Final Essay: Circular Moby-Dick or, The Sphere
Reply
Tag Archives: emerson
Final Essay
Diego Aguirre
Professor Pressman
ECL 522
16 December 2025
An Ode to the Working Class
The Great American Novel, Moby Dick, offers readers with a plethora of rich subject matter to dive into through its tale that is not so much about hunting a whale. A common reading of the novel is that in treating the Pequod as a nation-state representative of the 1850s United States, Herman Melville criticizes the unjust practices of our capitalist democratic republic. In Moby Dick, Melville employs medieval language to expose the hierarchical systems rooted in our country that have prevented the working class from getting the recognition they deserve; he further uses this language of nobility to flip the narrative as he celebrates the working class that has lifted this country on its back.
Before discussing how Melville does this, it’s important to look at one of his sources of inspiration: Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “The American Scholar.” In it, Emerson touches on the ramifications of the increased specialization of workers in the United States. He writes “Man is thus metamorphosed into a thing, into many things. The planter, who is Man sent out into the field to gather food, is seldom cheered by any idea of the true dignity of his ministry” (Emerson). This evaluation from Emerson can be applied to most other physical laborers that fuel the nation, such as whalemen. Despite their importance to the growth of the United States, they’re treated as just another group of “Man sent out into the field” and are “seldom cheered.” Recognizing this, Melville writes an entire novel around whaling to make sure that this essential part of our whole is not forgotten.
Of the many terms ascribed to the novel’s central characters, including the whales, one of the most interesting is their association with the medieval era. In the adjacent chapters, “The Advocate” and “Postscript,” Melville asserts “Whaling is imperial! By old English statutory law, the whale is declared a ‘royal fish’… we whalemen supply your kings and queens with coronation stuff!” (121, 123). In suggesting that both whaling and whales themselves are “imperial” and “royal”, Melville is prompting us to reconsider how we view them, especially since they are sourcing the materials used in coronations for those at the top. He continues with this language in the subsequent chapters “Knights and Squires.”
Melville introduces the crew of the Pequod through a medieval caste to highlight the hierarchy of both whale ships and the United States of America. The shared title of Chapters 26 and 27, “Knights and Squires,” is already enough to indicate a divide between the crew. The mates Starbuck, Stubb, and Flask, white men from Nantucket, Cape Cod, and Tisbury, assume the position of knight. Directly under each of them is their “savage” squires: Pacific islander Queequeg, Gay-Header Indian Tashtego, and the imperial negro Daggoo. Though they are all described to be more physically capable and reliable, hence their position as the harpooners in such a violent and vital industry, their non-white skin creates a clear distinction in their status.
This dynamic in which the white man leads extends to the rest of the unnamed crew, and many other American industries as well:
As for the residue of the Pequod’s company, be it said, that at the present day not one in two of the many thousand men before the mast employed in the American whale fishery, are Americans born, though pretty nearly all the officers are. Herein it is the same with the American whale fishery as with the American army and military and merchant navies, and the engineering forces employed in the construction of the American Canals and Railroads. The same, I say, because in all these cases the native American liberally provides the brains, the rest of the world as generously supplying the muscles. (Melville 131)
Melville’s emphasis here is to remind us who it was that labored the most in the founding of our country. Even though “not one in two of the many thousand men” in the whaling industry were born in America (immigrants), most never received the title of officer, nor the benefits expected for someone who puts in the most work. In the specific case of the Pequod, we are never given the names of a majority of the crew who keep the ship operating; they don’t receive the focus given to their king Ahab, his knights Starbuck, Stubb, and Flask, or even their squires Queequeg, Tashtego, and Daggoo. At the base of the ladder, few of them receive proper recognition in spite of their importance in maintaining the ship. Within the context of 1850s America, this group stands in for the enslaved, unrecognized as humans to the highest degree as they were stripped of their rights, yet expected to provide the labor necessary to maintain the growth of the nation.
Melville then directly calls out the same structure in the “American army and military and merchant navies, and the engineering forces employed in the construction of the American Canals and Railroads.” These foundational industries that served to protect and expand the United States ran off of the same design that let the mass contributors go unnoticed and unappreciated while the ones in charge received all of the attention and glory. The employees of these industries, mostly immigrants, were used in service of further increasing the position of the white man with the conquering of Mexican land and expansion towards the West; they were the ones that made it possible, but the end goal was never in favor of them.
