreative habits.
But has man as a whole really undergone no moral development of the course of his existence? Darwin writes about the primeval species: “Our early semi-human progenitors would not have practiced infanticide or polyandry; for the instincts of the lower animals are never so perverted as to lead them regularly to destroy their own offspring, or to be quite devoid of jealousy” (p 644). These modern developments, for Darwin, demonstrate a regress in human morality. Though for the primeval humans lack the moral capacity of today’s humans, this only makes the situation worse; the early humans acted primarily on instinct while current humans have developed the ability to determine if something is morally wrong or right, yet continue to practice immoral acts.
Darwin writes that people want to believe in a moral development of man, but history proves otherwise. Obviously, this contradicts Hegel’s entire argument that history progresses toward the most perfect society. Both of them use history as an example. Darwin’s argument against moral development rests on his claims that the morally depraved members of society procreate with more frequency than the virtuous: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, forseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him” (p 711). Bold stereotypes aside, this statement demonstrates Darwin’s belief that our society will gradually become populated in greater numbers by immoral than moral citizens.
However, Darwin does not define what is meant by a moral person, and it seems as if his ideas of morality differ from the ones we use today. When referring to the lack of polyandry in most of today’s societies he credits jealousy as a positive attribute. Most people today would cite jealousy as a negative attribute that promotes immoral rather than moral actions. Obviously these examples are beyond Darwin’s life, but America has undergone many changes toward a greater morality. Over the past two hundred years we have seen the abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and suffrage for women and minorities. Are these developments not evidence of the evolution of a moral character in America?
This is not to say that all people posses equal levels of moral character or that history constantly progresses toward a greater moral character. Hegel allows for digression in his theory by referring to history as an ebb and flow. The problem with Darwin’s description is his failure to incorporate moral development while allowing room for stagnation or decline. Perhaps there is a different dimension to morality that cannot be proven in the same scientific way that he sets out to demonstrate his theory of evolution and physical progress. Is Darwin correct to say that mankind is making no moral strides?
(Word Count: 532)
Rhetoric Vs. Evidence Thought Piece
Darwin is considered one of the greatest scientists of all time for his theory of evolution. While reading the Descent of Man, however, an alarming pattern emerges. While personal anecdotes and rhetoric are in abundance, there seems to be a lack of scientific evidence to support his argument.
The use of rhetoric is found throughout the work. Phrases such as "Everyone has seen," "The fact that lower animals are excited by the same emotions as ourselves is so well established that it will not be necessary to weary the reader by many details," "Few persons any longer dispute," are found throughout the text and use the reader's common sense to draw conclusions that may or may not be supported by scientific data. There is no place for rhetoric in modern scientific investigation. Emphasis is placed on empirical evidence and results of experimentation. The use of rhetoric seems to indicate some flaws in the argument that Darwin is attempting to gloss over.
The personal anecdotes used by Darwin are also troubling. One example of this that occurs frequently in the text is the use of dogs and Darwin's experience with his dog. His dog is mentioned in the sections on sociability, memory, and imagination.
The issue, of course, is not that anecdotes or single experiences are not useful in terms of examining patterns, however using an incident that happened on a hunting trip to offer evidence of reasoning in animals is not exactly scientific. The text does refer to other documents, which apparently document more closely the studies performed and results gathered, however Darwin's own evidence does not seem to be the result of any prolonged study.
This evidence seems more typical of a work like Thucidides or a political treatise in which rationality and logic are used more than empirical evidence. These "soft" sciences, history and politics, use this type of evidence because often times it is impossible to conduct experiments to prove conclusions. Darwin's topic, however, contains many aspects that could be tested by the scientific method.
If this if the type of evidence used, it begs the question, what type of text is The Descent of Man? Is this a scientific work, as most people assume it to be because of the fame of its author? Is this work a treatise of Darwin's own ideas, more literary in nature because of the unproven assumptions he presents? Can these ideas about animals having imaginations, and the difference between levels of rationality in men be proven using the scientific method or are they things we must examine on a more abstract and philosophical level?
In his introduction, Darwin explains that he had never attempted to apply his principles of evolution to a specific species. His attempt to do so with man is a culmination of information gathered about other types of animals and is used as a test to see if his theories hold up. Was it a mistake to publish this book about a species on which typical experimentation is limited by ethical boundaries? Is it possible that this is as much as Darwin can do given these limits, and thus his hypotheses still stand up to scientific scrutiny?540 Words
Natural Selection
"The early progenitors of man must also have tended, like all other animals, to have increased beyond their means of subsistence; they must, therefore, occasionally have been exposed to a struggle for existence, and consequently to the ridid law of natural selection. ...Man in the rudest state in which he now exists is the most dominant animal that has ever appeared on this earth." (645, like 16 pages into chapter 2)Considering modern conveniences, modern weaponry, modern medicine, humanitarian laws, and general christian(-like) kindness, I would venture to say that natural selection no longer occurs in the human race. Is this a fair assessment? Would the lack of natural selection be a bad thing? Are we no longer the "most dominant animal" in our rudest state, is the human race weakening? Sure we have to deal with hardships in life, but even in the undeveloped third world it isn't as bad as it could be because aide etc. from developed countries like ours. I would like to say that perhaps we have simply stopped the physical track and have moved on to the mental, however it is impossible to ignore the giant supply of stupidity in our world. Have we reached our highpoint (...Germany?... haha)? Are we on the decline? IS THE WORLD GOING TO END IN 2012!?!?!?
Also, Brennan, well done with the comic link. That was ridiculous. On both sides.
Although I do want to talk about Darwin, I think it is necessary to bring up all the books at this point; our last class of the year.
Starting with War and Peace and ending with the Descent of Man, what is the connection we can make with all these classics? What is the underlying message of this seminar, and how can we compare this class to others?
General question, I know, but I felt it necessary to ask...
Nobility in Mere Living
"Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but not, it may be said, of noble quality. The world, it has often been remarked, appears as if it had long been preparing for the advent of man: and this, in one sense is strictly true, for he owes his birth to a long line of progenitors. If any single link in this chain had never existed, man would not have been exactly what he now is. Unless we wilfully close our eyes, we may, with our present knowledge, approximately recognise our parentage; nor need we feel ashamed of it. The most humble organism is something much higher than the inorganic dust under our feet; and no one with an unbiased mind can study any living creature, however humble, without being struck with enthusiasm at its marvelous structure and properties" (Darwin 731).
In the above passage, Darwin tries to placate those who may find his ideas on the descent of man from "lower" species offensive. Essentially, he says that any living being is more noble than inanimate matter. Although this claim seems rather obvious, how can it necessarily be justified? Would it really satisfy his detractors? Wouldn't they simply say that humans are more noble than the sorts of "lower" species from which Darwin claims they have descended?
Darwin on Race
In chapter 7, Darwin analyzes whether or not the different races constitute different human species. When he published The Descent of Man in the 1870s, this was a radical hypothesis. Do we think that the evidence he uses to support his conclusion would convince his readers that humankind is all one species (thus eliminating some of the grounds for racism)?
Darwin's Dog
Darwin seems to mention dogs frequently as examples in support of the humanity of animals in the third chapter. He mentions the dog that licked the hand of the scientist vivisecting the poor thing (661), the dog with a sense of humor (662), dreaming dogs as evidence of imagination (664), and his own dog who has some concept of hunting (671).He even suggests that the dog might have a concept of some invisible force:
As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved [in the wind], tje dpg growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that stranger has no right to be on his territory.
--679
He uses other animals as examples, but no other so frequently. Much of Darwin's argument on the nature of human beings requires that we accept that animals are close to us in reason and other faculties than we usually admit. But especially because much of Darwin's evidence seems to stem from such a personal source-- his own probably beloved dog-- could all this 'evidence' just be projection? Cesar Milan, the Dog Whisperer, bases the concept of his training on the idea that dogs are animals, and you have to treat them as such, not as though they were people (at least according to his cameo on South Park). Anyway, it really seems a strong possibility that when Darwin looks at these apparently convincing cases of animals acting with reason, imagination, playfulness, and so on, it could just be projection. Is his evidence really convincing? If so, what implications does this have for humans? Does it change anything?
Reading Mill in Light of Hegel: Negative and Positive Liberty
(Unrequired thought piece)Although Mill’s and Hegel’s philosophies ground themselves in the idea that liberty is the end of history, these thinkers espouse diametrically opposed positions on the manner in which this liberty is realized. In order to understand the possible consequences and applications of Mill’s political theory, his ideas on liberty must be read in light of their radical break with Hegelian thought.
