Re: Kant and Locke

[Ffrangcon Lewis]

Dear John, Nick, and list,

I share John's sense that the comparison of the two whale heads with the philosophical positions of Locke and Kant are both significant and puzzling. Such a careful and striking analogy surely argues for a very deliberate act on the author's part? I was grateful to Nick for his succinct explanation that the conflict lay between empiricism (Locke) and idealism (Kant), and it may be that Melville meant just that. However, I cannot help asking myself awkward questions which my own lack of philosophical stamina cannot answer. How much of Locke and Kant had Melville read? Did he come at them directly or indirectly? It turned out that when John posted his comment I was reading a book on Kant's critique of Hobbes. This helped me to think about Kant, but complicated matters when it came to thinking about Melville's whale-heads. If one sees 'Moby-Dick' as in part an engagement with, or challenging of, Hobbes's 'Leviathan', then
one might expect to see Melville in sympathy with Kant. Where 'Leviathan' posits the necessity of an absolutist monarchy as the only solution to an irredeemably selfish humanity, Kant believes in a free will which at some point will create a democratic and republican society in a cosmopolitan world in which wars will cease and individuals will choose to subordinate themselves to universal moral imperatives. If Ishmael seems, buoyed up by Queequeg's coffin, a potential citizen of such a world, it leaves nevertheless the question of Ahab, who in heroically hunting 'leviathan', becomes something of a sultan himself. Moreover, the white whale, if he may in a certain light suggest 'Leviathan', is surely much else besides, and therefore not reducible to such an allegory as that just outlined.

Having put that possibly foolish digression aside, I now return to the awkward fact that it is of course Locke, not Hobbes, who opposes Kant in Melville's formula! So what is it, exactly, that attracts Melville's attention to Locke? Can anyone help?

Yours,

Ffrangcon Lewis

[Hardeman]

Dear Ffrangcon, John and Nick,

"For unless you own the whale, you are but a provincial and
sentimentalist in Truth;" (MD 76)

Thanks to all for the inspiration to look again at one of Melville's
striking images contrasting things on multiple levels. In reference to
the depth of Melville's understanding of Locke and Kant consider if
you will his use of their respective philosophies in the makeup of
Ahab.

Diving a little deeper, Locke's <An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding>
pioneered the modern perspective of self-identity in which an
individual self evolves through consciousness
and not through a priori innate ideas that Christian scholastics
believed was axiomatic in mankind. This empirical identity proposed
that knowledge as concepts is derived from precepts dependent on the
senses. Therefor the blank slate of the mind is not preconditioned
by the investment of characteristics of a soul into a body. It is
only through experience derived from perceptions that the self-
identity is created.

Melville illustrates his grasp of Locke's self-identity in the
description of Ahab awakening from his nightmare
"the tormented spirit that glared out of bodily eyes,
when what seemed Ahab rushed from his room, was for the time but a
vacated thing, a formless somnambulistic being, a ray of living light,
to be sure, but without an object to color, and therefore a
blankness in itself." [There you have the blank slate when it un-
identifies with the character created by the mind]

"God help thee, old man, thy thoughts have created
a creature in thee; and he whose intense thinking thus makes him a
Prometheus; a vulture feeds upon that heart for ever; that vulture the
very creature he creates."
And there you have an identity Ishmael called "Crazy Ahab" as a
concept of the self right out of Locke, so to speak.

And where does Ahab see, in other words perceive, his vulture to be
that feeds on his heart?
"all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made
practically assailable in Moby Dick"

On the other hand Kant's self-identity requires a noumenon, a concept
that exist a priori to the senses. For him the self is created by a
combination of perceptions and ding an sich such that cognition is an
interaction between concept and percept. In this functionalist view
of the mind this forms a self-identity created by synthesis.
"Synthesis (and the unity in consciousness required for synthesis) are
central to cognition;"

One might say that Ahab was illustrated a Kantian perspective in the
Candles when he confronts the "clear spirit" of the "personified
impersonal"
"but I am darkness leaping out of light, leaping out of thee! The
javelins cease; open eyes; see, or not? [perceive or not]
Ahab as identity "would fain be welded with thee"; revealing he
accepts the concept of the noumenon but is unable to unite because he
would be master and not controled by an a priori universal force.

