A Well-Governed Shark

One thing that I actually found very interesting about this article was the idea of "sharkishness" and evil. I've always thought of sharks as very similar to serial killers but I've never thought that people in general were all like sharks, especially not by nature. I'm always somewhat surprised when someone suggests that human nature is intrinsically evil, and that goodness can only result from conscious activity, which is exactly what Melville suggests. I must say though that I do find the whole idea of the well-governed shark fairly entertaining and worth noting. I do somewhat like the idea that in order to be a good person you can still be a shark by nature, as long as you are properly governing your inner shark. And I do think that most people have an inner shark of one kind or another, I just don't think that that shark is necessarily intrinsic. I suppose I see sharkishness as more of a developmental process than anything else. I also find it interesting how the assumption here seems to be that everyone can and should govern their sharkishness when there may be many cases of individuals who do not possess such a capability, such as some mentally handicapped people for instance. Another thing I find interesting is how Schopenhauer says that animals are not cruel to each other the way humans are, which Melville seems to agree with. The really funny thing about that is that the model being used here for what evil is in humanity, is a shark. 

Sociability and Intelligence

'Schopenhauer says: For the most part we have only a choice between solitude and vulgarity. The most social men are the least intellectual. "He is very unsocial," is almost equivalent to saying, "He is a man of great qualities".' For some reason this quote really stood out to me. I know this idea has been echoed by other famous proclaimed "geniuses". Many intellectuals often have come off as rather unsocial, but I wonder if that would be the exception or the rule. Schopenhauer seems to suggest that the rule would be that social men are generally unintelligent, and unsocial men are generally intellectual. However, I fail to see the correlation between those two things. I don't really understand how one comes to the conclusion that how social or unsocial someone is can usually determine their intelligence levels. If someone is really social he or she may influenced by many ideas, but that could easily be a good or bad thing. He or she may not be encouraged to think on their own, or they may use others ideas to help build off of their own and make new discoveries. There is no reason to automatically assume that just because someone is social that they are not intellectual. Likewise, a more unsocial person may be able to think more clearly and eloquently without worrying about popular opinions, or they may get stuck in the same way of thinking with no one to bounce their ideas off of. They too could be just as likely to be intelligent as unintelligent. I just don't think that one's social activities or lack thereof determine in any way someones intelligence. 

Moby-Dick: Madness

There is something about the idea of madness in Moby-Dick that I find strangely alluring. I feel that in modern day America one would be hard-pressed to find someone who would think that any kind of "madness" or "insanity" could in any way be considered a good thing, which is why it is so refreshing to look at the idea of madness in a different light. It isn't dismissed so lightly, without even looking at the different forms madness can take. People always assume that if someone is "insane" they aren't capable of  rational thought, and therefore cannot even recognize their "insanity". However, in Moby-Dick characters that are mad or insane, either labeled as such or self-identified, are able to recognize and even accept their madness. Ishmael seems to see a kind of madness within himself that he tries to combat by going to the sea. Pip's madness is seemingly different from Ishmael's, and instead of fighting it he accepts it. His madness "elevates" him and grants him indifference and "God-like freedom". I think Ahab's madness is the most interesting by far. He not only willing accepts and embraces it, he appears to believe there is nothing wrong with it and that other people should be mad as well. When Ahab talks to Perth in chapter 113, he tells Perth that he should be mad, and is confused as to how he gets by without being mad. People always seem to pity people who are seen as "insane", so I thought it was pretty funny the way Ahab almost seems to pity those who are not insane. Ahab must be somewhat sane in order to recognize his insanity, but then how can he be truly insane? We need to take a closer look at what we consider to be insanity, and I think Moby-Dick helps us to do just that.