In his work The Philosophy of History, Hegel implements a positive concept of political freedom, positive liberty. He writes that “the History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom” (19). Using Reason as the absolute measure of progress, he defines liberty as obedience to the law due to a realization that the law itself is rational. In other words, in the state of liberty, there is no possible conflict between the rational individual and the state. Hegel thus implements a positive concept of liberty in his writings, concluding that freedom can only be realized in the State through its public institutions: “Rather, we affirm, are Law, Morality, Government, and they alone, the positive reality and completion of Freedom” (38).
In his essay On Liberty, Mill inverts the positive liberty of Hegel and presents a negative concept of political freedom, negative liberty. He defines civil, or social liberty as “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (3). In other words, Mill’s conception of liberty revolves around the protection of individual rights from the interference of society: “To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society” (86). He divides the liberties of the individual that must be protected into three branches to demonstrate the necessary precautions for a free society: Liberty of Thought and Discussion, Individuality, Limits on the Authority of Society on the Individual. In contrast to Hegel, negative liberty is not a consequence of the State but a prerequisite for a State that will not succumb to despotism. But Mill seems to extend the protections of liberty from governmental affairs to social, cultural, and religious norms: “Even despotism does not produce its worst effects, so long as individuality exists under it; and whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called, and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men” (73). This expansion of the realm of despotism leads to a wide range of possible applications of negative liberty.
If Mill’s proposed applications range from forced labor to support one’s children to privatization of education and public institutions, is this conception of liberty better than the positive liberty espoused by Hegel? Hegel’s notion of a teleological history acting through the cunning of reason leads us to an ideal State of peace, freedom, and morality. Where does Mill’s negative liberty lead us? Does it effectively defend against despotism and ensure peace and morality?
[498 words]
Certainty of Opinion
"Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side" (26).I like Mill's claim that nothing should be held certain; it allows for a skeptical culture that can unveil falsity. The question it raises, however, is the following: what are the criteria for a correct claim? What of different claims that have their basis on different modes? For example, would empirical and affective truths be incompatible?
How do we know it's right?
"...the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinions, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner." (p 25)
Mill's Patriot Act
In addressing the object of his essay, Mill states that the “sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (p 12). Mill, in his thoughts towards the likings and disliking of a society, or more so towards the government or leaders by which control that society, has come across a very important idea especially in today’s society. Being one who likes to compare our classic author’s with our modern day society, the passage above made me think of one thing in particular: the Patriot Act. We are all entitled to liberty, Mill states that we, or society have this sense of social liberty where, “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercises by society over the individual.” (P 3). Now, in our modern times, we are constantly reminded of the fear and danger that lurks around the corner. We live in a country of three hundred million, and it seems as though we do have that sense of liberty, to a certain extent. On September 11, 2001, we gave up some of that liberty. The patriot act was introduced into action on October 26th, 2001. The act has had the description of “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.” At this time, Mill sense of liberty was interrupted. The purpose for which this power was obtained was to protect other Americans from any sort of danger, and in Mill’s words “is to prevent harm to others”. I wonder then, at what point does this end? At what point can we state that all of our Liberty is being attacked? The patriot act allows access to bank accounts, voice mail records, personal files. The act has the right to deport, and arrest at any given point. I wonder though, what Mill would think of this? We read, “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting the end”(13). Does this statement give the right to a government or leader, in today’s America, to act in a repressive way in order to protect the citizens from a modern day barbarian (terrorist)? Mill finds it important to note the fact that peoples inactions are a cause to evil, and that the idea of pursuing and doing as we wish and like is key for the success of this country. With looming threats everyday, and the ability to relinquish our freedom, does the patriot act, and any other government program that limits the rights of it’s citizens still keep that liberty sacred? At what point can we say that our rights are being unjustly tampered with? Finally, what would Mill say of this act?
Word count (507)
Would Mill Approve of America's intellectual culture? of ND's?
In America today, we like to think we have freedom of thought and speech. But Mill is speaking in terms of not only what is allowed by law but also by society. With all of today's partisanship, on the left and on the right, from theists and atheists alike, can we say that we as a society are open to dialectic with other modes of thought? sorry for the short post- I hope this extratextual question will bring us into the text.
Mill and Absolute Truth
I find Mill's writing style and ideas compelling. While I do not agree with much of what he says, I constantly find myself nodding my head and agreeing with him. The biggest sticking points for me are 1) his claim that there is no absolute truth and 2) his description of Christianity (much less his description for Roman Catholicism!). I wonder if we could still admit his stance on the liberty of thought while affirming that there is an absolute truth?
How do we arrive at a working consensus?
"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful, is the cause of half their errors" (Mill 50).Mill often emphasizes that "teachers and learners go to sleep at their post, as soon as there is no enemy in the field" (49). However, even he seems to acknowledge that some kind of consensus, while certainly not final or definitive, must often be arrived at in order for any significant progress to be made. Where does one draw the line as far as when to decide that a valid or useful working consensus is possible?
H2O
"A lake is the landscape's most beautiful and expressive feature. It is earth's eye, looking into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature." (p 125)I found Thoreau's discussion of bodies of water to be very interesting, especially in contrast with the picture of the sea that we just read in Moby Dick. Though both authors are inspired to write and meditate by these waters, Melville's ocean was mysterious and fear-inspiring, while Thoreau's lakes are peaceful and in a very Baconian way he gives us a great deal of information about the lake and creatures living in and around it. How do these two views of water reflect the author's philosophies or themes? Are the two reconcilable (obviously one is an ocean and one is a lake, but beyond that)?
One for all?
I know that last class we talked about whether Thoreau was a separatist or a reformer. Does our opinion change at all after the Baker Farm Chapter or the following chapter on Higher Laws? It seems that these chapters follow each other for a reason and that he wants them to apply to everyone. Is this true?
Thoreau's Egoism
I wonder what we make of Thoreau's egoism which is especially explicit in the last lines of the novel. He is constantly talking about how his life style is the correct one, and that if all the poor followed his model they would be much better off. For all his apparent "radicalism", his egotistical conservatism towards the poor (especially in regards to the "inherited Irish poverty") is appalling.
Thought Piece
"I found in myself, and still find, an instinct toward a higher, or, as it is named, spiritual life, as do most men, and another toward a primitive rank and savage one, and I reverence them both" (143).In Walden, Thoreau is often dealing with man's relationship with nature. There are moments when he notices a stunning similarity between humans and nature (like when he observes the ants) and he becomes deeply connected to it. But he eventually leaves Walden and suggests that he needs to move forward for the continued development of his soul. How exactly does Thoreau understand the relationship between man and nature, specifically how it affects the spiritual and savage parts of man's soul?
Thoreau frequently addresses the tension between man's spiritual and savage parts of his soul. He talks about how man is naturally drawn towards nature when they are younger, but become more and more separated from it as they age. Certain skills, like hunting, are natural and healthy for men to perform. Yet he also talks about the need for leisure to cultivate ones mind and the need to trust one's genius. He writes that "every man is the builder of a temple, called his body, to the god he worships, after a style purely his own, nor can he get off by hammering marble instead" (150). Thoreau feels that each man is in charge of his own unique, personal development. There is no set handbook for all men to follow in order to sculpt one's body and soul. For him "any nobleness begins at once to refine a man's feature, any meanness or sensuality to imbrute them" (151). Men must look inside themselves to find what is noble and avoid what is mean, and this will help them form bodies that can serve as temples for worship.
As he says, "no man ever followed his genius till it misled him" (147). Trust one's instincts and parts of the soul, and one will begin to develop.
Thoreau concludes the section "Higher Laws" with a discussion of John Farmer. Farmer never attended to some of his higher faculties until he heard a flute playing. The sound of the flute awoke parts of him that had been in a slumber, and he began to question why he was living where he was and doing what he was doing. He asks himself "why do you stay here and live this mean moiling life, when a glorious existence is possible for you?" (151). Thoreau uses this story to create an example for his idea of internal progress through the relationship between the savage and spirit parts of the self. The flute, symbolizing nature, awakens a part of the soul that men have repressed and pushed away. It is a natural, passionate experience accessible to all men if they allow it. This emotional realization then allows men to question the wider world around them and the way they have been living, and begin to live fuller lives. The flute accesses the savage part of the man, and this awakening in the savage part of the soul then helps the spiritual part truly develop.
Thoreau feels that is important for the savage part of men to be awoken, and this can only happen through experiences in nature. This purification through nature then allows the higher, more spiritual part of man to then develop. Basic elements in nature help man look toward the larger issues in his spirit and allow him to begin living fully. The savage and spirit parts of the soul may seem to be in contrast, but Thoreau sees them in a compatible and necessary relationship that helps guide men to live truly prosperous lives.