Excellent summaries of their philosophy of self thanks to Stanford
Univ
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/

There are many more examples of mulling over perception and
conception
throughout Melville's searching.
Hardeman


On 3 déc, 15:21, Ffrangcon Lewis <ffrangconle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear John, Nick, and List,
>
> I share John's sense that the comparison of the two whale heads with the philosophical positions of Locke and Kant are both significant and puzzling. Such a careful and striking analogy surely argues for a very deliberate act on the author's part? I was grateful to Nick for his succinct explanation that the conflict lay between empiricism (Locke) and idealism (Kant), and it may be that Melville meant just that. However, I can not help myself asking awkward questions which my own lack of philosophical stamina can not answer. How much of Locke and Kant Had Melville read? Did he come at them directly or indirectly? It turned out that when John posted his how I was reading a book on Kant's Critique of Hobbes. This helped me to think about Kant, but complicated matters when it came to thinking about Melville's whale-heads. If one sees 'Moby-Dick' as in part an engagement with, or challenging of Hobbes's 'Leviathan', then
> one might expect to see Melville in sympathy with Kant. Where 'Leviathan' positive The Necessity of an absolutist monarchy as the only solution to an irredeemably selfish humanity, Kant believes in a free will Which at some point will create a democratic and republican society in a cosmopolitan world In which wars will cease and individuals will choose to subordinate themselves to universal moral imperatives. If Ishmael seems, buoyed up by Queequeg's coffin, a potential citizen of such a world, it nevertheless leaves the question of Ahab, who heroically in hunting 'leviathan', becomes something of a sultan himself. Moreover, the white whale, if he may in a certain light suggest 'Leviathan', is surely much else besides, and Therefore not reducible to an allegory such as that just outlined.
>
> Having put that possibly foolish digression aside, I now return to the awkward fact that it is of course Locke, not Hobbes, who OPPOSED Kant in Melville's formula! So what is it, exactly, that attracts attention to Melville's Locke? Can anyone help?
>
> Yours,
>
> Ffrangcon Lewis

[Hardeman]

Some automatic feature of my software reformated my cut and pasted
text
creating an even more unreadable copy than normal so I will attempt to
resend it

Dear Ffrangcon, John and Nick,


"For unless you own the whale, you are but a provincial and

sentimentalist in Truth, "(MD 76)

Thanks to all for the inspiration to look again at one of Melville's
striking images contrasting things on multiple levels. In reference
to
the depth of Melville's understanding of Locke and Kant consider if
you will his use of their respective philosophies in the makeup of
Ahab.


Diving a little deeper, Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human

Understanding> pioneered the modern view of self-identity in which
individual self-identity evolves through consciousness
and not through a priori innate ideas that Christian Scholastics
believed was axiomatic to mankind . This empirical identity
proposed
that knowledge as derived from concepts is dependent on precepts of

the
senses. Therefor the blank slate of the mind is not preconditioned
by the investment of characteristics of a soul into a body. It is
only through experience derived from perceptions that the self -
identity is created.


Melville illustrates his grasp of Locke's self-identity in the
description of Ahab awakening from his nightmare;
"the tormented spirit that glared out of bodily eyes,
when what seemed Ahab rushed from his room, was for the time
but a vacated thing, a formless somnambulistic being, a ray of
living light,
to be sure, but without an object to color, and therefore a
blankness in itself. "[There you have the blank slate when it un -
identifies with the character created by the mind]


"God help thee, old man, thy thoughts have created
a creature in thee; and he whose intense thinking thus makes him a

Prometheus, a vulture feeds upon that heart for ever, that the
vulture

very creature he creates. "
And there you have an identity Ishmael called "Crazy Ahab" as a
concept of the self right out of Locke, so to speak.

And where does Ahab see , in other words perceive, his vulture to be

that feeds on his heart?
"all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made

practically assailant in Moby Dick "

On the other hand Kant's self-identity requires a noumenon, a concept

that exist prior to the senses. For him the self is created by a
combination of perceptions and Ding an sich such that cognition is an

interaction between concept and percept. In this functionalist view
of the mind this forms a self-identity created by synthesis.
"Synthesis (and the unity in consciousness required for synthesis)
are
central to cognition; "

One might say that Ahab illustrated a Kantian perspective in the

Candles when he confronts the "clear spirit" of the "personified
impersonal "
"but I am darkness leaping out of light, leaping out of thee! The

javelins cease; open eyes, see, or not? [perceive or not]

Ahab as identity "would fain be welded with thee"; revealing he

accepts the concept of the noumenon but is unable to unite with it
because he
would be master and not be controled by an a priori universal force.

Excellent summaries of their philosophy of self thanks to Stanford
Univ
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/


There are many more examples of mulling over perception and
conception throughout Melville's searching.
Hardeman

On December 5, 00:10, Hardeman <lhp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ffrangcon, John and Nick,
>
> "For unless you own the whale, you are but a provincial and

> Sentimentalist in Truth "(MD 76)

>
> Thanks to all for the inspiration to look again at one of Melville's

> Striking images contrasting things on multiple levels. In reference to
> The depth of Melville's understanding of Locke and Kant consider if
> You will his use of their respective philosophies in the makeup of

> Ahab.
>
> Diving a little deeper, Locke's "An Essay Concerning Human
> Understanding>

> Pioneered the modern view of self-identity In which year
> Individual self consciousness evolves through
> And not through a priori innate ideas that Christian Scholastics
> Believed in Mankind was axiomatic. This empirical identity proposed
> Have that knowledge derived from concepts is dependent on the precepts
> Senses. Therefor the blank slate of the mind is not Preconditioned
> By the investment of characteristics of a soul into a body. It is
> Only through experience derived from perceptions that the self --
> Identity is created.

