Nature (essay)
자연 (수필)
위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.
랠프 왈도 에머슨
자연 ( Nature )은 랠프 월도 에머슨이 지은 수필집으로 제임스 몬로에 의해 1836년에 출판되었다. 이 수필에서 에머슨은 초월주의의 기초를 닦았고, 이러한 체계가 자연에 대한 비전통적인 생각을 가져왔다. 초월주의는 창조주가 자연안에 충만하므로, 자연을 공부함으로 현실을 이해가능하다는 사상이다.
이 수필집에서 에머슨은 자연을 네 가지로 나누었는 데, 그것은 유용한 것(Commodity), 아름다움, 언어와 훈련이다. 이것은 사람이 자연을 그들이 기본적 필요를 따라 사용하는 방법에 따른 차이에 따랐다.
===
 | This article possibly contains original research. (January 2018) |
Nature is an essay written by Ralph Waldo Emerson, published by James Munroe and Company in 1836.[1] In the essay Emerson put forth the foundation of transcendentalism, a belief system that espouses a non-traditional appreciation of nature.[2] Transcendentalism suggests that the divine, or God, suffuses nature, and suggests that reality can be understood by studying nature.[3] Emerson's visit to the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris inspired a set of lectures he later delivered in Boston which were then published.
Within the essay, Emerson divides nature into four usages: Commodity, Beauty, Language and Discipline. These distinctions define the ways by which humans use nature for their basic needs, their desire for delight, their communication with one another and their understanding of the world.[4] Emerson followed the success of Nature with a speech, "The American Scholar", which together with his previous lectures laid the foundation for transcendentalism and his literary career.
Synopsis[edit]
In Nature, Emerson lays out and attempts to solve an abstract problem: that humans do not fully accept nature's beauty. He writes that people are distracted by the demands of the world, whereas nature gives but humans fail to reciprocate. The essay consists of eight sections: Nature, Commodity, Beauty, Language, Discipline, Idealism, Spirit and Prospects. Each section adopts a different perspective on the relationship between humans and nature.
In the essay Emerson explains that to experience the wholeness with nature for which we are naturally suited, we must be separate from the flaws and distractions imposed on us by society. Emerson believed that solitude is the single mechanism through which we can be fully engaged in the world of nature, writing "To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society. I am not solitary whilst I read and write, though nobody is with me. But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars."[5]
When a person experiences true solitude, in nature, it "take[s] him away". Society, he says, destroys wholeness, whereas "Nature, in its ministry to man, is not only the material, but is also the process and the result. All the parts incessantly work into each other's hands for the profit of man. The wind sows the seed; the sun evaporates the sea; the wind blows the vapor to the field; the ice, on the other side of the planet, condenses rain on this; the rain feeds the plant; the plant feeds the animal; and thus the endless circulations of the divine charity nourish man."[6]
Emerson defines a spiritual relationship. In nature a person finds its spirit and accepts it as the Universal Being. He writes: "Nature is not fixed but fluid. Spirit alters, moulds, it. ... Know then that the world exists for you. For you is the phenomenon perfect."[7]
Theme: spirituality[edit]
_-_Cranch,_edit.jpg)
Emerson uses spirituality as a major theme in the essay. Emerson believed in re-imagining the divine as something large and visible, which he referred to as nature; such an idea is known as transcendentalism, in which one perceives a new God and a new body, and becomes one with his or her surroundings. Emerson confidently exemplifies transcendentalism, stating, "From the earth, as a shore, I look out into that silent sea. I seem to partake its rapid transformations: the active enchantment reaches my dust, and I dilate and conspire with the morning wind",[8] postulating that humans and wind are one. Emerson referred to nature as the "Universal Being"; he believed that there was a spiritual sense of the natural world around him. Depicting this sense of "Universal Being", Emerson states, "The aspect of nature is devout. Like the figure of Jesus, she stands with bended head, and hands folded upon the breast. The happiest man is he who learns from nature the lesson of worship".[9]
According to Emerson, there were three spiritual problems addressed about nature for humans to solve: "What is matter? Whence is it? And Whereto?"[10] What is matter? Matter is a phenomenon, not a substance; rather, nature is something that is experienced by humans, and grows with humans' emotions. Whence is it and Whereto? Such questions can be answered with a single answer, nature's spirit is expressed through humans, "Therefore, that spirit, that is, the Supreme Being, does not build up nature around us, but puts it forth through us", states Emerson.[11] Emerson clearly depicts that everything must be spiritual and moral, in which there should be goodness between nature and humans.[12]
Influence[edit]
Nature was controversial to some. One review published in January 1837 criticized the philosophies in Nature and disparagingly referred to the beliefs as "Transcendentalist", coining the term by which the group would become known.[13]
Henry David Thoreau had read Nature as a senior at Harvard College and took it to heart. It eventually became an essential influence for Thoreau's later writings, including his seminal Walden. In fact, Thoreau wrote Walden after living in a cabin on land that Emerson owned. Their longstanding acquaintance offered Thoreau great encouragement in pursuing his desire to be a published author.[14]
References[edit]
- ^ Nature. Boston: James Munroe and Company. 1836. Retrieved February 3, 2018 – via Internet Archive.
- ^ Liebman, Sheldon W. “Emerson, Ralph Waldo.” The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Literature. Ed. Jay Parini. Oxford University Press, 2004. Web.
- ^ “Transcendentalism.” The Oxford Dictionary of English. 2010. Web.
- ^ Emerson, Ralph Waldo. "Nature". The Oxford Companion to American Literature. Ed. James D. Hart. Rev. Philip W. Leininger. Oxford University Press, 1995. Web.
- ^ Nature, Chapter I, "Nature."
- ^ Nature, Chapter II, "Commodity."
- ^ Nature, Chapter VIII, "Prospects."
- ^ Nature, Chapter III, "Beauty."
- ^ Nature, Chapter VII, "Spirit."
- ^ Nature, Chapter VII, "Spirit."
- ^ Nature, Chapter VII, "Spirit."
- ^ Baym, Nina, Wayne Franklin, Philip F. Gura, and Arnold Krupat. The Norton Anthology of American Literature.