With some effective word choice, Melville then starts to hint towards who actually deserves our praise: “the native American liberally provides the brains, the rest of the world as generously supplying the muscles.” In deliberately leaving native uncapitalized, Melville presents the replacement of the Native American by the white man who have claimed the term for themselves. Considering this appropriation, liberally seems to be the native Americans’ loose assumption that they should provide the brains. Meanwhile, the rest of the world generously supplies the muscles. By suggesting that the rest of the world is more benevolent, Melville questions the legitimacy of the white man at the head to challenge the structures of all the American industries he has just described.
All of this culminates in the fact that these imperative industries were established with hierarchical systems that placed one group, the white man, above the rest who were not even deemed worthy of recognition. In the context of 1850s America, specifically in the increased national attention towards slavery and the continued Westward expansion, Melville draws attention to the structures behind the categorization of humans as more or less and breaks down the reasoning of these systems to show how unreliable they are. This faulty system is at the core of the Pequod, positioning Ahab as the king of the ship. However, Melville treats this as a cautionary tale of what happens when democracy shifts to monarchy, when kings are valued over their subjects, and when any opposition is considered rebellion.
As Ahab takes after King Lear in his descent into madness, Melville applies the noble traits expected of a king to another group of characters: the harpooners. In his journal article “Moby-Dick and American Political Symbolism,” Alan Heimert offers a possible reason on why they are treated as such. The harpooners:
are representative of the three races on which each of the American sections, it might be said, had built its prosperity in the early nineteenth century. Stubb’s squire is an Indian; Starbuck’s comes from the Pacific islands. And Flask, perched precariously on Daggoo’s shoulders, seems, like the southern economy itself, sustained only by the strength of the “imperial negro.”(Heimert 502)
The harpooners fitting perfectly into Moby Dick’s allegory of the United States, Melville constantly shines an honorary light on them for their heroics. While Queequeg receives the most attention out of all of them, the most poignant scene of Melville’s praise is “Flask, perched precariously on Daggoo’s shoulders” referenced by Heimert.
In “The First Lowering” to hunt whales, Melville zooms in on a peculiar scene where, acting as a mast-head, the “noble negro” Dagoo bears the “vivacious, tumultuous, ostentatious, little Flask” upon his shoulders (241). This scene on Flask’s boat serves as a microcosm of the United States in which the black man literally uplifts the white; Melville uses this to reverse the preconceived notions of nobility based on race all while praising the stability of the foundational Daggoo.
At the start of this scene, it is described that little King-Post (Flask) was “recklessly standing upon the top of the loggerhead” in hopes of satisfying his “large and tall ambition” (Melville 240). In a situation where these men are chasing their profits, it’s important to note that the ambitious yet little King-Post could not satisfy his desires by himself. Fortunately for him, his harpooner Daggoo “volunteered his lofty shoulders for a pedestal” (Melville 240). Daggoo’s volunteering of himself as a pedestal, or mast-head, recalls the generosity of “the rest of the world” and it can also be viewed as a reclamation of power. If we are to view this scene as a representation of the United States in the 1850s, Daggoo willingly offering himself directly goes against the subjugation of slaves’ labor. Daggoo is proud to offer himself as a mast-head because their unified work is what will lead to their success in this whale hunt.
Though there may be something to argue about Daggoo maintaining the status of an object, specifically one that lets the white man stand upon him, Melville proposes we change our minds about which position is praiseworthy. He writes:
But the sight of little Flask mounted upon gigantic Daggoo was yet more curious; for sustaining himself with a cool, indifferent, easy, unthought of, barbaric majesty, the noble negro to every roll of the sea harmoniously rolled his fine form. On his broad back, flaxen-haired Flask seemed a snow-flake. The bearer looked nobler than the rider. (Melville 241)
It would be easy to forget that this all occurs during their first chaotic whale hunt since Daggoo is described as “sustaining himself with a cool, indifferent, easy, unthought of, barbaric majesty.” Maintaining his posture on the small boat rocking against the rolling waves is a second nature to Daggoo; he is able to stand firm and support the little Flask in all his “barbaric majesty.” No longer is Flask referred to as little Kind-Post, now Daggoo receives the title of majesty. Melville uses his common trick of pairing opposing terms, barbaric and majesty, to overthrow the idea that they’re meant to be separate. He continues to use this honorific language as “the noble negro to every roll of the sea harmoniously rolled his fine form.” Again, Melville gives praise to the ones that not only withstand the pressure of nature and those they’re uplifting, but are in harmony with its flow. It’s no surprise that “the bearer looked nobler than the rider,” for Daggoo, and the many noble negroes enslaved by the majestic barbarians of nineteenth century America, were the pedestal that provided the stability that Flask and all the other snow-flakes relied on to satisfy their ambitions.