Word Count- 580
Humanizing Animals
As a follow-up to Mike's question about the way Thoreau considers humans in a naturalistic sense, and in expectation of Darwin, I thought it might be useful to consider the way Thoreau considers animals. For example, the war of the ants (p. 153 Green) not only compares their war to those of men but suggests the ants might have been braver. His discussion of vegetarianism (p. 143-4 Green) considers even fishing in a negative light. He was arguably closer to, and certainly had more contact with, animals in Walden than he had with people; on 184 Green he describes a squirrel being so comfortable with him that it "occasionally stepped upon my shoe, when that was the nearest way." To what extent can we say that Thoreau treats these animals as equals?
Walden Thought Piece
“How worn and dusty, then, must be the highways of the world, how deep the ruts of tradition and conformity!” (217)If the conclusion of Walden is to be taken as a synthesis of the ideas implanted throughout the work, then Henry David Thoreau’s main exhortation to his brethren is to not become complacent in life. In this call to lead a deliberate life, nature plays an important part both as an example of stirring oneself up, and as a vehicle for transcendence.
Thoreau went to the woods because he wished to live deliberately. His lifestyle while he lived there revealed that he was not interested in becoming an ascetic, but rather, wished to gain something by trying to live in and appreciate every present moment. In the first part of Walden, Thoreau criticizes society for its love of superfluities. His issue with superfluities is that the accumulation of a great amount of them prevents one from moving, and thus from living a simple, genuine life. Men with houses run the risk of falling into an intellectual coma if they become too content with the ritual of daily life, and men with mortgages are in an even more dire situation, imprisoned by their inability to change their situation if they become discontent. Either way, Thoreau despises when men say that it is too late for them to change.
By relating the succession of the seasons to his fellows, Thoreau shows that Nature annually renews herself through the rite of spring, and analogizes this to men, prescribing the need for them to also go through periods of renewal and change. Like in the springtime, these periods of renewal help man to grow and find the intellectual nourishment he needs. Otherwise, man falls into a state of hibernation: his intellect begins to shut down, and will be rendered stagnant. Thoureau’s critique of old men, and their limited scopes of the world, belongs to this category.
However, Thoreau puts forward nature itself as a solution to this problem. Nature always offers up some food for thought. It is through observing nature that Thoreau finds his intellectual stimulus. He speaks of how nature draws him closer to God throughout the second part of the reading, but is explicit about man’s intrinsic need for nature with the words: “We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander” (213). Nature inspires a sense of awe in man of something beyond himself, and yet inextricably linked to himself as a creature within it.
Therefore, Thoreau’s great message for his friends and readers is to follow nature’s example (and within that example, man’s divine purpose) by taking the time every so often to shake off the dust, either by changing one’s living situation, or otherwise, and take cognizance of the life they are leading to make sure they are making every moment worthwhile. In this way, man lives as deliberately as Nature.
(Word Count: 457 without quotes included)
Naturalizing Man (and/or Woman)
"What is man but a mass of thawing clay? The ball of the human finger is but a drop congealed. The fingers and toes flow to their extent from the thawing mass of the body. Who knows what the human body would expand and flow out to under a more genial heaven? Is not the hand a spreading palm leaf with its lobes and veins? The ear may be regarded, fancifully, as a lichen, umbilicaria, on the side of the head, with its lobe or drop. The lip--labium, from labor (?)--laps or lapses from the sides of the cavernous mouth. The nose is a manifest congealed drop or stalactite. The chin is a still larger drop, the confluent dripping of the face. The cheeks are a slide from the brows into the valley of the face, opposed and diffused by the cheek bones. Each rounded lobe of the vegetable leaf, too, is a thick and now loitering drop, larger or smaller; the lobes are the fingers of the leaf; and as many lobes as it has, in so many directions it tends to flow, and more heat or other genial influences would have caused it to flow yet farther" (206-207).
I thought that the above passage, in which Thoreau naturalizes the human body, was particularly interesting. I would simply like to ask the following: What does everyone think that Thoreau is trying to communicate here?
To me, this passage strongly indicates Thoreau's transcendental belief that humanity is part of a greater whole in nature. Essentially, it seems that Thoreau is trying to break down the barrier that civilization often creates between humanity and nature. By implying that man is indeed natural, he criticizes the societal trends of materialism and unrestrained technological progress that are separating man from his natural roots.
And second about nature...
What is Thoreau's relationship to nature and how does his use of nature in the text compare to Tolstoy's?
First about women...
How does it change our reading of Thoreau to know that his mother and sisters did his laundry and mending for him...FOR FREEEEEEEEEE????????
Selfish?
Is Thoreau being selfish in Walden? He seems to show little concern for how his actions affect larger society. He also seems to be advocating his reader to live a life similar to the one he lead at Walden. What would a society full of Thoreaus look like and would it be desirable?
Lost
"Not till we are completely lost, or turned around,-for a man needs only to be turned round once with his eyes shut in this world to be lost,-do we appreciate the vastness and strangeness of Nature. Every man has to learn the points of compass again as often as he awakes, whether from sleep or any abstraction. Not till we are lost, in other words, not till we have lost the world, do we begin to find ourselves, and realize where we are and the infinite extent of our relations." (The Village, p118)I really liked this passage, and I think we can connect it loosely to Pip in Moby Dick, as well as discuss its own merit. What is it about being lost that allows us to recognize ourselves? If we connect it to Pip, why did Melville have Pip go mad while HDT believes we find our selves, understand ourselves and where we are? Does HDT count his experiment at Walden as being lost? Whether he does or doesn't, what does being lost entail?
A life free and uncommitted?
"I haven no doubt that time discriminates between the good and the bad; and when at last I shall plant, I shall be less likely to be disappointed. But I would say to my fellows, once for all, As long as possible live free and uncommitted." Where I lived and What I lived For... page 60
A life free of obligation and full of free time and leisure is a life that Thoreau desires. A life that requires no obligation to anyone but yourself is something that may be hard to attain in the current day and age. Although we are in a world filled with the responsibilities of our everyday life, is the life of a college student the closest we will get to living an "uncommitted life"? Although we have responsibilities to our classes and our peers, there is no direct responsibility to a family, and in general people do not depend on us to better their life's. What would Thoreau say about the modern day college student? Once we graduate and move on to whatever our next step in life is, we will have duties and obligations to others beside ourself. The "free life" is something that, at least in my own life, is happening right now. I am pursuing goals and opportunities that are entirely of my own desire. When does this stop? Our modern conception of freedom seems to have been morphed into something different than what Thoreau thought of, what is different about it?
Pros and Cons of Thoreau's Lifestyle
"There is a certain class of unbelievers who sometimes ask me such questions as if I think that I can live on vegetable good alone; and to strike at the root of the matter at once - for me the foot is faith, - I am accustomed to answer such, that I can live on board nails" (44).
In the chapter "Economy," Thoreau clearly demonstrates the feasibility of living on the basic necessities of life. Without a doubt, everyone can agree that it is possible to live in this way. But what quality of life do you have? What do you gain? What do you give up? How much meaning can you derive from a live at Walden? And finally (we might not yet be able to answer this but should keep it in mind for the second part of our reading), if Thoreau was such an advocate of this lifestyle, why did he go back to society after a mere two years?
Allegory?
What are the allegorical implications of this novel? If it's not just about the search for a whale, what is it about?
What Makes this Novel Distinctly American?
Often, Moby Dick is hailed as the great American novel. What characteristics does it have that make it American at all? Is it the overriding theme of meritocracy?
The End
There is a strong sense of tragedy in Moby Dick as Ahab and the crew fail to capture the elusive whale. But would it have been more tragic for Ahab and the men on the Pequod to have killed the great whale?
Fedallah
I would like to talk about Fedallah's role in the book and his relation to Ahab. He is described as demoniacal, but he also seems to merge with Ahab in a way that makes his character seem like an addition or a part of Ahab. I think it's interesting that Fedallah was able to predict their deaths, and I wonder how this plays into the idea of fate that runs through much of the story. Is Fedallah a representation of a creature from some sort of metaphysical realm?
Poor Pip!
I would like to talk about Pip. Why does he go crazy and what does it mean that he went crazy?"Out from the centre of the sea, poor Pip turned his crisp, curling, black head to the sun, another lonely castaway, though the loftiest and the brightest. Now, in calm weather, to swim in the open ocean is as easy to the practised swimmer as to ride in a spring-carriage ashore. But the awful lonesomeness is intolerable. The intense concentration of self in the middle of such a heartless immensity, my God! who can tell it? ... Pip's ringed horizon began to expand around him miserably. By the merest chance the ship itself at last rescued him; but from that hour the little negro went about the deck an idiot; such, at least, they said he was. The sea had jeeringly kept his finite body up, but drowned the infinite of his soul." (321, chpt. 93)Even this 'brightest castaway' was so affected by the awful lonesomeness that his soul was drowned. Either maddened or graced with divine Wisdom (I would lean towards maddened...), Pip, the cheery and bright ship hand, cannot recover from his solitary stint in the vast ocean. Does his blackness have anything to do with it? Not in an attempt to get into some discussion of how racist or not racist Ishmael and or Melville was, but rather in contrast to the white of the book (which could also be race fueled but that's not really where I'm trying to go here). How about a comparison between Pip's madness and Captain Ahab's?