- ^ Hankins, Barry. The Second Great Awakening and the Transcendentalists. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004: 24. ISBN 0-313-31848-4
- ^ Reidhead, Julia. "Henry David Thoreau", The Norton Anthology of American Literature. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008. 825-828. Print.
External links[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
- "Nature" at emerson central
- "Nature" by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1836) at Oregon State University
Nature public domain audiobook at LibriVox
| hide | ||
|---|---|---|
| Speeches |
|  |
| Poetry |
| |
| Essays |
| |
| Essay collections |
| |
Related
Rev. William Emerson (father)
Edward Waldo Emerson (son)
Mary Moody Emerson (aunt)
Ezra Ripley (stepfather)
The Atlantic
Correspondence with Carlyle
"Letter to Martin Van Buren"
Ralph Waldo Emerson House
The Old Manse
Transcendentalism
Transcendental Club
Concord Museum
Nature
by
3.80 · Rating details · 4,773 ratings · 338 reviews
Together in one volume, Ralph Waldo Emerson's Nature and Henry David Thoreau's Walking, writing that defines our distinctly American relationship to nature. (less)
Hardcover, 160 pages
Published December 1st 1985 by Beacon Press (MA) (first published 1836)
Feb 11, 2021Ruby Granger rated it really liked it
A charming essay (as is usually the case with Emerson -- I much prefer his essays to his poetry actually).
This essay is split into eight sections, and each of which provides a new way of looking at nature. Emerson illustrates his points with natural images, and his sentence structure is lyrical which makes it an enjoyable read.
I picked this up because this essay is known for its construction of the Romantic Child as a point of innocence.
This essay is split into eight sections, and each of which provides a new way of looking at nature. Emerson illustrates his points with natural images, and his sentence structure is lyrical which makes it an enjoyable read.
I picked this up because this essay is known for its construction of the Romantic Child as a point of innocence.
i would like to meet one (1) person who understands any of this.
there’s some good one liners that i agree with, but most of this book just sounded like a crackhead conspiracy theorist standing on a street corner and yelling WE ARE ALL A TRANSLUCENT EYE THAT CONNECTS US TO THE SPIRIT OF THE UNIVERSE like wut......
far too philosophical and spiritual for me. i much prefer works about the sublime.
there’s some good one liners that i agree with, but most of this book just sounded like a crackhead conspiracy theorist standing on a street corner and yelling WE ARE ALL A TRANSLUCENT EYE THAT CONNECTS US TO THE SPIRIT OF THE UNIVERSE like wut......
far too philosophical and spiritual for me. i much prefer works about the sublime.
Emerson's essay Nature pretty much defeated me. I read Self-Reliance years ago and was incredibly impressed and inspired, but although I think Nature was included in the little volume I still have up in Arizona, I don't remember reading it at the time. So when I had the opportunity to include this in a challenge, I was looking forward to reading what Emerson had to say.
But although at times I thought I was just about to grasp his ideas so that I could say "Eureka, I see what you are saying!" it usually happened that the point he was making slithered away before I could interpret it properly. This is not Emerson's fault, but my own. I am a bit fuzzy-brained these days, and that state does not mix well with this type of reading.
I did come close enough to a few points to either agree, disagree, or wonder if I was reading correctly. Such as when Emerson seems to be saying that Nature has value only in when it relates to Man in some way. Here is an example of this: "The instincts of the ant are very unimportant, considered as the ant's; but the moment a ray of relation is seen to extend from it to man, and the little drudge is seen to be a monitor, a little body with a mighty heart, then all its habits, even that said to be recently observed, that it never sleeps, become sublime."
That was the final sentence of a long paragraph where I was beginning to wonder about my abilities to understand anything. To me the instincts and habits of an ant are sublime because they are the
instincts and habits of an ant, not because of how they relate to man. We have to understand and appreciate that every being, plant or animal, is simply being itself. Whether Man is involved or not should make no difference in how we view an ant or any creature in Nature. We need to see and appreciate the world around us for its own sake only, not for what we can take from it.
I want to read this again someday when I am better able to think in a sharper manner. I do like the following quote, though.....and believe it or not, I even understood it!
"The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common."
(less)
But although at times I thought I was just about to grasp his ideas so that I could say "Eureka, I see what you are saying!" it usually happened that the point he was making slithered away before I could interpret it properly. This is not Emerson's fault, but my own. I am a bit fuzzy-brained these days, and that state does not mix well with this type of reading.
I did come close enough to a few points to either agree, disagree, or wonder if I was reading correctly. Such as when Emerson seems to be saying that Nature has value only in when it relates to Man in some way. Here is an example of this: "The instincts of the ant are very unimportant, considered as the ant's; but the moment a ray of relation is seen to extend from it to man, and the little drudge is seen to be a monitor, a little body with a mighty heart, then all its habits, even that said to be recently observed, that it never sleeps, become sublime."
That was the final sentence of a long paragraph where I was beginning to wonder about my abilities to understand anything. To me the instincts and habits of an ant are sublime because they are the
instincts and habits of an ant, not because of how they relate to man. We have to understand and appreciate that every being, plant or animal, is simply being itself. Whether Man is involved or not should make no difference in how we view an ant or any creature in Nature. We need to see and appreciate the world around us for its own sake only, not for what we can take from it.
I want to read this again someday when I am better able to think in a sharper manner. I do like the following quote, though.....and believe it or not, I even understood it!
"The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common."
(less)
Apr 27, 2018Sarah Booth rated it it was ok · review of another edition
Emerson was an ADD/ADHD nightmare in his writing style. I found myself having to reread sentences/paragraphs a lot. This was read directly after reading Thoreau’s Walden so perhaps I am not being fair to him. Thoreau’s direct and clear writing contrasted Emerson’s and I felt I needed Emerson to define his capitalized words like Mind, Nature etc to make sure we were on the same page so to speak. Emerson’s style reminded me a lot of Mary Baker Eddy.
There were some interesting ideas but I had to read it twice and found it more exhausting than enlightening personally. I fear I shall have to read it again to get much from it. I will try some of his other works to give the man a fair shake. It’s the least I can do. (less)
There were some interesting ideas but I had to read it twice and found it more exhausting than enlightening personally. I fear I shall have to read it again to get much from it. I will try some of his other works to give the man a fair shake. It’s the least I can do. (less)
Jul 04, 2015Duane rated it liked it · review of another edition
This is an important work for Emerson, it defined him and how he viewed his fellow man and the world around him, especially the natural world. But it was difficult to read for me because of the style and of the time and place it was written. This intellectual and philosophical language from the early 19th century was just outside my ability to fully appreciate it's message.