While Melville sings the praises of Daggoo, Flask seems to have fallen from grace. He was already stripped of his title of King-Post, but Melville only continues to mock the attitude of this snow-flake: “truly vivacious, tumultuous, ostentatious little Flask would now and then stamp with impatience; but not one added heave did he thereby give to the negro’s lordly chest. So have I seen Passion and Vanity stamping the living magnanimous earth, but the earth did not alter her tides and her seasons for that” (Melville 241). Flask seems to have now been reduced to a spoiled and bratty prince. He maintains his lively and obnoxious attitude, trying to lord over the boat, stamping with impatience, but his power has diminished. He knows how reliant he is in this situation too, as he does not dare add one heave to “the negro’s lordly chest.” Melville can’t help but sprinkle in more compliments for Daggoo, again referring to him as “lordly,” now bearing not only Flask, but his authority as well. Then Melville closes this scene with one last comparison for both men: Flask is assigned to the “Passion and Vanity” that stamps “the living magnanimous earth” that is Daggoo. The once lordly King-Post, now just a vain bundle of intense emotion and pride, can only try and stamp his desires upon the generous and forgiving Daggoo. But in this celebratory scene of Daggoo, we are presented with an alternative to the United States in which the noble negro refuses altering for the ones they bear on their backs.
In the context of their first frenzied chase of whales, it is important that Melville stops for a second to focus on this comedic scene of Flask and Daggoo. By positioning the mast-head Daggoo as noble, majestic, firm, and magnanimous, we are left to commend him rather than the ambitious, ostentatious, vain, snow-flake Flask. A whale boat in which the ambitions of the head are prioritized over the stability of the pedestal cannot even participate in the chase. The humbling mockery of Flask and glory given to Daggoo is a direct reversal of the narratives that have persisted since nineteenth century United States, in which the figureheads are praised while the people they stand upon are belittled, mocked, ignored, enslaved, and persecuted.
Ultimately, Melville’s treatment of Daggoo here is how the working class should’ve always been treated. But from our country’s inception to the present, this established hierarchy has been used by those in power to ignore and vilify those at the bottom, ranging from our history of slavery to today’s targeting of the immigrants that are a vital part of this nation’s workforce. Recognizing this back in the nineteenth century, Melville proposes that we reconsider who is nobler between the bearers and the riders. Should we desire a different fate than the doomed Pequod, the United States needs to take after Melville and celebrate the ones before the mast, the ones that keep our nation afloat.
Works Cited
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “The American Scholar.” 1837
Heimert, Alan. “Moby-Dick and American Political Symbolism.” American Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 4, 1963, pp. 498–534. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2710971. Accessed 16 Dec. 2025.
Melville, Herman, et al. Moby-Dick, Or, The Whale. Penguin Books, 2003.
“(waves for thought).” Creative Final Project
Here is the link to the Google Doc in case it doesn’t appear correctly: (waves for thought).
Writing this final project was like being aboard the Virginia Reel, twisting, turning, pivoting, plummeting, rising, and falling. My time with Emerson was personally revolutionary; I carry his call for fierce individualism and the necessity for one’s relationship with nature with me. I look up at the clouds we walk under and see my reflection in the waves of the turtle pond, bonding with the world around me and forming my own relationship with it. I hear my classmates talk about their education, their days, and I hear the murmuring heartbeat of America’s past, present, and future. In everything, I see Emerson’s message and call to action. And that is why I saw it reflected throughout Melville’s novel, Moby Dick.
Though there is no evidence that Melville read or regularly engaged with Emerson’s “American Scholar,” his novel Moby Dick can be read in dialogue with and in reflection on Emerson’s work, affirming Emerson’s overarching call for experimental learning, intellectual independence, and the value of nature. By reading Moby Dick as a reflection of Emerson’s “The American Scholar,” the novel becomes a living fossil of the American Renaissance and an attempt to realize Emerson’s American individuality through scholarly work. Reading Melville’s work alongside Emerson’s touches on one of Emerson’s central messages throughout “The American Scholar”: individuality. It is in the combined effort and mediations of multiple diverse scholars that we find the call to action posed to scholars in America’s Renaissance. Through a return to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “The American Scholar,” I seek to relate Melville’s relation to the call to action that Emerson presents through his work, showing how this unconfirmed relationship between the two American scholars defines the historical and academic context of our nation, shaping the development of an American literary identity grounded in experience, embodied knowledge, and cultural self-definition.