Ahab Predestined?
My question is similar to Miriam's and Caitlin's. I wonder what Ahab is supposed to represent, although I think that ultimately it is many things. He seems main character of a Greek tragedy (his hamartia being his monomania), a disillusioned monomaniac set on vengeance, and also the man predestined to perdition. I wonder what role free will plays in this novel for Ahab, as he himself question's man free will. It seems to be that Ahab was destined for death (and hell?) by Moby Dick no matter what. His fate had already been woven.
What/Who does Starbuck represent?
"Thou art but too good a fellow, Starbuck,' he said lowly to the mate; then raising his voice to the crew: 'Furl the t'gallant-sails, and close-reef the top-sails, fore and aft; back the main-yard; up Burtons, and break out in the main-hold.'It were perhaps vain to surmise exactly why it was, that as respecting Starbuck, Ahab thus acted. It may have been a flash of honesty in him; or mere prudential policy which, under the circumstance, imperiously forbade the slightest symptom of open disaffection, however transient, in the important chief officer of his ship. However it was, his orders were executed; and the Burtons were hoisted" (Melville 363).
Something that intrigued me throughout Moby Dick was the dynamic between Ahab and Starbuck. While Starbuck openly expresses his disapproval of Ahab's ill-fated, hubristic quest to kill Moby Dick, he generally remains obedient to Ahab throughout the work. In light of our thoughts on Ahab playing the role of an epic or tragic hero, such as Milton's Satan, I was wondering how Starbuck might fit into the framework of such an interpretation of Moby Dick, if at all.
I read Paradise Lost during sophomore year and don't remember it well enough to identify Starbuck with any of its particular characters. However, is it possible that Starbuck may in some sense represent Ahab's conscience? In the above passage, Starbuck has obeyed Ahab's orders, but is defiant as usual, and seems to provoke an admittedly brief lapse in Ahab's normally mechanical obsession with killing Moby Dick. In fact, Ahab considers his defiant words before returning to the deck, and wonders, "What's that he said--Ahab beware of Ahab--there's something there!" (362). In any case, I think that passages such as this one may be especially helpful in identifying Starbuck's role within our interpretation of the work.
What We've All Been Waiting For: Ahab v. Moby Dick
Throughout Moby Dick, Herman Melville prepares his audience for the final encounter between Captain Ahab and Moby Dick. Melville has educated us about the nature of whales, the perils of whaling, the various symbolic meanings of the color white, ect.
We have also watched Captain Ahab's obsession with killing Moby Dick steadily spin out of control. In addition to this, Melville has presented us with several prophecies of doom foretelling Ahab's destruction. Starbuck warns an irrational Captain Ahab, "Let Ahab beware of Ahab; beware thyself, old man!" (PG 362). And the prophet, Gabriel, preaches to Ahab,"Think, think of the blasphemer - dead and down there ! - beware the blasphemer's end" PG 253). While Melville forces his audience to wait three hundred pages for the final stand off between Ahab and Moby Dick, the ultimate outcome of this encounter is heavily foreshadowed and therefore, not very surprising. And yet...
Ahab's battle with Moby Dick is epic in the truest sense. He battles the whale for three days (does anyone else think this a Christian Passion reference?). In the midst of his battle, Ahab comes to terms with the folly of his endeavor but in spite of this realization, he continues to hunt the whale, displaying perseverance in the face of certain defeat (like Hector in The Iliad) . Like the epic heros Achilles and Oedipus and Goethe's Faust, Captain Ahab's great flaw is his hubris. At the same time, the zealous/arrogant act of choosing to do battle with an unbeatable beast is admirable. I was upset when Ahab was defeated.
This got me thinking: Is the highest heroic act of man to defy the unknowable/unbeatable? Is this why we admire Faust and, to some degree, Satan in Milton's Paradise Lost? In challenging the whale to battle, is Ahab displaying his free will as a human being or is he simply an idiot? Is is admirable to fight a fight you cannot win or just really really dumb?
Ahab as Milton's Satan
Someone already brought up Macbeth, and allusions to Faust or Don Giovanni might be revealing. But the points of connection between Ahab and Milton's Satan could be useful.When asked if he wants to put lightning rods on the ship, Ahab barks:
"Avast!" cried Ahab; "let's have fair play here, though we be the weaker side."
--p. 382, ch. 119
On the next page, he rages in defying worship:
"Oh! thou clear spirit of clear fire, whom on these seas I as Persian once did worship, till in the sacramental act so burned by thee, that to this hour I bear the scar; I now know thee, thou clear spirit, and I now know that thy right worship is defiance. To neither love nor reverence wilt thou be kind; and e'en for hate thou canst but kill; and all are killed. No fearless fool now fronts thee. I own thy speechless, placeless power; but to the last gasp of my earthquake life will dispute its unconditional, unintegral mastery in me. In the midst of the personified impersonal, a personality stands here. Though but a point at best; whencesoe'er I came; wheresoe'er I go; yet while I earthly live, the queenly personality lives in me, and feels her royal rights. But war is pain, and hate is woe. Come in thy lowest form of love, and I will kneel and kiss thee; but at thy highest, come as mere supernal power; and though thou launchest navies of full-freighted worlds, there's that in here that still remains indifferent. Oh, thou clear spirit, of thy fire thou madest me, and like a true child of fire, I breathe it back to thee."
Later on, Ahab refuses the company of Pip, fearing that his madness may be cured (p. 399, ch. 129). And on the second day of the chase, Ahab says of himself:
Nor white whale, nor man, nor fiend, can so much as graze old Ahab in his own proper and inaccessible being. Can any lead touch yonder floor, any mast scrape yonder roof?"--p. 417
Ahab is rooted in himself, locked in defiant worship. He questions his free will, yet refuses to be swayed by Pip or family from his end. Is Ahab as immutable as Milton's Satan or Mozart's Don Giovanni?
P.S. This has nothing to do with anything, but one of my favorite lines in the book is Ahab's response to the captain of the Bachelor, who offers to have Ahab and the crew of the Pequod come aboard their party boat. Ahab just says: "Thou art too damned jolly."
Pre-determined Fate
In chapters 49-51 of the novel, we see hints and glimpses of a life that seems to be deliberatley planned out. The fragility of life is something that is noted, in particularly in chapter 49. It seems that these men, not truly knowing what they are going to be getting into, set aside all their worries, all their fears, and go after something that they seemingly have no connection to. Ahab, a man who is obsessed with Moby Dick, is willing not only to die for this animal, but risk his crew's life as well. Does his crew have any idea about the inner insanity that Ahab possesses?"It may seem strange that of all men sailors should be tinkering at their last wills and testaments, but there are no people in the world more fond of that diversion. This was the forth time in my nautical life that I had done the same thing... I survived myself; my death and burial were locked up in my chest. I looked round me tranquilly and contentedly, like a quiet ghost with a clean conscience sitting inside the bars of a snug family vault."
Now that their lives have been signed away, do these men feel a sense of immortality? Now it seems as though they will be ok with the concept of death. Is this something that they truly believe, or something Ahab has tricked them into thinking...?
Kinds of Knowledge
In this section of the reading there are quite a few jabs at philosophy and philosophers. There is also quite a lot of discussion of the scientific properties of the whale. Does Ishmael (and/or Melville) value scientific or empirical knowledge over philosophical inquiry?Also, I'm very intrigued by Caitlin's post and think she's on to something. I think a follow-up question to hers or one that needs to be discussed along with hers is, what is Moby Dick? We are cautioned against making the whale represent one thing and one thing only; what are some possibilities for what it represents?
Also building off Caitlin's question a bit, it seems obvious to me that Ahab is unredeemable and going to hell. His destiny already seems before us as we read: his monomania will destroy him. But we also know something about Ishmael's destiny: we know that he lives to tell the tale. How does this influence our reading to know that Ishmael survives this expedition, and does anyone have any leads on what role Ishmael is going to play in this book and/or in Ahab's revenge/doom?
Philosophy and Allegory in Moby Dick
In Chapter 58, Ishmael compares the land and the sea and talks about the similarities and differences between the two. Then he takes the discussion of land and sea to a more transcendental level when he says:Consider, all this; and then turn to this green, gentle, and most docile earth; consider them both, the sea and the land; and do you not find a strange analogy to something in your self? For as this appalling ocean surrounds the verdant land, so in the soul of man there lies one insular Tahiti, full of peace and joy, but encompassed by all the horrors of the half known life. God keep thee! Push not off from that isle, thou canst never return!