Memorable quote: "Infancy is the perpetual Messiah, which comes into the arms of fallen men, and pleads with them to return to Paradise". Emerson (less)
Memorable quote: "Infancy is the perpetual Messiah, which comes into the arms of fallen men, and pleads with them to return to Paradise". Emerson (less)
Fascinating!
This essay by Emerson takes up about 56 of this little book's pages, and I feel like I could write about 100 pages on it.
Written in 1836, it's interesting that Emerson starts off with how the current generation never got to face nature at its most pure, that was a task their forefathers got to experience. You know, they had it easy in 1836!
Sometimes he has a thought merging Nature, Man and Spirit that is simple, in sentence structure anyway, and I have to read it several times to come to an understanding with it, other times, a more lengthy discourse seems vaguely comprehensible.
Sometimes I want to blame the 1830s syntax, but most of the time the writing has stood the test of time, so maybe that is not a good excuse.
A few years ago I read Thoreau's 'America' and found it full of similar compelling precepts and ideas. Like 'America', I'm going to read parts of this one over, maybe I'll feel smarter. (less)
This essay by Emerson takes up about 56 of this little book's pages, and I feel like I could write about 100 pages on it.
Written in 1836, it's interesting that Emerson starts off with how the current generation never got to face nature at its most pure, that was a task their forefathers got to experience. You know, they had it easy in 1836!
Sometimes he has a thought merging Nature, Man and Spirit that is simple, in sentence structure anyway, and I have to read it several times to come to an understanding with it, other times, a more lengthy discourse seems vaguely comprehensible.
Sometimes I want to blame the 1830s syntax, but most of the time the writing has stood the test of time, so maybe that is not a good excuse.
A few years ago I read Thoreau's 'America' and found it full of similar compelling precepts and ideas. Like 'America', I'm going to read parts of this one over, maybe I'll feel smarter. (less)
This is my first Emerson and it was great. The basic idea is that unlike modern dualistic view of the universe, for Emerson matter and spirit are one, so admiring nature is like admiring Jesus Christ, they both give a spiritual feeling.
Emerson loves nature and he expresses this love in such a beautiful peotic way. Nature for Emerson is a manifestation of God (or God himself, it really depends on your interpretation of the book).
I loved the chapter on nature and language, it was a beautiful (re)discovery of words and idioms derived from nature. (less)
Emerson loves nature and he expresses this love in such a beautiful peotic way. Nature for Emerson is a manifestation of God (or God himself, it really depends on your interpretation of the book).
I loved the chapter on nature and language, it was a beautiful (re)discovery of words and idioms derived from nature. (less)
I had it for a school assignment. This is far from something I would personally choose to read on a foggy Monday on Nov.
Basically, it all comes down to the "man" and how he can change whatever if he puts his mind too it. (while other themes were sprinkled over the frosting, that were related to nature as a system and man as projection of a god like being).
Instagram\\my Blog\\
...more
Basically, it all comes down to the "man" and how he can change whatever if he puts his mind too it. (while other themes were sprinkled over the frosting, that were related to nature as a system and man as projection of a god like being).
Instagram\\my Blog\\
...more
Jun 14, 2013booklady rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
“In wildness is the preservation of the world.” ~Thoreau
NATURE: After listening to Professor Arnold Weinstein’s 3 lectures on Emerson from Classics of American Literature (The Great Courses) I listened to this essay on LibriVox, a free resource which has many audio recordings of books in the public domain. I was very grateful for Weinstein’s preliminary explanation although I still found myself ‘at sea’ so-to-speak when it came to many of the classical and contemporary references and metaphors. Still the writing is sublime and Emerson illustrates the canvas of imagination with his vocabulary. Even when challenged, my senses were bathed, soothed and massaged by the lyrical descriptions in the text. Emerson is a delight to listen to (thank you LibriVox!) and I am so grateful to have encountered him, Nature and a new perspective on Nature.
WALKING by Thoreau might just as easily be called ‘Nature’. He considered it his introductory work, essential to understanding everything else he wrote. For Thoreau, walking is an Art, as necessary to Mind and Spirit as Body. From this essay we may gather, walking for pleasure was not a common practice in Concorde of the 1850s; most probably the average person not having the leisure for it. He expresses rare sympathy for women of that time when he writes about their lack of access to getting out of doors on a regular basis: “How womankind, who are confined to the house still more than men, stand it I do not know; but I have ground to suspect that most of them do not stand it at all.” Thoreau’s real passion is to be out in nature—moving the body—which translates into walking. As he elaborates, we learn that where we walk (fields and woods), how often we walk (almost every day) and direction of travel (nothing so mundane as a destination but rather going east for history and west for freedom) are the essentials to be considered when walking in nature.
Back in Thoreau's day Americans were too busy earning a living to walk as he suggested. Now most people are too caught up in competitive sports, expensive Disneyland vacations and the more-is-better mentality to appreciate his message. More’s the pity.
(less)
NATURE: After listening to Professor Arnold Weinstein’s 3 lectures on Emerson from Classics of American Literature (The Great Courses) I listened to this essay on LibriVox, a free resource which has many audio recordings of books in the public domain. I was very grateful for Weinstein’s preliminary explanation although I still found myself ‘at sea’ so-to-speak when it came to many of the classical and contemporary references and metaphors. Still the writing is sublime and Emerson illustrates the canvas of imagination with his vocabulary. Even when challenged, my senses were bathed, soothed and massaged by the lyrical descriptions in the text. Emerson is a delight to listen to (thank you LibriVox!) and I am so grateful to have encountered him, Nature and a new perspective on Nature.
