Moby-Dick is contemporarily relevant philosophically

The argument

While being a narrative at its heart, "Moby-Dick" is also a philosophical work. Among the many chapters describing the main plot of the story are chapters describing various facets of the whaling industry. In fact, one of the main criticisms of Melville's magnum opus are such diversions from the plot. But these prove to be just as rewarding as the main story if given the time and thought. For example, the chapter "Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish" does nothing to forward the plot of the story. But this chapter considers in whaling terms the idea of property and what one really possesses. Melville ties in politics, slavery, religion, and more, while not straying too far from the narrative of the story. Or, when considering Ahab himself in tandem with the time period "Moby-Dick" was written in, many consider the novel to be a critique of the contemporary transcendentalists. Emerson's "Self-Reliance" details the necessity for individuality and to avoid conformity. Melville took this idea to its extremes with Captain Ahab in his pursuit of revenge against the White Whale. Ahab's monomania and refusal to concede his individual quest ultimately lead to disastrous consequences. In addition to considering themes of the past, Melville also looks forward to the future. Written before the abolition of slavery in America, Melville considers the morality of slavery and racial dynamics as a whole. His philosophical witticisms are just as pertinent today as one imagines they might have been one-hundred fifty years ago. So although "Moby-Dick" is not a strictly philosophical work, there is no doubt that there is much philosophical value in the novel.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Although the novel does contain some philosophy, the rare philosophical gems do not make the book worth reading as a whole. Scattered between onerous and long-winded passages on seemingly nothing, Melville's points on philosophy in no way make up for the drone of the rest of the novel. The philosophical chapters are perhaps Melville at his worst–pretentious, ungraspable, and lacking any true meaning.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise argues from content alone: that a chapter concerns property, politics and religion establishes that the book raises those subjects, not that what it says about them still repays the reading. The counter contests exactly this, and the argument answers only by asserting that the digressions are rewarding if given time and thought. [Rejecting P2] The transcendentalist reading is one interpretation among several and is presented here as established. Ahab has been read as a critique of individualism, of monomaniacal industry, of the Puritan will and of American expansion, and the novel's relation to Emerson is disputed among critics — so an argument resting on a single reading inherits that reading's contestability. [Rejecting P3] The claim about slavery and race is asserted with no account of what the book actually does with them, which is what would make it pertinent now. The conclusion also runs into the difficulty the counter identifies: if philosophical content were sufficient reason to read a novel, a great many worse novels would qualify, so the case has to rest on the writing rather than on the topics.