Ishmael then continues at the end of Chapter 60 to explain that the metaphorical whale-lines represent the constant perils of life, that we do not recognize until we become aware of our own danger:
All men live enveloped in whale-lines. All are born with halters round their necks; but it is only when caught in the swift, sudden turn of death, that mortals realize the silent, subtle, ever-present perils of life. And if you be a philosopher, though seated in the whale-boat, you would not at heart feel one whit more of terror, than though seated before your evening fire with a poker, and not a harpoon, by your side.
To what extent can this novel be read as an allegory? Is that the main point of the novel or can its literary aspect be just as meaningful as its allegorical aspect?
Something Wicked This Way Comes...
In Professor Tom Roche's re-interpretation of Hamlet, Roche argues that the spirit of Hamlet's father is more than a ghost; it is a demonic presence. The apparition feeds Hamlet's feverish paranoia and drives him into a mad and manic state. Roche argues that only an insidious and evil presence can do such a thing to a man. I promise this is relevant to Moby Dick...
On PG. 169 of our second reading, Melville begins to describe Ahab's obsession with the white whale as, "...the eternal, living principle or soul in him; in sleep, being for the time dissociated from the characterizing mind, which at other times employed it for its outer vehicle or agent, it spontaneously sought escape from the scorching contiguity of the frantic thing, of which, for the time, it was no longer integral."
Ahab's obsession is an entity of its own. It lives apart from Ahab. In my opinion, this obsession seems demonic, but not in the Christian sense of demonic (Legion, ect.). Rather, it is evil in the same sense that the ghost of Hamlet's father is evil; it tricks Ahab into creating an all consuming idol out of the white whale. Although I cannot put my finger on it, I get the ominous sense that Ahab, in indulging his obsession, is condemning himself to hell.
I think Melville agrees..maybe. Following the description of Ahab's obsession, Melville/Ishmael addresses Ahab's character directly. He offers up a pray/reflection on the captain, commenting "God help thee, old man, they thoughts have created a creature in thee; and he whose intense thinking thus makes him a Prometheus; a vulture feeds upon the heart for ever; that vulture the very creature he creates" (170).
Maybe this work is reminding me too much of Coolridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner, but I get the sense that something very dark is going on here. Take into consideration the line, "Though in many of its aspects, this visible world seems formed in love, the invisible spheres were formed in fright" (164). Is anyone else getting this sense?
Too Verbose
I have the same sentiment as Alyssa that Moby Dick is too wordy, and that certain chapters feel unnecessary to the story. Are these chapters necessary to make Moby Dick a great book? Or rather do they detract from its "greatness" ? This may be a question, however, that is left to be answered when we have read the entire novel.
Tragedy, the Novel, and the Supernatural
I have two questions. First, in what ways is Moby Dick a tragedy? Traditionally, tragedy has been expressed through the medium of the play. In Moby Dick, however, Melville presents a tragedy in the form of the novel. Does he redefine tragedy or does Aristotle's definition of tragedy still apply to Melville's novel.Second, does Melville that supernatural forces exist. Ahab certainly believes that Moby Dick is a mask for a supernatural agent. Is this Ahab's madness? Or does the human dread of the whiteness of the whale, as described in Chapter 42, portend an intrinsic human sensibility of the supernatural.
Ahab's Madness
He lived in the world, as the last of the Grisly Bears lived in settled Missouri. And as when Spring and Summer had departed, that wild Logan of the woods, burying himself in the hollow of a tree, lived out the winter there, sucking his own paws; so, in his inclement, howling old age, Ahab's soul, shut up in the caved trunk of his body, there fed upon the sullen paws of its gloom (Chp. 34, pg. 131)!
Ahab scarcely appears on deck until his rousing speech about Moby Dick, but is frequently characterized as a mad and tormented soul. How does Ishmael already know so much about Ahab's character? Should we suppose that he has heard stories from the rest of the crew? In any case, the characterization of Ahab seems to be very blunt and sudden; Melville occasionally describes him but seems to do so rather haphazardly and without any concrete examples to explain his madness. Is Ahab's madness, as well as his character in general, supposed to be somewhat mysterious or do I just not fully understand it?
Religion
What does Melville think the role of religion is or should be? I am thinking specifically of the passages where he says that religion should be separate from practical matters, and when Ishmael is debating worshipping the idol and then decides that it is what God would want. What can we take from these sections and does it relate in any way to the egalitarian idea mentioned previously in the posts?
Queequeg and Ishmael, BFFs!
I am interested in the relationship between Ishmael and Queequeg. After spending one night together as complete strangers, they seemed to bond instantaneously and with little preparation. A simple sharing of a pipe was all it took to make them "bosom friends" (p 56). He also says that this would be strange in a civilized culture, "but in this simple savage those old rules would not apply" (p 56). This seems to be a statement about race relations that I imagine will show up again in the rest of the book, but does Ishmael really understand his friend, though he calls him a "simple savage"? I wonder how this relationship will play into the book later on.
Can we make Moby Dick more concise?
As I was suffering through the immensity of these readings, I realized that the bulk of the pages is not spent on developing the story line in any way, but in Melville's conveyance of his erudition on the subject of whales, the color of white, etc... I'm wondering what you guys think is the intrinsic value of these sections. Do we really need to learn encyclopedic knowledge on all species of whales in the course of reading this text? Wouldn't just learning about the sperm whale, and perhaps the right whale, be sufficient? I have a hunch that if these long tracts were edited out, people of all ages might not groan so much about reading Moby Dick. But the fact is that these sections have remained over the decades, so what makes the book incomplete without them?
Moby Democracy
Melville seems to be fairly egalitarian when it comes to different societies and religions. For example, Queequeg's stories, first about the wheelbarrow and then about the fingerbowl (13, p.61ish) showcase his own cultural insensitivities with those of someone from a so-called "civilized" nation. Also, Melville apparently got into a mess of trouble for his words on religious toleration. How does this contrast with the hierarchy on the ship (Ahab is described as a dictator, I think, at least once)? Ahab's soliloquy at sunset has him recognizing the power of the White Whale while at the same time placing himself on an even playing field with it. What can we say about egalitarianism from this text?
Thought Piece - Democratic Histories
“Historians who live in democratic ages exhibit precisely opposite characteristics. Most of them attribute hardly any influence to the individual over the destiny of the race, or to citizens over the fate of a people; but, on the other hand, they assign great general causes to all petty incidents. These contrary tendencies explain each other” (Ch. 25, pg. 184-185)“Those who write in democratic ages have another more dangerous tendency. When the traces of individual action upon nations are lost, it often happens that the world goes on to move, though the moving agent is no longer discoverable. As it becomes extremely difficult to discern and analyze the reasons which, acting separately on the will of each member of the community, concur in the end to produce movement in the whole mass, men are led to believe that this movement is involuntary, and that societies unconsciously obey some superior force ruling over them. But even when the general fact which governs the private volition of all individuals is supposed to be discovered upon the earth, the principle of human free-will is not secured. A cause sufficiently extensive to affect millions of men at once, and sufficiently strong to bend them all together in the same direction, may well seem irresistible: having seen that mankind do yield do it, the mind is close upon the inference that mankind cannot resist it (186-187)”
In Seminar V, we find that conceptions of history and the power of the majority are recurring themes. In Democracy in America, De Tocqueville claims that histories in a democratic society are completely influenced by democratic ideology, which recognizes the sovereignty of the people. Tolstoy, in War and Peace, also recognizes that a new view of history is necessary. In his view, history is not driven by the great man, but by chance occurrences and the aggregate of the actions of the majority. In this thought piece, I would like to claim that De Tocqueville’s view of history is overly simplistic as it unnecessarily reduces democratic histories to the political circumstances of the state without recognizing the role of human nature.
In Chapter 25 of his Democracy in America, De Tocqueville expresses his views on the democratic society’s effect on the creation of history. Ultimately, historians are products of their own time period and culture, so the intellectual climate in which they live naturally affects their views on history. Based on this premise, De Tocqueville claims that the nature and ideals of the democratic political system in the United States are affecting the new histories that will be written in America. In his view, democratic histories are influenced by the democracy’s championing the equality of the people. In his view, this creates a political culture that does not believe that individual beings are the agents of history, but rather that history is the result of general causes. He even claims that this view of history lends itself to the recognition of a divine providence that leads history. As democracy places sovereignty in the majority, De Tocqueville believes that that political ideology affects the American’s view because they recognize that social trends are the result of the society rather than of the individual.