WALKING by Thoreau might just as easily be called ‘Nature’. He considered it his introductory work, essential to understanding everything else he wrote. For Thoreau, walking is an Art, as necessary to Mind and Spirit as Body. From this essay we may gather, walking for pleasure was not a common practice in Concorde of the 1850s; most probably the average person not having the leisure for it. He expresses rare sympathy for women of that time when he writes about their lack of access to getting out of doors on a regular basis: “How womankind, who are confined to the house still more than men, stand it I do not know; but I have ground to suspect that most of them do not stand it at all.” Thoreau’s real passion is to be out in nature—moving the body—which translates into walking. As he elaborates, we learn that where we walk (fields and woods), how often we walk (almost every day) and direction of travel (nothing so mundane as a destination but rather going east for history and west for freedom) are the essentials to be considered when walking in nature.
Back in Thoreau's day Americans were too busy earning a living to walk as he suggested. Now most people are too caught up in competitive sports, expensive Disneyland vacations and the more-is-better mentality to appreciate his message. More’s the pity.
(less)
Oct 10, 2016Liam rated it it was ok
This actually had some really nice quotes and thoughts but it just didn't really grab my interest. (less)
My favorite quotes: "These enchantments are medicinal, they sober and heal us."
"Cities give not the human senses room enough."
"Nature is loved by what is best in us." (less)
"Cities give not the human senses room enough."
"Nature is loved by what is best in us." (less)
"The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common."
Emerson's cadence and poetic influences add a pleasing finish to the tone of this essay. Despite the name of the piece, the author seems every bit as preoccupied with the supernatural as he is the natural. (I'd maintain that, from certain perspectives, the interchangeability and additional layer of wonderment does make sense.) Emerson isn't shy about his spiritual perspective. And that perspective clearly influences his ability to pan out and take reverent note of both the vast and the minute.
"To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which shall never be seen again."
I wasn't prepared to find so many poignant quotes. I also wasn't expecting to find Emerson's commentary quite so thought-provokingly beautiful.
Favorite Quotes:
"A man is a god in ruins."
"Words are finite organs of the infinite mind."
"An action is the perfection and publication of thought." (less)
Emerson's cadence and poetic influences add a pleasing finish to the tone of this essay. Despite the name of the piece, the author seems every bit as preoccupied with the supernatural as he is the natural. (I'd maintain that, from certain perspectives, the interchangeability and additional layer of wonderment does make sense.) Emerson isn't shy about his spiritual perspective. And that perspective clearly influences his ability to pan out and take reverent note of both the vast and the minute.
"To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which shall never be seen again."
I wasn't prepared to find so many poignant quotes. I also wasn't expecting to find Emerson's commentary quite so thought-provokingly beautiful.
Favorite Quotes:
"A man is a god in ruins."
"Words are finite organs of the infinite mind."
"An action is the perfection and publication of thought." (less)
May 14, 2016Adnan rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Shelves: a-favorite-books, y-2016, zphilosophy, y-2018, a-secret-delights, a-gems
This is probably the best thing I have read in my life. I will review it later this week.
The third reading renders it much much more magical. In two consecutive years, it has not lost one spark of intensity and brilliance.
The third reading renders it much much more magical. In two consecutive years, it has not lost one spark of intensity and brilliance.
Mar 03, 2014Rupertt Wind rated it it was amazing
Its poetry, pure unadulterated poetry of nature.
Feb 15, 2015Tomek rated it it was ok
This was an uneven book. The beginning and the end are easy to read and thought provoking, while the middle is dense and obtuse. These essays are Emerson's attempts to understand why nature is valuable and what our relationship to nature should be. This is a lofty and noble goal, but I think he ultimately fell short.
He starts off by stating his premise: that being in nature gives humans unparallelled peace and happiness. He then grapples with to the reasons behind this truth in subsequent chapters. However, this is where the train seems to go off track. Emerson's writing style becomes difficult to follow and academic. The essay becomes a philosophical treatise. Unfortunately, many of his arguments are flawed, but that would not necessarily make this book less enjoyable if it wasn't so convoluted. Emerson writes philosophy like a poet. He tries to turn logic into flowery prose, which, rather than elevating his premises, renders them opaque. He tries to right the ship at the end by bringing it back to his original point and explaining how we should relate to nature in simple terms, but it is too little, too late for me.
I also took some umbrage with Emerson's ideas as well. On the one hand, Emerson, like other transcendentalists, tries to convince people that the mechanistic worldview of industrial society, wherein nature has only utilitarian value as a commodity, is flawed and vulgar. However, he does not seem to believe that the dualism, the separation, between humans an nature upon which industrial consumer culture is predicated, is a problem. In fact, he seems to view it as inherent and critical to restore equilibrium in the world. It is our place, he argues, to dominate nature. He may see us as the "stewards of Creation" of Genesis. Thus, while he believes that it is wrong to dominate nature because we see it as property and a resource, there seems to be no problem in dominating it with respect in wonder. Humans are the pinnacle of evolution and so it is our role to dominate nature. But to dominate implies submission and inequality, if not outright abuse, which hardly sounds like the making of a healthy loving relationship. I do not believe it is possible to mend our relationship with nature and truly love it without first addressing and eliminating the separation between us and it. We are equal players in the drama of life on earth, not some higher observers.
Even though Emerson sees beauty in nature as being a more valuable than its raw resources, he seems to think that the value of this beauty is not intrinsic. It is only valuable insomuch that it inspires and serves as a backdrop to human creation and greatness. We humans are still the main purpose, the teleological end of the natural world in his eyes.
I first though it ironic that Emerson called native peoples, who lived as a part of nature rather than apart from nature, savages. However, I now see it as being demonstrative of his view that the separation between humans and nature to be essential and the natural result of evolution. Thus, he sees them as lesser beings because they still use nature directly and do not separate themselves from it. While Emerson suggests that nature is not just a resource to be used but a reflection of and imbued with God's divinity, he also does not believe that has value beyond that. Thus, nature is only valuable because it is imbued with spiritual meaning which we assign. Again, this likely a product of his religious background. This notion again conflicts with the worldviews of many indigenous cultures. While they too believed that the natural world was imbued with spiritual meaning, it was also valuable intrinsically. This world was not a steppingstone to a better, higher spiritual realm. Thus, it was not something that could be abused and commodified.