At first, I wanted to experiment with the structure of my poem and explore the forms of Emerson’s and Melville’s works. But then, every attempt that I had at the playful organization of Emerson’s quotes and Melville’s quotes felt off and not fluid. I began thinking about how these two American scholars are engaging in the same larger conversation on American individuality and identity, and what is a conversation but two columns? The dialogue between Emerson’s call to action in “The American Scholar” and Melville’s Moby Dick is indirect, meaning there is no confirmation or evidence that Melville read Emerson’s work and created his novel as a direct response. However, it is still part of a broader national conversation. A conversation between two individuals could be organized into two columns, weaving and bouncing between them to form a larger whole. However, because the two scholars are part of a bigger discussion on the essence of America, it didn’t make sense to have one column represent Melville and the other Emerson. Instead, their quotes are interwoven and braided to form a larger message, just as their prospective works function together.
There are distinct similarities between Emerson’s call and Melville’s various messages throughout his novel, particularly in Emerson’s transcendentalist perspective on nature, Melville’s emphasis on bodily experience over academic structures, and the overarching value placed on self-reflection. Just as Emerson calls for “man thinking,” Melville not only thinks for himself on how to contribute to the larger American identity, but writes a central narrator who prioritizes deep, critical thought for over 600 pages (Emerson, “The American Scholar”). Similarly, as Emerson tells his audience to trust themselves, Melville writes a character who trusts himself so bodily in his mission to catch the whale that it wholly consumes him, leading to his downfall. Ahab’s character demonstrates a critical point for the broader construction of American identity: the ability for scholars to think for themselves, work with one another, and disagree. Though Melville presents a character who touches on Emerson’s call to “trust yourself,” he cautions against too much trust, thus allowing his novel to embody his own individual representation of American identity. Like Emerson warns, thinking as everyone else makes you “a cog in the machine,” stripping away any uniqueness (Emerson, “The American Scholar”). Ahab’s character exemplifies scholarly dialogue, though indirectly. In terms of citations, Moby Dick’s footnote and citation style are unclear and wholly unique, part of the novel’s larger puzzle. In my creative attempt, the citations are purposely not clearly cited. This was part of an effort to address the fluidity between the two messages: both authors are independent American scholars, yet their work blends to form something larger than themselves. Both Emerson and Melville work to break down barriers of the classified and unclassified, the known and unknown, the singular and collective. I attempt to outline the shared overlap between the two others, the overlap that paints the field of American literature today.
And because my poem does not have an actual works cited, here is my works cited:
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “The American Scholar.” Essays: First Series, 1841. Norton Critical Edition, edited by Joel Porte, W. W. Norton, 1982, pp. 3-21.
Melville, Herman. Moby-Dick; or, The Whale. Penguin Classics, edited with an introduction by Andrew Delbanco and notes by Tom Quirk, Penguin Classics, 2002.
The trap of consistency
In “The Anatomy of Melville’s Fame,” O.W. Riegel presents the facts around the reception of Melville’s Moby Dick by the world of literary critics, these figures that hold so much power in their relatively anonymous positions simply with their opinions. A section of the article I found particularly interesting was in page 3, where Reigel is specifically discussing the reception of the British critics when the novel was first published. He writes, “They tested Moby Dick by the canons of unity, coherence and emphasis and found it wanting…Ill feeling, national pride, and a patronizing attitude toward America help to explain the severe condemnation by the English of Melville’s ‘Yankeeisms’ and ‘Go-ahead method.'” This discussion of the so called “canon”, an ever-elusive concept and yet the thing we use to judge the value of every work of art, captured my attention. This book is a prime example of the fact that the goal posts are always changing, however gradually, on what is “valuable” or “good” art, and that the standard is dependent on the subjective perceptions of a small but powerful group of people. This is true not only of art, but of societal structures and norms throughout history. In this case, the British held the power of determining the standard in western literature, and we can see that their judgement stemmed from a sort of prejudice against Americans. This simple ill feeling caused them to discredit the rich work of art we now recognize Moby Dick to be. It was also the fact that the novel was experimental that added to their reasons to devalue it. The “canons of unity, coherence and emphasis” were simply aspects that at the time people had decided represented a “good” novel, and they are all aspects that notably favor a type of consistency in narrative. It is the novel going against this pre-established order and Melville daring to do something new and different that rubbed critics the wrong way. It is not uncommon for things that challenge the status quo or are considered different to produce a negative reaction from the powers that be, a reaction that stems from a type of fear. It reminds me of Emerson’s quote in his essay “Self Reliance,” where he comments that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” It is this stubborn way of clinging to consistency that kept society from recognizing the value in Melville’s Moby Dick for a long time, but ironically, it is now what keeps it a part of the so-called canon of literature, and where I expect it will stay for many decades to come.
