Moral Progression Thought Piece

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)

Darwin's Dog

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?

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?

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.

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?

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."

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?

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?

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?

But Will it Change your Mind?

But Will it Change your Mind?

So I can understand why we're reading this because Newman basically backs up every argument we've heard about why PLS is the best and we're the only ones who are going to save our souls and the business school is full of hedonistic ninny-muffins, but what effect can Newman have on someone who does not come into the reading with this impression? Basically, more broadly, I'm asking a question that has been touched upon before: to what extent does a reading of a work like this change people's minds or effect their opinions? Can it really? Or does it merely reinforce what they already believed to be true, and the rest just gets written off as invalid? Should we in PLS be more impressionable to these "great" texts?