I suppose that I need to view this work within the contexts of Emerson's time. Nature was still largely seen as a dangerous wild place that was to be subdued and put to productive use. It was the age of mechanization and industrialization. 80% of New England's forests were felled and the western border of the young nation was spreading westward as its citizens' hunger for resources grew. Thus, Emerson's view of unmanaged natural landscapes as being beautiful, wondrous places that could provide love, affection, and inspiration was probably pretty revolutionary for the time. Furthermore, his belief that humans are above nature is probably a function of his background in Judeo-Christian religion, whose Great Chain of Being establishes the hierarchy of Creation.
Finally, I take issue with his last chapter as a scientist. He claims that empirical science is an imperfect lens through which to view the world and will never allow us to fully comprehend it. Although I agree with his premise, I disagree with the conclusion, which is that poetry and art is a better method of interpreting our place and purpose. Physical science and the arts are two equally valid ways of understanding Creation. Why do we need to choose one? Science deals with fact and art with truth. Both our essential to our survival and well-being. Emerson says that the "half-sight of science," is not enough to allow us to fully see and appreciate the splendor of nature. I tend to agree, though I would also say that art is also a "half-sight." We need both lenses, a pair of bifocals if I may, to truly understand the world. Without fact we cannot survive in this world and without truth, I would not care to.
Well, you caught me rambling. In short, I did not particularly enjoy this book. However, it did make me think deeply about my relationship to nature, so I suppose it served its purpose in that sense.
P.S. I find it mildly amusing that Emerson identifies the concept of different types of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulation, supporting, and cultural) in his chapter on Commodity long before the concept became accepted in ecological science. He also seems to hint at descent with modification in the Discipline chapter about a quarter century before Darwin's The Origin of the Species was published...
(less)
He starts off by stating his premise: that being in nature gives humans unparallelled peace and happiness. He then grapples with to the reasons behind this truth in subsequent chapters. However, this is where the train seems to go off track. Emerson's writing style becomes difficult to follow and academic. The essay becomes a philosophical treatise. Unfortunately, many of his arguments are flawed, but that would not necessarily make this book less enjoyable if it wasn't so convoluted. Emerson writes philosophy like a poet. He tries to turn logic into flowery prose, which, rather than elevating his premises, renders them opaque. He tries to right the ship at the end by bringing it back to his original point and explaining how we should relate to nature in simple terms, but it is too little, too late for me.
I also took some umbrage with Emerson's ideas as well. On the one hand, Emerson, like other transcendentalists, tries to convince people that the mechanistic worldview of industrial society, wherein nature has only utilitarian value as a commodity, is flawed and vulgar. However, he does not seem to believe that the dualism, the separation, between humans an nature upon which industrial consumer culture is predicated, is a problem. In fact, he seems to view it as inherent and critical to restore equilibrium in the world. It is our place, he argues, to dominate nature. He may see us as the "stewards of Creation" of Genesis. Thus, while he believes that it is wrong to dominate nature because we see it as property and a resource, there seems to be no problem in dominating it with respect in wonder. Humans are the pinnacle of evolution and so it is our role to dominate nature. But to dominate implies submission and inequality, if not outright abuse, which hardly sounds like the making of a healthy loving relationship. I do not believe it is possible to mend our relationship with nature and truly love it without first addressing and eliminating the separation between us and it. We are equal players in the drama of life on earth, not some higher observers.
Even though Emerson sees beauty in nature as being a more valuable than its raw resources, he seems to think that the value of this beauty is not intrinsic. It is only valuable insomuch that it inspires and serves as a backdrop to human creation and greatness. We humans are still the main purpose, the teleological end of the natural world in his eyes.
I first though it ironic that Emerson called native peoples, who lived as a part of nature rather than apart from nature, savages. However, I now see it as being demonstrative of his view that the separation between humans and nature to be essential and the natural result of evolution. Thus, he sees them as lesser beings because they still use nature directly and do not separate themselves from it. While Emerson suggests that nature is not just a resource to be used but a reflection of and imbued with God's divinity, he also does not believe that has value beyond that. Thus, nature is only valuable because it is imbued with spiritual meaning which we assign. Again, this likely a product of his religious background. This notion again conflicts with the worldviews of many indigenous cultures. While they too believed that the natural world was imbued with spiritual meaning, it was also valuable intrinsically. This world was not a steppingstone to a better, higher spiritual realm. Thus, it was not something that could be abused and commodified.
I suppose that I need to view this work within the contexts of Emerson's time. Nature was still largely seen as a dangerous wild place that was to be subdued and put to productive use. It was the age of mechanization and industrialization. 80% of New England's forests were felled and the western border of the young nation was spreading westward as its citizens' hunger for resources grew. Thus, Emerson's view of unmanaged natural landscapes as being beautiful, wondrous places that could provide love, affection, and inspiration was probably pretty revolutionary for the time. Furthermore, his belief that humans are above nature is probably a function of his background in Judeo-Christian religion, whose Great Chain of Being establishes the hierarchy of Creation.
Finally, I take issue with his last chapter as a scientist. He claims that empirical science is an imperfect lens through which to view the world and will never allow us to fully comprehend it. Although I agree with his premise, I disagree with the conclusion, which is that poetry and art is a better method of interpreting our place and purpose. Physical science and the arts are two equally valid ways of understanding Creation. Why do we need to choose one? Science deals with fact and art with truth. Both our essential to our survival and well-being. Emerson says that the "half-sight of science," is not enough to allow us to fully see and appreciate the splendor of nature. I tend to agree, though I would also say that art is also a "half-sight." We need both lenses, a pair of bifocals if I may, to truly understand the world. Without fact we cannot survive in this world and without truth, I would not care to.
Well, you caught me rambling. In short, I did not particularly enjoy this book. However, it did make me think deeply about my relationship to nature, so I suppose it served its purpose in that sense.
P.S. I find it mildly amusing that Emerson identifies the concept of different types of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulation, supporting, and cultural) in his chapter on Commodity long before the concept became accepted in ecological science. He also seems to hint at descent with modification in the Discipline chapter about a quarter century before Darwin's The Origin of the Species was published...
(less)
Jun 20, 2021Vanshi rated it it was ok
Transcendentalism has never been my cup of tea. Here, there are some good ideas, but there are also a lot of ideas I disliked. I didn't find myself particularly fascinated by anything, although there are multiple quotes that are pretty. I definitely found some flaws. My main reason of distaste was from how Emerson relies on religion. Christianity, of course. I want to be clear that being Christian and religious in general is by no means bad. I'm just looking at Emerson's lack of variety in his reasoning. I, as an atheist, find it difficult to connect to transcendentalism because of this main idea of using nature to transcend to God. The aforementioned excessively Christian reasoning and inconscise writing lowered my rating tremendously.