Week 13: Final Project
What do you still need to learn/do for your final project?
I feel like there’s so much that I still need to learn before diving into my final project. I’m planning to write a creative poem that touches on how Moby Dick directly responds to Emerson’s call for the “American Scholar,” incorporating form and direct quotes from both Melville’s novel and Emerson’s lecture to create a complete work that illustrates the call-and-response relationship between the two. I’m sort of ping ponging between what actual form and structure to use for the poem and the specifics of what I want to say, how to say it, and then the actuality of how to present it. I think it’s hard because poetry sometimes clicks into place and feels right in a particular form, so I need to play around with it a little bit more. Additionally, I need to reread Emerson’s work and revisit the several moments in Melville’s novel that I tabbed for their connection.
Emerson and the Power of Self
In one of the most striking moments of The American Scholar, Ralph Waldo Emerson writes: “Help must come from the bosom alone. The scholar is that man who must take up into himself all the ability of the time, all the contributions of the past, all the hopes of the future. He must be an university of knowledges. If there be one lesson more than another, which should pierce his ear, it is, The world is nothing, the man is all.”
At first glance, this might sound overwhelming. How could any one person possibly “be an university of knowledges”? But I don’t think that Emerson is asking for perfection. I think he is making a much deeper point about where strength and truth really come from: within. When he says “help must come from the bosom alone,” he’s rejecting the idea that wisdom or growth can be handed to us by institutions, traditions, or even other people around us. Instead, Emerson seems to urge his reader to turn inward and to trust the resources that are planted inside of us.
That is classic Transcendentalism. The movement, after all, was built on the belief that the divine and the universal could be found within the individual. Emerson’s claim that “the world is nothing, man is all” doesn’t dismiss nature; I think that it reframes it. The world only takes on meaning when filtered through the mind of the individual. In other words, I don’t think that we receive truth passively, I think we create it by daring to think, question, and imagine.
The scholar, for Emerson, embodies this responsibility. He doesn’t seem to just memorize facts from the past or observe the present. Instead, he carries “all the ability of the time,” “all the contributions of the past,” and “all the hopes of the future” inside of himself. The true shcolar that Emerson writes about is active, daring, and above all, very self-reliant. I think this is a daunting yet empowering vision. Emerson is able to remind us that the potential for greatness isn’t just out there somewhere; it’s already inside each of us. Just waiting.
My Response to Emerson’s Speech!
So when I first saw how long this speech was I was intimidated by it. Reading it I was a bit confused until we spoke about it in class. Our discussion helped me see it a bit more clear the concepts he is trying to make us think of while we read through his speech. The line which we spoke of in class was one that made me think a bit when I read through it the first time. “In this distribution of functions, the scholar is the delegated intellect. In the right state, he is, Man Thinking. In the degenerate state, when the victim of society, he tends to become a mere thinker, or, still worse, the parrot of other men’s thinking” (paragraph 6). At first when I read that line I was confused to what Emerson was trying to tell us here but then I think I realized what he was trying to state.
We don’t want to base our own thinking off of others around us and “parrot” them and their ideas. We want to have our own thoughts and think for ourselves as we are our own person. If I am understanding this correctly, Emerson wants to make us use this to our advantage and make oursleves unique and not like everyone else. This is how we get more unique works and articles made by impressionable writers.
Another concept which I am still a bit confused on is the Nature element. Emerson states that he is ignorant of nature and his mind can not process that. He says that he wants to understand it more from what I understand. I think anyone would want to understand the world around us and concepts that we might not be very knowledgeable about. He wants to attain more knowledge so he can write about more concepts that might not be written about. Please let me know if I am on the right track with what I am thinking reguarding this reading.