De Tocqueville’s claims naturally reminded me of Tolstoy’s views regarding history. In War and Peace, Tolstoy denies the agency of the great man by illustrating that great men are the most enslaved individuals. Great men are deluded when they believe that they have actual control over historical events. For Tolstoy, history is powered by the aggregate of human actions and chance occurrences. Additionally, history is not fully graspable within history. Only God can understand the direction of history.
Having examined the similarities between these two views of history, it is now fitting to look at the glaring difference: the delusion of the great man. De Tocqueville believes that the democratic historian will not focus on the agency of individual men because the democratic climate opposes this ideology. The problem, however, is that human beings by nature are enamored by “great,” powerful leaders. In War and Peace, Tolstoy explicates that humans naturally are drawn to the idea of the great man. Humans dwell on their own weakness, and through projection, they gain comfort in having a “great” leader on which they can participate with. De Tocqueville’s view on democratic histories being the direct result of the democratic political system is overly simplistic. Doesn’t the deification of the Founding Fathers in the United States refute his view of democratic histories?
520
Power of Politics
De Tocqueville spends a large section of his work discussing how the arts affect various other fields, like history and literature. Do we agree with his assumption that politics has such a pervasive on society? Is politics the highest study, above these others and dictating how the other forms will play out?
Selfishness, Equality, and the Public Welfare
"Although private interest directs the greater part of human actions in the United States, ....it does not regulate them all. I must say that I have often seen Americans make great and real sacrifices to the public welfare... [Free institutions and political rights, as reminders of citizenship,] every instant impress upon [the American's] mind the notion that it is the duty, as well as the interest, of men to make themselves useful to their fellow-creatures..." Part II, Bk II, Chpt 28, p 197Last class we discussed the idea of equality de Tocqueville lays before us, and its role in today's America in contrast with the America of his trip. I think we should continue this discussion, particularly in the strain related in the above quote, on whether the average citizen of today's America truly feel this duty and desire to help his fellow man (or her fellow woman...). I find this especially interesting in light of the selfish reasoning, if you will, that Alexis raised in chapters 16 and 17.
What could happen?
"This brings me to a final consideration, which compromises, as it were all the others. The more the conditions of men are equalized and assimilated to each other, the more important it is for religion; whilst it carefully abstains from the daily turmoil of secular affairs, not needlessly to run counter to the ideas which generally prevail, or to the permanent interests which exist in the mass of the people. For as public opinion grows to be more and more the first and more irrestisible of existing powers, the religious principle has no external support strong enough to enable it long to resist its attacks..."P 154
For some reason this made me think of the gradual disappearance of religion and the rise of government in certain socialist countries in Europe. With the disappearance of religion in Countries like Sweden, The Netherlands, and others, we see that more and more countries are relying on their governments for the needs of the people. No longer do we see citizens of these countries going to their church for help in times of need, instead we see people turning to their local government for money and charity. In a small population, where socialism seems to be working, there is a lack of religion. What would James say about this? What would he think about these countries, who were once rich in Christian tradition, now helping its people through government, rather through prayer and charity?
Women in Tocqueville
“I believe that the social changes which never bring nearer to the same level the father and son, the master and servant, and in general, superiors and inferiors, will raise woman, and make her more and more the equal of man” (243).
What is Alexis de Tocqueville’s opinion on the position of women in democratic America? Do his writings and opinions provide the possibility for their inclusion in the social condition of equality?
De Tocqueville and Newman
In chapter 17, De Tocqueville observes that, "At the present time, more than in any preceding age, Roman Catholics are seen to lapse into infidelity, and the Protestants to be converted to Roman Catholicism" (156). This immediately made me think of John Newman; a former Anglican who converted to Catholicism (although it might be important to point out that Newman lived in Great Britain rather than in the United States).De Tocqueville argues that the men of the age are not prone to believe in much, but when they do choose to believe in something a "latent instinct" urges them towards the Roman Catholic church. De Tocqueville says these men become Catholics because they admire the discipline and unity of the Catholic Church. Essentially, democracy will divide men into two camps - those who do not believe in any God and the Catholics.
Does De Tocqueville predict these two camps because they are polar opposites on the spectrum of belief, believing in nothing being an extreme of freedom of religion provided for by democracy and dogmatic Roman Catholicism being the other extreme? How can we relate this back to Newman and his conversion experience?
Teleological History
My question was similar to Rob's. I couldn't help but notice that De Tocqueville bore some similarities to Hegel regarding teleological history. De Tocqueville sees the spread of democracy as inevitable, and even he even suggests that it is perhaps the apex of political development. I don't think he explicitly says this, but it's definitely implied. How do we feel about this treatment of democracy. It almost reminded me neoconservative theory.
Democracy in America- a Great Book?
This may be a better question for next class' discussion, but I am going to pose it anyway. I'm going to return to the oft-proposed question of whether this work deserves the title of a great book. I see the value of Democracy in America to us as Americans, but I wonder whether this book would be on the great books list of another western country. I also ask this question due to some of the other issues proposed so far by Mike, Tara, etc... Since many of the conditions of America have changed, what is the intrinsic value of this work that places it among the ranks of the other great books of western society?
Is this real life?
"The institutions are democratic, not only in their principle, but in all their consequences; and the people elect their representatives directly, and for the most part annually, in order to insure their dependence. The people are, therefore, the real directing power; and although the form of government is representative, it is evident that the opinions, the prejudices, the interests, and even the passions of the people are hindered by no permanent obstacle from exercising a perpetual influence on the daily conduct of affairs" (p 87).This particular situation does not seem to be the case today; how many times have we seen candidates run an a certain platform to get elected and then act in opposition to that position once in office? The majority of deTocqueville's description seems idealistic and I wonder if he is painting a truly accurate portrait of American democracy, or if it's been jazzed up to show that a "perfect" democracy can exist.
The return of the invisible hand
I'd like to look at this passage:Nothing is more striking to an European traveller in the United States than the absence of what we term the Government, or the Administration. Written laws exist in America, and one sees that they are daily executed; but although everything is in motion, the hand which gives the impulse to the social machine can nowhere be discovered.
--pg. 62?
...in terms of this earlier passage:
If [American] society is tranquil, it is not because it relies upon its strength and its well-being [as people might in a feudal society, for example], but because it knows its weaknesses and its infirmities; a single effort may cost it its life.
--p. 33?
How do you convince a people disabused of the notion of authority to accept peaceable government? This was an issue Jefferson, at least, was aware of (in the Declaration). Somehow, today, this has come about. I think the first quotation can be applied to today. Why are we fearful of changing the Constitution? our healthcare system? Why do causes that have not gained legitimate legislative traction after years of lobbying so consistently seek change within the system (e.g. abortion protesters, etc.)? There is a sense in America that the system works because and only because we obey it.
De Tocqueville suggests an answer. In a feudal society, peasants obey because of the strength of the state. In a democracy, do we really obey because of the debility of the state? If not, where did this local sense of self-government come from?
My question is similar to Mike's. It seems that the the United States today is very different from what Toqueville observed. Wealth hangs around families for more than two generations, and there does seem to be the creation of an elite aristocracy. Further, democracy does not seem to be the direction in which all of the world is heading. Can the changed nature of the U.S. and the continued non-democratic principles of the Mid-East be offered as a counter argument to Toqueville? Is this just a case of someone seeing in history what they want to see? Did he publish too early?
De Tocqueville and Hegel
What do we make of this passage in the author introduction "The gradual development of the principle of equality, is, therefore a Providential fact (29)." In what ways is this claim similar to Hegel's teleological claims about the progression of history? Why do both men seem to suggest that these ideas are tied to Protestantism? Also does this gradual development only apply to Western democracies or to all nations (this is especially interesting given the political developments in the Middle East over the past several years)?
The United States of Today: Fundamentally Different?
"The cares of politics engross a prominent place in the occupations of a citizen in the United States; and almost the only pleasure which an American knows is to take part in the government, and to discuss its measures. This feeling pervades the most trifling matters of life; even the women frequently attend public meetings, and listen to political harangues as a recreation from their household labors. Debating clubs are, to a certain extent, a substitute for theatrical entertainments: an American cannot converse, but he can discuss; and his talk falls into a dissertation. He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting; and if he should chance to become warm in the discussion, he will say 'Gentlemen' to the person with whom he is conversing" (108).
In this and other passages, De Tocqueville refers to the incredible political fervor and involvement that he has witnessed in the United States. Attitudes toward politics, as well as many other aspects of the nation that De Tocqueville discusses, seems to be rather different in the United States of today. Is the United States of today fundamentally different from the United States that De Tocqueville speaks of? Often, De Tocqueville mentions the unique size and geographic isolation of the U.S. as some of its most defining qualities. If the modern U.S. is in fact fundamentally different, could changes with regard to these qualities be partially responsible?
