How is Nietzsche like Moby Dick? How do they differ?
I already have my thoughts; I want to see how others approach the issues. If you’re not familiar with one or the other, read up. You won’t be disappointed.
The book or the whale?
The book. 
Well, it’s been a while, but Moby Dick is about an obsessed crazy guy who meets his death while pursuing the object of that obsession. I don’t see that as a major theme in Nietzsche’s work. He himself died from syphilis, which he probably got from a hooker.
Can you give us a hint as to what you’re seeing here?
I’m interested in the characters’ approaches to a sublime,violent, and possibly meaningless universe, (especially Ahab and Starbuck, also Stubb and Ishmael).
I think Melville anticipates Nietzsche’s views on the universe in many significant ways. And I think the characters in Moby Dick illustrate different ways an individual can approach that universe. The book offers interesting (and possibly corrective) alternatives to Nietzsche’s moral and existential conclusions.
Some relevant chapters that come mind are ‘The Lee Shore’ (XXIII), ‘The Gilder’ (CXIV), and selections from ‘The Advocate’ (XXIV) and ‘Moby Dick’ (XLI), though I’m not sure if they do much out of context.
A
Hey,
Hope all’s well. I’m sharing the following topic with anyone who I think could do something with it. Enjoy!
-How is Nietzsche like Moby Dick (the book)? How do they differ?-
B
Is this for a paper?
I’d have to know more about both in order to responsibly comment. But, my first reaction is to compare Nietzsche’s Nihilism and Melville’s Anti-Transcendentalism. Perhaps if you looked up some commentary on what Melville has to say about Emerson in Moby Dick, you will find some material that gives you some traction.
Of course, the biggest problem with that is Anti-Transcendentalism is not a fully realized philosophy like Nihilism, but a criticism of something else, in this case the Transcendentalism of Emerson and Thoreau.
So, I supposed I’d say that Moby Dick is like Neitzche in that both are rejections of certain positivistic modern notions.
Let me know if you get anywhere with this.
A
Nice! No, it’s not for a paper. I didn’t know Melville was reacting against Transcendentalism! I will look into that over winter break.
What I’ve been interested in is the way that each approach a sublime, violent, and possibly meaningless universe. Ahab is an exaggeration (a cautionary one) of the will to power. He needs to extend his self-assertion over nature or life itself–an unwinable quest. Starbuck ‘looks into the abyss and believes’ that it is meaningful, in spite of its utter inscrutability-- a possibility Nietzsche cannot accept.
There’s more maybe, but that’s about all I’ve come to so far
B
I think your on track.
However, I am not sure how to compare what you’re going after to Nietzsche. Ahab is not capable of conquering his own obsession, and his will leads to his destruction. Melville fashioned Ahab as a critique of Transcendentalism. According to Thoreau, Ahab ought to be a particularly enlightened man, having spent his nearly his whole life at sea (communing with nature). He is, like all of us, simply a man, no more, and he carries all the flaws of being a man. However, I am not sure it this is an exaggeration of the will to power. Had Ahab succeeded, he likely would have been praised. But, he didn’t, so he receives our judgment and condemnation. This is only cautionary of the will to power if you express some sympathy for the doomed Ahab.
Have I strayed too far away from what you were thinking?
A
Aha! Thoreau was wrong in his conception of nature. Only on land–on solid ground-- does nature appear simply benign, beautiful and enlightening. On the ocean, man encounters the truer face of nature-- wondrous, but also threatening & terrifying. Authentic heroism charges out into the mystery:
“…in landlessness alone resides the highest truth, shoreless, indefinite as God - so, better is it to perish in that howling infinite, than be ingloriously dashed upon the lee, even if that were safety! For worm-like, then, oh! who would craven crawl to land! Terrors of the terrible! is all this agony so vain? Take heart, take heart, O Bulkington! Bear thee grimly, demigod! Up from the spray of thy ocean-perishing - straight up, leaps thy apotheosis!”
The Whale is the Leviathan. The great beast; the image of “the interlinked terrors and wonders of God!” Moby Dick is the sublime whiteness or purity of a mysterious universe that at once inspires awe in human beings, and challenges our ability to exist.
Ahab cannot stand the offense he has received from Moby Dick. He cannot humble himself before the immeasurable power of the Universe:
"Ahab did not fall down and worship it like them; but deliriously transferring its idea to the abhorred White Whale, he pitted himself, all mutilated, against it. All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. "
In the context of the story’s symbolism, Ahab could never succeed.
I’m sure that Nietzsche would fault Ahab for being unable to control his obsession, though. He’d probably argue that Ahab, like Hitler, was not as wise and clever as he should have been in order to win the world’s Darwinian game. This is about as far as I can get right now. Its possible that Ahab is actually not a corrective to Nietzsche’s moral philosophy… hmmm
Besides that though, the portraits of the universe or reality in Moby Dick and Nietzsche are still very similar…
Okay, I’m going to think more about this, come up with some more terse answers, and I’ll get back to you