I will say that the "Idealism" chapter reminded me of Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel. Emerson definitely saw a "Truth", and those other two men did too. This made it easier to connect transcendentalism to Idealism. Criticism of epiricism immediately reminded me of David Hume. The point here is that Nature is easily connectable to early philosophers of Western Europe, which makes complete sense for American philosophy is deeply influenced by that subcontinent. That is definitely the most fascinating part of this essay rather than the actual ideas within.
P.S.
What's interesting is that I came across Idealism by trying to study Giovanni Gentile. That man was in Mussolini's cabinet and is considered the father of fascism. Hegel influenced Gentile and Marx in two very, very different ways. The conclusion here is that Hegel and Kant are incredibly abstract and difficult to decipher. I mean, communism and fascism are historically juxtaposed to each other!
The true conclusion, however, is that you wasted your time by reading Vanshi's excessively dense review. (less)
I will say that the "Idealism" chapter reminded me of Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel. Emerson definitely saw a "Truth", and those other two men did too. This made it easier to connect transcendentalism to Idealism. Criticism of epiricism immediately reminded me of David Hume. The point here is that Nature is easily connectable to early philosophers of Western Europe, which makes complete sense for American philosophy is deeply influenced by that subcontinent. That is definitely the most fascinating part of this essay rather than the actual ideas within.
P.S.
What's interesting is that I came across Idealism by trying to study Giovanni Gentile. That man was in Mussolini's cabinet and is considered the father of fascism. Hegel influenced Gentile and Marx in two very, very different ways. The conclusion here is that Hegel and Kant are incredibly abstract and difficult to decipher. I mean, communism and fascism are historically juxtaposed to each other!
The true conclusion, however, is that you wasted your time by reading Vanshi's excessively dense review. (less)
Another reread for me and though I joke with my students about the kumbaya-esque nature here, there's something within this piece that reminds us all we are too rushed to notice. Maybe because I grew up somewhere I could see the stars, where I fell asleep to the sound of the crickets and peepers (sooo loud sometimes) rather than the sounds of sirens and broken bottles I hear now that I connected with this so deeply. Maybe it was just the current need for serenity and to rethink what it means to be in this world, but Emerson had a far stronger impact on me now than the many times I read this before... (less)
Jan 10, 2018Illiterate rated it did not like it · review of another edition
Pantheistic twaddle. Stentorian proclamations are neither evidence nor argument.
Mar 07, 2022Joshua rated it liked it
Like the stanforths, RWE is a unitarian king. He struggles to blend enlightenment rationalism with his theology and his romanticism. These three key aspects separate him from puritan environmental thinkers and the later secular romantics (emerson fanboy John Muir is understood better after reading Nature. This was dense and hard to follow but I am glad I read it and its work putting three gruelling hours into. You might see nature differently, theres a chance I will.
Aug 24, 2009Nicholas Armstrong rated it did not like it
Emerson opens this treatise on life with powerful, captivating words, "Our age is retrospective." From here he launches into assaults on all of the assembled histories and beliefs of man and asking 'why not WE' should have advantages that our ancestors had; such as discovering philosophy, religion or the secrets of the universe - and then he goes exactly against such sentiments.
The introduction to Nature is marvelous. The opening paragraph is an argumentative essays dream and the supporting paragraphs build higher and higher until my expectations were such that I didn't know what could support them.
The initial chapters are good, no, they are great. I say this because they emphasize things I do and I found Emerson to be both convincing and intelligent. His prose is beautiful his metaphors outstanding and everything seemed perfect. Until chapter IV.
Chapter IV is the first chapter that to me, began to lose its steam and change its heading. I'm curious to know how long it took Emerson to complete Nature and when he began it; I know at some point he lost both a wife and a son and I'm curious if any other important events could have brought about the sudden change in the text and message. It is not that this chapter is significantly worse than the others, but that it begins to steep itself so deeply in sophistry and rhetoric that I was checking to make sure I was reading the same author. It is here that he begins to ramble, to construct enormously long sentences that touch on so many subjects that the following sentence can hardly be deemed coherent. When reading a passage about nature, outer creation, inner creation, and beauty, it is confusing when the next sentence simply says 'it'; which 'it' does it refer? What exactly are we discussing in this sentence Emerson?
I wish that obscurity and confusion were the worst things that began to plague Nature but it just isn't so. In the midst of reading sentences like, "Whilst now it is the gymnastics of the understanding, it is hiving the foresight of the spirit, experience in profounder laws." Emerson begins to expound on god.
It is safe to say that I hate reading expositions on god and fanaticism of the subject but it is much worse when it comes from a source I once trusted. Chapters V-VIII begin a journey that had no mention in the previous chapters or opening, which is one of religion and conversion. Gone are Emerson's whimsical statements of discovering truth for oneself and discovering one's own religion and they are replaced by praise of god and Christianity.
The fact that Emerson is religious doesn't bother me. The fact that he uses subversion to trick and try to coerce his readers into his beliefs does bother me. He explicitly violates many of the precedences he states in his opening with seemingly no concern or regard, and yet, this is not the worst of his offenses. Emerson is not satisfied with simply proselytizing his audience, but then begins a systematic attack on science. Not a particular science, no, all of science.
Now I have read the numerous poets and writers who expound on the importance of poetry and the poetic soul and I tend to agree, I am first and foremost a lover of words and literature. I don't think a poet is better than a scientist, however. I don't think a poet has some keen insight into the world that real sciences don't - that would be remarkably arrogant and presumptuous of me - but it doesn't stop Emerson. Like foolish poets in the past Emerson begins to expound on the unrivaled magnificence of poetry, the magnanimous contribution to the greater soul of the world that it has put forth. It is an art all its own, unrivaled by science or any other form, he claims. But is that enough? No. Emerson has the audacity, the sheer ignorance to claim that science not only does not expand the mind, but hinders it!