Critique of "The Man Delusion"
This is an excellently written paper with an accurate thesis and a clever title. The striking point of the thesis, that the general force of the novel is this idea of turning away from the self, or realizing the falsity of holding ourselves as idols or heroes, is in my understanding the most narrow yet still comprehensive way of looking at the novel's diverse themes. The title they chose is particularly clever, though of course anachronistic.I feel that this paper does not contain very terrible flaws; in fact, it is very nice. Nevertheless it does lack some important and necessary aspects of the book which could have been but were not addressed. The themes of Napoleon and Kutuzov were fleshed out very well; those of Pierre and Andrew, however, lacked some important themes. Furthermore, there existed some crucial aspects of the book which were not addressed at all.
The discussion of Andrew glosses over his struggle with death. The horror of impending death, and the pressure this exerted on his thoughts and actions, is a crucial theme of the book which could have been related to their title. As for Pierre, his life did not end after Platon, and it did not end with the main part of the book. He has some development in the first epilogue which is could have been useful to their thesis.
The most crucial error of the paper is: what about Nicholas? What about Mary? Natasha? Vasili? Old Bolkonski? Mary's struggle to balance God and earthly loves continues even beyond the book's last page. Natasha's personal journey is probably the most emotional, and one of the most dynamic; she finds a solution to her difficulties as well. There are themes in War & Peace which, though able to be related, are not covered in this paper. This is an excellent paper, especially given the time and space constraints; but we were asked to critique the paper's argumentative faults, and this argument's problem is its lack of sufficient breadth.
Critique of Pierre Bezukhov
In their paper, Alyssa, Rob, and Tim argues that Pierre Bezukhov is a superior title that should be used to replace the current title of War and Peace. By referencing Tolstoy’s later works like Anna Karenina, they argue that Tolstoy would have been better served by using the name of the main character. In this case, they argue that the premier character of Tolstoy’s work is Pierre as he most closely represents Tolstoy’s ideas in the work and has the most prominent storyline and development. Overall, this paper was grammatically well-written and the thesis, clearly defined. On the other hand, however, this paper suffers from numerous logical leaps that severely weaken the arguments in this paper. Although they make several good arguments for why Pierre Bezukhov should be the title, they also fail to recognize the title’s restrictive quality as well as to completely convince the audience that Pierre is in fact the main character who represents Tolstoy’s.My first concern was that the logic for Pierre as the main character was incomplete. Alyssa, Rob, and Tim argue that the main character is the primary person in the story and around whom important themes are developed. They argue that Pierre is the primary character because he shares Tolstoy’s ideas. There is a twofold problem with this assertion. First, although Pierre embodies several important themes, he is not the only main character. A novel centers around a specific character, but Tolstoy himself did not see War and Peace as a novel. It is rather a mixture of the novel and the epic. In virtue of the novel also being an epic, it is difficult to pin down the broad themes of the book on one character, for it disregards the experiences and the development of the all the other characters. Although Pierre is a main character, it is difficult to identify him as the main character, as he only inhabits a plurality of the story line rather than a majority.
This being said, I believe that the criteria for dismissing Andrew and Natasha as primary characters are arbitrary and incomplete. Rob, Alyssa, and Tim argue that Pierre most closely embodies Tolstoy’s view because throughout his development, he realizes that often the world is out of one’s own control. One can only focus on one’s individual life, seek love, and understand that only the divine can see the motions of history. Although this is well taken, it seems rather arbitrary to say that Andrew does not qualify as a primary character because he is too reliant on reason and does not develop is affective side. Then, Natasha is dismissed for being too impulsive. Both characters, especially Andrew, encounter significant development. Their dismissal is incomplete.
It was also asserted that Pierre most readily embodies Tolstoy’s philosophy of history because Pierre is guided by fate rather than free will. This, however, is not exclusive to Pierre because the other characters also seem to be the subject of fate as well.
Finally, the structure could have been tighter and more focused. I felt that the argument wandered from the original thesis. Also, the discussion regarding Natasha and Andrew should have occurred at the beginning. They were dismissed as primary characters at the beginning of the paper, and the rationale for their dismissal was reintroduced until the very end. It would have been best if the rationale were introduced at the outset.
Overall, the paper was well-written. Creating a new title for a magnum opus is not a walk in the park.
Critique of Finding War in Peace
Critique of Finding War in Peace: Andrew’s Journey of Introspection
Firstly, I thought that paper focused not on the finding of war in peace, but rather the finding of peace in war. I think that this title implies a different argument than the one that was laid out in the paper.
I thought the paper also didn’t make enough of an effort to explain why war was a necessary occurrence for peace to ensue. They discuss Andrew’s contemplative and transcendental moments that occur during various points in the war, but these passages seemed to make more of a statement concerning Andrew’s character than the necessity of war to bring about such realizations. I think that a compelling argument concerning the necessity of war in human life and in Andrew’s intellectual journey would have been interesting and could have added more merit to the argument that they were trying to convey.
Also, I think that Tolstoy himself would take issue with having a “title character.” One of the main themes of the work is the falsity of the “great man.” I don’t think that makig Andrew a title character is equivalent to making him a great man, but I do think that Tolstoy wanted to stress the impact of everyman on the course of history and human events. By focusing on one particular character this crucial theme is completely ignored.
Critique of Finding War in Peace
The thesis of this paper states that War and Peace is the story of individuals finding peace through inner or outer turmoil. This is something I can agree with, and is somewhat similar to what we wrote in our own paper. The problem with the paper is its scope. Using only one character from such a large book is not enough to prove that this theme pervades all the characters. The paper is also lacking evidence for the fact that Andrew is the best example of the thesis, or why they chose Andrew over other characters for the title role of the book. The analysis is incomplete without more evidence of the theme in other aspects of the book. It would be particularly useful to show examples of inner turmoil in characters that weren't directly involved in the war. These are the characters where the theme is less visible and thus must be illustrated to prove the argument. Starting with Andrew as a clear example is the perfect beginning to proving their thesis, however I am not convinced that all characters, especially Mary and Natasha, went through this change. I would have liked to see how they would have interpreted their situations to prove the thesis.
Critique: The Army is Soldiers
First, I must note that the new cover is very well done, very original, so bonus points for that. Right from the get go, I was on board with your ideas. "Renaming the novel The Army Is Soldiers keeps true to Tolstoy's original title and to the main action of the novel while also incorporating what we believe is the central and unifying motif: turning away from the self and finding meaning in others. Tolstoy's original title War and Peace, while incorporating one theme of the book, does not fully attest to this central spirit of the novel. The Army Is Soldiers as a title is both obvious and nuanced, stating that an army is comprised of soldiers, but also reminding the reader that an army is composed of individuals each with experiences and concerns." A point well taken. One must realize that while reading "war and peace" that there is in fact a large group to be focused on, but the individual characters have emotions that seem to take precedent, and show that the individual does go through traumatic situations: In that aspect the title was very witty, and well thought out. The essay itself was also well done. I thought all your main points came together nicely at the end for well written conclusion. I felt that at times you were a bit broad in the description of each characters progression through the novel. That being said, I thought it was great how you sort of created a community to talk about (Pierre, Andrew, Natasha, Nicholas and Mary), but were still able to zero in on details of their character in the book. Well done!
Critique of "The Man Delusion"
In their paper, Jim and Emily argue that The Man Delusion is a more effective title for Leo Tolstoy’s opus than the original title, War and Peace. In general, their argument is very well organized and is consistently substantiated with relevant and pithy citations from Tolstoy’s novel. Nevertheless, condensing or perhaps altogether eliminating the first three or four sentences of the paper would make it much more concise and effective as a whole. While this material is by no means irrelevant, it does seem a bit too abstract, does not flow well with what immediately follows it and lacks the clear focus that characterizes the rest of the paper.
Much more importantly, there are a few key flaws with regard to the ideas of the paper that detract from its otherwise well-established thesis. For instance, Jim and Emily contend that The Man Delusion is a more effective title than War and Peace because it encapsulates the themes of Tolstoy’s novel more fully. However, I would argue that while The Man Delusion certainly does encapsulate many of Tolstoy’s themes, it does not necessarily encapsulate his themes more fully than War and Peace. Though it does address Tolstoy’s broader historical themes, it seems to lose sight of the struggles, both internal and external, that are also a very key part of the novel. The Man Delusion’s focus on Tolstoy’s broader historical themes does, by definition, include these struggles in a more limited sense. Nonetheless, I feel it is important to recognize that changing the title from War and Peace to The Man Delusion essentially brings about a shift in the thematic focus of the title rather than a definitive improvement in it. Furthermore, only about half of the paper’s argumentation is focused on the “man delusion” itself. The other half of the paper discusses characters’ varying attempts to lose themselves in the universal and avoid the man delusion. Despite the fact that this theme is discussed quite extensively and seems to be at least as important as the themes represented by the man delusion itself, it is not strongly emphasized by the title that Jim and Emily have chosen.