>
> Melville illustrates his grasp of Locke's self-identity in the

> Description of Ahab awakening from his nightmare
> "The tormented spirit that glared out of bodily eyes,
> Seemed when what Ahab rushed from his room, the time was for a purpose
> Vacated thing, a formless somnambulistic being, living a ray of light,
> To be sure, but without an object to color, and Therefore a
> Blankness in itself. "[There you have the blank slate when it year --
> Identifies with the character created by the mind]

>
> "God help thee, old man, thy thoughts have created

> A creature in thee; and he Whose intense Thus thinking makes him a
> Prometheus, a vulture feeds upon that heart for ever, that the vulture
> Very creature he creates. "

> And there you have an identity Ishmael called "Crazy Ahab" as a

> Concept of the self right out of Locke, so to speak.
>
> And where does see Ahab, in other words perceive, his vulture to be
> That feeds on his heart?
> "All evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made
> Practically assailant in Moby Dick "

>
> On the other hand Kant's self-identity requires a noumenon, a concept

> That exist prior to the senses. For him the self is created by a
> Combination of perceptions and Ding an sich such that cognition is an
> Interaction between concept and percept. In this functionalist view
> The mind of this forms a self-identity created by synthesis.

> "Synthesis (and the unity in consciousness required for synthesis) are

> Central to cognition; "
>
> One might say that Ahab was a Kantian perspective illustrated in the

> Candles when he confronts the "clear spirit" of the "personified

> Impersonal "
> "But I am darkness leaping out of light, leaping out of thee! The
> Javelins cease; open eyes, see, or not? [perceive or not]

> Ahab as identity "would fain be welded with thee"; revealing he

> Accepts the concept of the noumenon is unable to view unit Because he
> Master would be controlled and not by an a priori universal force.

>
> Excellent summaries of their philosophy of self thanks to Stanford
> Univhttp: / / plato.stanford.edu / entries / locke / http: / / plato.stanford.edu / entries / kant-mind /
>

> There are many more examples of Mulling over perception and
> Design
> Throughout Melville's searching.
> Hardeman

>
> On December 3, 15:21, Ffrangcon Lewis <ffrangconle...yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Dear John, Nick, and List,
>
>> I share John's sense that the comparison of the two whale heads with the philosophical positions of Locke and Kant are both significant and puzzling. Such a careful and striking analogy surely argues for a very deliberate act on the author's part? I was grateful to Nick for his succinct explanation that the conflict lay between empiricism (Locke) and idealism (Kant), and it may be that Melville meant just that. However, I can not help myself asking awkward questions which my own lack of philosophical stamina can not answer. How much of Locke and Kant Had Melville read? Did he come at them directly or indirectly? It turned out that when John posted his how I was reading a book on Kant's Critique of Hobbes. This helped me to think about Kant, but complicated matters when it came to thinking about Melville's whale-heads. If one sees 'Moby-Dick' as in part an engagement with, or challenging of Hobbes's 'Leviathan', then

>> One might expect to see Melville in sympathy with Kant. Where 'Leviathan' positive The Necessity of an absolutist monarchy as the only solution to an irredeemably selfish humanity, Kant believes in a free will Which at some point will create a democratic and republican society in a cosmopolitan world In which wars will cease and individuals will choose to subordinate themselves to universal moral imperatives. If Ishmael seems, buoyed up by Queequeg's coffin, a potential citizen of such a world, it nevertheless leaves the question of Ahab, who heroically in hunting 'leviathan', becomes something of a sultan himself. Moreover, the white whale, if he may in a certain light suggest 'Leviathan', is surely much else besides, and Therefore not reducible to an allegory such as that just outlined.
>
>> Having that could possibly foolish digression aside, I now return to the awkward fact that it is of course Locke, not Hobbes, who OPPOSED Kant in Melville's formula! So what is it, exactly, that attracts attention to Melville's Locke? Can anyone help?
>
>> Yours,
>
>> Ffrangcon Lewis-Hide quoted text --
>
> - Show quoted text --

[Ffrangcon Lewis]

Dear Hardeman,

Hardeman wrote: "Some automatic feature of my software reformated my cut and pasted text creating an even more unreadable copy than normal so I will attempt to resend it.'