"Empirical science is apt to cloud the sight,"
"A guess is often more fruitful than an indisputable affirmation,"
For the remainder of his essay Emerson continues to decry the sciences while promoting his own viewpoints in a way that I can only describe as vile, despicable, and offensive. Never before have I read an intellectual treatise that actually condemns intellect and learning.
Emerson is not a mind to be looked up to but one to be denounced for ever having populated literature with such ignorance as he flaunts in his final chapters. You should have stopped at the first couple chapters Emerson. For shame. (less)
The introduction to Nature is marvelous. The opening paragraph is an argumentative essays dream and the supporting paragraphs build higher and higher until my expectations were such that I didn't know what could support them.
The initial chapters are good, no, they are great. I say this because they emphasize things I do and I found Emerson to be both convincing and intelligent. His prose is beautiful his metaphors outstanding and everything seemed perfect. Until chapter IV.
Chapter IV is the first chapter that to me, began to lose its steam and change its heading. I'm curious to know how long it took Emerson to complete Nature and when he began it; I know at some point he lost both a wife and a son and I'm curious if any other important events could have brought about the sudden change in the text and message. It is not that this chapter is significantly worse than the others, but that it begins to steep itself so deeply in sophistry and rhetoric that I was checking to make sure I was reading the same author. It is here that he begins to ramble, to construct enormously long sentences that touch on so many subjects that the following sentence can hardly be deemed coherent. When reading a passage about nature, outer creation, inner creation, and beauty, it is confusing when the next sentence simply says 'it'; which 'it' does it refer? What exactly are we discussing in this sentence Emerson?
I wish that obscurity and confusion were the worst things that began to plague Nature but it just isn't so. In the midst of reading sentences like, "Whilst now it is the gymnastics of the understanding, it is hiving the foresight of the spirit, experience in profounder laws." Emerson begins to expound on god.
It is safe to say that I hate reading expositions on god and fanaticism of the subject but it is much worse when it comes from a source I once trusted. Chapters V-VIII begin a journey that had no mention in the previous chapters or opening, which is one of religion and conversion. Gone are Emerson's whimsical statements of discovering truth for oneself and discovering one's own religion and they are replaced by praise of god and Christianity.
The fact that Emerson is religious doesn't bother me. The fact that he uses subversion to trick and try to coerce his readers into his beliefs does bother me. He explicitly violates many of the precedences he states in his opening with seemingly no concern or regard, and yet, this is not the worst of his offenses. Emerson is not satisfied with simply proselytizing his audience, but then begins a systematic attack on science. Not a particular science, no, all of science.
Now I have read the numerous poets and writers who expound on the importance of poetry and the poetic soul and I tend to agree, I am first and foremost a lover of words and literature. I don't think a poet is better than a scientist, however. I don't think a poet has some keen insight into the world that real sciences don't - that would be remarkably arrogant and presumptuous of me - but it doesn't stop Emerson. Like foolish poets in the past Emerson begins to expound on the unrivaled magnificence of poetry, the magnanimous contribution to the greater soul of the world that it has put forth. It is an art all its own, unrivaled by science or any other form, he claims. But is that enough? No. Emerson has the audacity, the sheer ignorance to claim that science not only does not expand the mind, but hinders it!
"Empirical science is apt to cloud the sight,"
"A guess is often more fruitful than an indisputable affirmation,"
For the remainder of his essay Emerson continues to decry the sciences while promoting his own viewpoints in a way that I can only describe as vile, despicable, and offensive. Never before have I read an intellectual treatise that actually condemns intellect and learning.
Emerson is not a mind to be looked up to but one to be denounced for ever having populated literature with such ignorance as he flaunts in his final chapters. You should have stopped at the first couple chapters Emerson. For shame. (less)
Sep 17, 2014Ana rated it it was ok · review of another edition
I like Emerson's writing, but this feels to my modern eyes repetitive. These theme of praising nature and encouraging understanding the world through nature are so deeply engrained in our culture that the essay comes off as simplistic compared to the scientific essays I love to read. I like the section on idealism most, but the rest were just okay. That this idea of nature is so widespread must to be Emerson's credit since he brought Transcendentalism into the mainstream, but I have not studied the movement. Maybe once I know the historical context I'll like it more. I hear that Classics of American Literature (The Great Courses) has a great course on that so after I'm done with that, I'll come back to this essay. (less)
Nov 28, 2016Rachel Nicole Wagner rated it really liked it
Shelves: favorites, read-for-college-classes
I absolutely love the correlation and connection that Emmerson makes to nature throughout this beautiful piece of literature.
Love this.
xo,
Rach
Love this.
xo,
Rach
Aug 22, 2019S61 rated it did not like it · review of another edition
Literally my least favorite thing I’ve ever read. Didn’t hold my attention for more than half a second.
Feb 16, 2022Stephanie Froebel rated it liked it · review of another edition
I have been enticed by the idea of Emerson ever since I was assigned to act like him for an AP US History project. Then, in AP Lit, we delved into excerpts in "Self Reliance" to compare to E.M. Forster's A Room with a View. From then on, it has been on my utmost priority to read the full "Self Reliance" essay.
Now I have been on the lookout for many months, searching for the perfect edition to read—font not too small and paper texture just right. The options were limited, especially since Emerson is not an overwhelmingly popular author to hold on the shelves, but alas, on a visit to a COFFEE SHOP in the Inlet, NY (Adirondacks), I found my perfect edition. And this edition also came with two bonus essays: "Nature" and "History."
"Nature" was a strong essay detailing Emerson's ideal relationship humans should have with nature. I enjoyed many parts of this essay, but at times lost in his phrasing and continual emphasis on "savages." Maybe during Emerson's time "savages" was a common phrase towards those people, but it certainly does not make it any more right. For a writer to have such profound cognitive thought and sympathy towards nature, I am sure Emerson could have the capacity to realize "savages" is not the most appropriate term (also maybe the connotations have changed with time... I am not sure).
"History" was fine— short and to the point. His main idea is that history is everpresent and changes depending on who is interpreting it, again coming back to the significant role of the individual. He makes some strong points, arguing that how we label history often blinds us to a completely different side of the past (human-centric vs. nature-centric).