Concepts like this are a bit complicated for me and I can hope that I can understand them a bit more with the help of everyone’s feedback on this post.
Emerson’s American Scholar
After our discussion in class today, specifically the mention of how boredom begets creativity, I wanted to highlight a quote from Emerson’s essay that seemed very applicable to today in which he says “Our age is bewailed as the age of Introversion”. When I first read this I was surprised to see that even back when this was written, there was the sentiment that people are becoming more isolated from one another. I think this separation comes from the individualism that is so deeply rooted in our culture, which Emerson promotes here but, Emerson goes on to state that this doesn’t have to be to our detriment: “Must that needs be evil?. . . This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it”. This seemed like another example of Emerson pushing for the American scholar to break off from the teachings of old and avoid the stagnation of idolizing revered works rather than exploring our own thoughts provoked from the readings. I’m excited to learn from Ishmael as the vessel of these traits of the American scholar and how it might conflict with other approaches, especially the unwavering will of Ahab on his revenge quest.
Ralph Waldo Emerson : The American Scholar
If I am being completely honest, reading this essay was a bit difficult for me. The length and the way of writing caused the words to sort of jumble together on my first few attempts and I wasn’t able to finish it the first few times. However, after reading it again and actually making it to the end, I thank I have developed a bit more of an understanding for what Emerson was saying through this.
My main takeaway might not be what his main point was, as I am still unsure of what exactly it was, but what stood out to me the most throughout this reading was his focus on unity. He constantly referenced the way in which society is broken up, citing that as the reason for division within communities. He says that we do have a common ground and roots, yet we tend to stay divided in separate groups. One of his main arguments throughout this essay, I think, is the argument for the complete unity of the country. He says that through individuals creating and thinking and passing along information, we have the potential to unite through scholarship.
Something I noticed while reading this was how Emerson seems to reference one of Henry David Thoreau’s ideologies, which is that of the Three Chairs. I am not extremely familiar with Emerson and his inspirations, but regardless he did bring up the same idea as Thoreau. Thoreau’s Three Chairs references his belief that in order to be a truly be a well socialized and well thought out individual, it is important to embrace and act upon different methods of reflection. The chairs represent, one for solitude, two for friendship, and three for society. Thoreau emphasizes just how important each of these ‘chairs’ are and within this essay, Emerson does too. Emerson’s main focus is on the unity of society as a whole and how important doing things for your community is (chair three), but he also describes just how important the ideas of others (chair two) through more individualized groups and literature and the practice of solitude and self reflection (chair one) are. He speaks a lot about how important it is for a scholar to be introverted in a sense. He believes that the only true important thoughts come from a place of self reflection and not from the inspiration of others.
Once again, I am not sure how accurate what I pulled from the essay was, but this is what I understood of it!
Emerson and King – Honest Review
I’m going to be honest and say that it probably wasn’t the best to be trying to write about this at around 10:30 PM, but I’m going to go ahead and do my best to break down what I understand and what I’m gathering from both. I’ll start with King purely because it is shorter. Reading about the tale that inspired Melville’s book in the first place doesn’t strike me as entirely horrifying. While it is a scary and unfortunate circumstance that occurred many many years ago, I do not find myself surprised by what has occurred. Human nature is often driven to limits and a breaking point, and it is only “natural” for dire circumstances to occur. Cannibalism thanks to extreme starvation from a lack of available/nutritious food? Yikes! I find the sort of questions that are phrased in a “Would you do this if you had to?” when it comes to scenarios like this are a little unreliable. I personally would obviously never condone or commit the act itself, but in a desperate attempt, I wouldn’t really know how my mind would justify it. If Moby Dick is actually based off of this retelling that includes the horrific nature of whaling back in the day, color me intrigued as boring as I thought the book would be based off of its initial length.
In terms of Emerson’s essay, I like how he puts this specific quote into perspective. “Man is thus metamorphosed into a thing, into many things.” The word thing seems entirely impersonal, a thing could be anything, as repetitive as that sounds. Man itself has evolved, made many advancements, and continues to strive for greater things to this day (at least I hope.) It is no surprise that it makes me think about the intriguing way he frames the way someone thinks about themselves. What purpose does someone have unless it is shaped by the very “things” around them? Ultimately, I do think his essay is something that strives to tell someone to move into action. There are a lot of phrases around there that say the world does not revolve around oneself, but even if it doesn’t, why not take knowledgeable advantages?