Analysis of Army is Soldiers
My three fine compatriots have made an admirable effort in attempting to rename Tolstoy's War and Peace the new title The Army is Soldiers. This title, however, is ultimately unsatisfying. They suggest in the beginning of their essay that the title must focus on war because war is the focal point of the text. This idea is debatable. Tolstoy's original title acknowledges war as only half of the scope of the text. By focusing on the army and war, my colleagues seem to be ignoring the entirely realm of the epic outside of war. Yes, the war has a great effect on those living in society, but this is merely one external factor in their lives. Surely Pierre, Andrew, and other prominent characters would have many of the same deeper issues if the war was not happening. One could easily argue that this is not a novel about war, but about something greater and more profound than that and that Tolstoy merely employs the war as a tool to get across his greater message. The other main issue is that my colleagues say that the main theme of the novel is the outward turning of the self toward love. I can acknowledge that this is one of the work's main themes (perhaps not THE main theme), but how exactly does this connect to the title. Yes, both have a sense of community and the collective, but why armies exactly. My friends do not seem capable of leaving the motif of war. Isn't Tolstoy's masterpiece about more than a war? It was a valiant effort, but sadly these young scholars have fallen short in their effort to rename War and Peace.
Critique of Pierre Bezukov
Although the replacement of the title Pierre Bezukov for War and Peace could prove successful and more representative of the central spirit of Tolstoy’s tome, the committee’s argument lacks overall cohesion and persuasiveness and thus fails to defend this new title. The thesis of the committee’s essay proposes that the title should be changed to Pierre Bezukov for two reasons: first that Pierre can be considered the principal character of the novel, and secondly that he “embodies and personifies both Tolstoy’s historical and ethical philosophies.” This thesis and the course of the argument fail to explain, however, the connection between these two statements and Pierre’s search for meaning in life as the central theme of the novel. The connection between Tolstoy and Pierre is shaky at best, and the essay fails to demonstrate the source of this connection.As to the first point in support of changing the title to Pierre Bezukov, that Pierre is the main character of the book, the essay merely states in the introduction that the title of one of Tolstoy’s books should be the main character because of other examples. It fails to defend this method of titling a work, and I am left with the impression that the title should be changed merely for a parallel structure between all of Tolstoy’s writing.
The main defense that I believe the committee needed to make in changing the title of War and Peace to Pierre Bezukov would be to argue for Pierre’s importance among all of the events in the book. Also, the second paragraph introduces the idea that Natasha and Andrew have the potential to be the main character of the book, but fail to do so for various reasons. In a structural move I fail to understand, these reasons are not discussed until the end of the essay and the committee consequently assumes the main tenet of its thesis. Overall, the committee had a good idea for changing the title of War and Peace to Pierre Bezukov, but through structural weakness and a complete lack of cohesiveness in the paper they failed to defend their change.
Critique of The Man Delusion
First of all, I would like to commend you on your writing style. This essay is sufficiently clear, and well organized; your thesis is well-supported. However, there are a few questions and recommendations I have regarding your argument. You begin with the premise that “A firm understanding of a book is realized once the analyzer is cognizant that multiple literary components are acting in tandem to produce a more significant meaning,” and then continue on to say that “a well-chosen title will encapsulate the work’s themes” and that Tolstoy’s original title War and Peace fulfills that parameter successfully. But if you make this claim, the argument ends.It seems to be a retraction to say that the original title addresses some themes but not others. Subsequently, it is not clear to me that you choose the title The Man Delusion because it encapsulates all of the work’s themes and the book as a whole, but rather, this title seems to address the missing themes from the original title you identified previously. Forgive me if I am wrong, but is that not just replacing one insufficient title for another? Or are you saying that there are many elements to this novel, but Tolstoy’s fatalistic concept of history and rejection of the great man trumps them all? The problem I see with this argument is that it fails to defend the preeminence of this theme among the rest.
As for the title itself, wouldn’t it be more advantageous to have entitled the book The Hero Delusion, since the type of man Tolstoy condemns is not the common one, but the great man. I believe it might be a more effective way of getting your point across to readers.
Platon For Title Critique
The paper's thesis is well supported, that there is a strain of Platon's life throughout the novel, however I agree with Caitlin that Platon's life does not represent the "central spirit" of the novel. I believe the paper does a good job of showing how the model of Platon's life can be seen to be a part of the improvement of the main characters in the novel, however the paper does not convince me that to live as Platon is Tolstoy's overarching message in the novel. The novel certainly does not explain, for instance, Andrew's epiphany, as it were, at his death to be simply a direct result of giving up reason and forsake any attempts to understand, and ultimately accepting something beyond human understanding. Where Platon merely accepts that he cannot understand, the journeys of Pierre, Nicholas and Andrew seem to emphasize the importance of that journey to the end, and suggest that just skipping to the end result leaves the character with an empty and incomplete shell of the potential reward found in that end. Other than that, the paper felt slightly short in terms of explaining the main characters' trials and even Platon's brief existence in the novel.
Critique of "Platón Karatáev as the New Title for War and Peace"
In this paper, Stephanie and Mike argue that Platón Karatáev would be a more appropriate title for War and Peace than “war and peace” because Platón Karatáev is essentially the embodiment of the novel’s philosophy. They point out that while major characters such as Andrew, Nicholas and Pierre attempt and fail to reason their way to happiness, Platón Karatáev, a minor character in the novel, leads a happy life precisely because he does not try to use reason. While the philosophy for leading a content life that Tolstoy espouses in War and Peace necessitates a certain mindfulness and acceptance of the world’s chaos, I do not feel that Tolstoy’s goal in writing War and Peace was to encourage his readers to emulate the lifestyle of Platón Karatáev. For this reason, I feel it would be inappropriate to re-title Tolstoy’s work Platón Karatáev.
Andrew, Nicholas, and Pierre’s failed attempts to achieve happiness through reason and conscious action are well outlined in this paper. In particular, the argument pertaining to Nicholas is exceptionally strong. Nicholas is confused and disillusioned by the peace pact the Emperor Alexander makes with Russia’s archenemy, Napolean. Nicholas is unable to accept chaos in a productive way and chooses to drink away his confusion rather than come to the realization that many of the events of the world are inexplicable, illogical and out of his control. In this instance, Nicholas could certainly have used a dose of Platón Karatáev’s life philosophy.
Than again, while Tolstoy seems to agree that all people need to maintain a certain level of detachment from the events of the world in order to be happy people and accept chaos, he does not seem to be stressing that Platón Karatáev’s life philosophy is the entire way or only way a person should live their life. Platón Karatáev is a peasant who is content because he does not think to heavily about things. One could argue that Pierre is the character in War and Peace who relies most heavily upon reason and logic in order to explain the world around him. Platón Karatáev, who hardly ever reasons, appears in the novel for a brief period of time in order to teach Pierre an essential life lesson, but not the only or most important life lesson. I think Tolstoy would be horrified if we all began acting like Platón Karatáev. In allowing Platón Karatáev to influence Pierre, Tolstoy is advocating the necessity for a mindfulness of the inexplicable and the ability to sometimes accept the illogical, but he is certainly not preaching that we all stop using our reason and start telling stupid peasant jokes. Tolstoy has an appreciation for intellectual cultivation and application, but he wants it to be tempered by a certain humility that allows us to accept the unknowable. No where in Steph and Mike’s paper do they make this point, and although I think Platón Karatáev would be a good name for Book Nine of War and Peace, I do not think it would make a suitable alternative title for the book.
Finally, I felt as though some of the lengthy quotes hurt the paper overall. I spent so much time reading the quotes that I lost track of the argument that the quotes were discussing. Outside of that, I thought the structure of the paper was effective.
New Critique of "The Army is Soldiers"
Overall, I think that your argument makes several solid points. Military actions do seem to drive much of the plot, and there is certainly a major focus on the communal over the individual throughout the novel. First off, the plot is not entirely, nor even perhaps mostly, driven by war. Much character development takes place wholly removed from a military milieu (i.e. Pierre's iniation with the Freemasons, his freeing his serfs, meeting Platon, etc.). Overlooking this aspect, without at least admitting this fact, detracts from the argument. Furthermore, I am not sure that you adequately prove how Pierre's focus changes from the individual to the community. Certainly you say it happens, but I do not think that you show it. In fact, the quotation that you use to validate your claim stresses that Pierre loves Natasha, who I do not think can be seen as representative of a community as a whole. The Natasha exposition is your strongest argument for this movement from self love to communal love. You demonstrate well how she has moved from infatuation to a deep love of her family and Pierre. One final minor critique is that you discuss religious sentiment throughout your argument, but do not include it in your introduction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
1 comments:
Post a Comment