Sincere thanks for your thoughtful and informative response to my little note on Kant and Locke in 'Moby-Dick', and for providing the Stanford University links to their philosophies, which I have not yet had time to consider. Meanwhile, I just thought I'd better acknowledge that your cut-and-past facility certainly puts me in my place, with some particularly inspired recapitalising, not to mention the revelation of my full name as Ffrangcon Lewis-Hide. Is this an instruction, I wonder, or just a brilliant ability to penetrate my carefully constructed Jekyll mask?

All the best,

Ffrangcon Lewis-Hidden

[Hardeman]

Dear Ffrangcon in Whatever Form,
Alas the mysteries surrounding my recent postings are only heightened
by your response.
What first appeared on the Ishmailite list after I sent it consisted
of transposed words some of which were capitalized randomly but I
did not see your name change. I posted the 2nd text but on
reappraisal the original now was less corrupted than when I first
viewed it on the list.

While ghosts or my ineptitude are easy solutions to this mystery, it
is worth noting that I have a new computer whose commands are in
French. It has resisted all my efforts to integrate English into my
word processor program. Stubbornness is a reality of the French
character and software. So when I disabled the French spell checker,
or thought I had, and copied the text to the Ishmailite list something
messed with it. Or can we say "somebody" when dealing with computers
who have a mind of their own?

In any masquerade please except my expression of regret and please do
consider the suggested sagacity of Melville's understanding of Locke
and Kant in Ahab's characterization. I must admit I was quit
impressed by the what evolved out of the inspiration from Nick, John,
Ffrangcon and recollections from my philosophy mentor. That my
turgid text would become even more incomprehensible by the mechanics
of transmission is a bitter blow to my would-be philanthropist
intent.
Or as you say "just a brilliant ability to penetrate my carefully
constructed Jekyll mask." But "who is there" behind the mask? I
certainly perceive my mask but I am still learning to accept that
numinous spirit that enlightens us all.

Is there a need to Hide?, ,
Hardeman

[Ackin]

Dear Listmates,

I am certainly as provincial in my understanding of Moby-Dick as
Hardeman's reluctant spell checker. And I am definitively as French in
my mind as his word processor. That's why I've been brooding a lot
over the recently discussed chapters, which explain my prolonged
silence.

A close reading of chapters 72 to 75 has revealed a series of strange
analogies which seem consistent with our discussions on Empiricism and
Kantian Idealism.

The Monkey-Rope (72) seems a vortex of allusions refering to the
notion of interdependence. Ishmael and Queequeg are philosophically
"wedded", perhaps just as Kant depended on some of Locke's logical
axioms.

In this chapter, a cluster of words and expressions related to rope
and religion is intriguing enough. I wonder if these associations may
hint to the Empiricist notion of associationism.

Ishmael's mortal wound to his free will and his metaphysical
ponderings on his self-relective consciousness raise serious
philosophical questions. Are Fate, Providence, Determinism contrary to
Free Will? Where is Justice? Is it a state of Equilibrium between to
opposites poles? Between the Self and the Other? Between a Sperm Whale
and a Right Whale? Someone may be wrong chasing the right whale and
right hunting the wrong whale... Nomen est noumen.

It is clear that Melville wants to contrast two views which seems at
first opposite in nature. The Sperm Whale's head is the seat of a
highly idealized substance whose noumenal qualities are evidently
Kantian. On the other hand, The Right Whale's head is pragmatically
simple and straightforward. But, according to the argumentation
presented here, one need to be both Kantian and Lockean to find a
certain Balance, or needs to totally dismiss philosophy to float
"light and right".

What is "the precise situation of every mortal that breathes"? Being
suspended over a sharkish ocean of life and being at the mercy of an
invisible *hand* that may inadvertantly drop us into the raging waves
of our doom?

What would be our "Siamese connexion with a plurality of other
mortals"? (Well, I do have some elements of answer on this particular
one, thanks to you all).

Too many questions deserving too many detailed answers. Winter's
coming, and I feel totally Laplandish under my northern latitudes.

Nick

PS. Two heavy Heads suspended across the ship to keep the right
Balance is astrologically too significant to be ignored. The Aries-
Libra axis is definitively implied here.

[Ackin]

 Just an addendum to the discussion to quote Ralph Dumain's thoughtful
view on Melville's understanding of (German) philosophy.

"Yet in Moby Dick Melville exhibits demystifying
tendencies of a potentially materialist sort, even while
vitalistically
skeptical of the positivist direction of modern thought, not to
mention an
enquiring spirit and a radical democratic sensibility.  Melville
certainly
had his antenna up for all of the inner tensions and ideological
tendencies
of his age, but as an autodidactic bricoleur, and as an artist rather
than
philosopher, he may not have mustered the methodological discipline
to
think through the philosophies he ransacked, but reacted according to
what
he sensed in them."

http://groups.google.com/group/ishmailites/msg/a28dca0f10cdf3ad?&q=spinoza