Certainty of Opinion

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?

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)

I thought that Mill's discussion about how one comes to right opinion through discussion with others was very interesting. For example, there is the stubborn or the prideful man who will not admit he is wrong even when faced with irreconcilable facts. Do people think that this is a sufficient method for validating opinion? It reminds me of something that one of my roommates told me: statistically, certainty is not a predictor for accuracy. So does it matter how often a person's belief has been tested?

Mill's Patriot Act

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 26^th, 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?

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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)

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...

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...

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?

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

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?

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

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?

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?

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

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

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!

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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!

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?

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

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

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

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

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 197

Last 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?

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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 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?