But alas, the essay I have been eyeing for many moons now: "Self-Reliance." I honestly do not understand why this essay does not get as much publicity as "Nature." Maybe it's because it is so short or that "Self Reliance" is deemed less good (which I would completely disagree with). This essay would get 4.75/5 stars from me. Emerson speaks facts every other line and genuinely makes some novel points that I think more people should read and consider (especially applying to our own lives). This essay is also one of his more easy reads compared to the other two. The language is not too difficult so his messages is clearly articulated. Seriously, this is the essay for some POWERFUL quotes.
BUT! Am I biased? Most definitely. I
will say "Self Reliance" isn't perfect. I don't fully agree with everything Emerson has to say (which is not a bad thing—it's actually better that I don't fully agree to what he says or that would make his words hardly important or different enough to matter and put into text.
So overall, reading Emerson has been an insightful experience. Close-reading his works are definitely worth the time and I definitely will be coming back to his essays—some parts are like the atheist Bible (though does he believe in a God? I cannot be certain either way)—which would actually be counterproductive to everything Emerson has to say (being self-reliant and independent in thought and action). I definitely recommend giving his work a read, especially "Self Reliance." AND if you ever plan on reading A Room with a View, definitely check out that essay since the book is a big Emerson allusion (which is super cool and amazing and directly connects to central ideas from this essay—BEAUTIFUL!!). (less)
Now I have been on the lookout for many months, searching for the perfect edition to read—font not too small and paper texture just right. The options were limited, especially since Emerson is not an overwhelmingly popular author to hold on the shelves, but alas, on a visit to a COFFEE SHOP in the Inlet, NY (Adirondacks), I found my perfect edition. And this edition also came with two bonus essays: "Nature" and "History."
"Nature" was a strong essay detailing Emerson's ideal relationship humans should have with nature. I enjoyed many parts of this essay, but at times lost in his phrasing and continual emphasis on "savages." Maybe during Emerson's time "savages" was a common phrase towards those people, but it certainly does not make it any more right. For a writer to have such profound cognitive thought and sympathy towards nature, I am sure Emerson could have the capacity to realize "savages" is not the most appropriate term (also maybe the connotations have changed with time... I am not sure).
"History" was fine— short and to the point. His main idea is that history is everpresent and changes depending on who is interpreting it, again coming back to the significant role of the individual. He makes some strong points, arguing that how we label history often blinds us to a completely different side of the past (human-centric vs. nature-centric).
But alas, the essay I have been eyeing for many moons now: "Self-Reliance." I honestly do not understand why this essay does not get as much publicity as "Nature." Maybe it's because it is so short or that "Self Reliance" is deemed less good (which I would completely disagree with). This essay would get 4.75/5 stars from me. Emerson speaks facts every other line and genuinely makes some novel points that I think more people should read and consider (especially applying to our own lives). This essay is also one of his more easy reads compared to the other two. The language is not too difficult so his messages is clearly articulated. Seriously, this is the essay for some POWERFUL quotes.
BUT! Am I biased? Most definitely. I
will say "Self Reliance" isn't perfect. I don't fully agree with everything Emerson has to say (which is not a bad thing—it's actually better that I don't fully agree to what he says or that would make his words hardly important or different enough to matter and put into text.
So overall, reading Emerson has been an insightful experience. Close-reading his works are definitely worth the time and I definitely will be coming back to his essays—some parts are like the atheist Bible (though does he believe in a God? I cannot be certain either way)—which would actually be counterproductive to everything Emerson has to say (being self-reliant and independent in thought and action). I definitely recommend giving his work a read, especially "Self Reliance." AND if you ever plan on reading A Room with a View, definitely check out that essay since the book is a big Emerson allusion (which is super cool and amazing and directly connects to central ideas from this essay—BEAUTIFUL!!). (less)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. If Benedict Spinoza is the rationalist proponent of pantheism, then Emerson is its poetic and aphoristic sage. To be sure, it is not clear from this essay that Emerson was an unadulterated pantheist. Sometimes it seems like he is suggesting God and Nature are the same thing; while, other times, it seems like Emerson is suggesting God exists as a separate Being who communicates to us through Nature.
“There I feel that nothing can befall me in life,— no disgrace, no calamity, (leaving me my eyes,) which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground, — my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, — all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God. The name of the nearest friend sounds then foreign and accidental: to be brothers, to be acquaintances, — master or servant, is then a trifle and a disturbance. I am the lover of uncontained and immortal beauty.”
However, it is clear that Emerson thought nature was capable of great inspiration, the highest in human life. To truly appreciate nature requires us to return to the perspective of a child or to become like an eyeball who sees nature purely without any other interest in the world. Unfortunately many adults have lost this ability. In this state we no longer worry about our small and insignificant problem; we become temporarily one with nature. Our normal course of thoughts and worries are gone. No problem is too big or important anymore.
Likewise, to appreciate nature fully requires solitude. To achieve solitude humans need to leave behind not only society, the big city, or the presence of actual people, but even one’s house, room, and media. When we consume media, even if completely alone, such as books, video games, or Netflix we’re engaging with the thoughts of other people, which is not true solitude alone with only our own thoughts and observations.
“To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society. I am not solitary whilst I read and write, though nobody is with me. But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars. The rays that come from those heavenly worlds, will separate between him and what he touches. One might think the atmosphere was made transparent with this design, to give man, in the heavenly bodies, the perpetual presence of the sublime. Seen in the streets of cities, how great they are! If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown! But every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile.”
Gazing on the stars is like a window into heaven. The sublime feeling that comes with pondering nature in solitude is the closest thing we can experience to the City of God on earth. Nature can change our moods for the better, while our moods and feelings can drastically change our temporary perspective of nature. When we feel sad the aspects of nature that we perceive wear the shape and color of our sadness.
According to Emerson, Nature has four different uses: commodity, Beauty, Language, and Discipline.
1. Commodity refers to the way Nature supports our physical needs and wants.
2. beauty refers to the pleasure nature gives beyond its utility. It includes the delight we take in the appearance and forms of nature such as a beautiful moonlit night or gazing at the stars, but also includes the admiration we feel for the virtuous actions of people and admiring art representing and interpreting nature.
3. Language refers to nature as the source of our language in so far as we created words to be symbols for things out in the world, words to represent things out in nature. It is about representation; words of human speech represent ideas about nature, while nature itself represents the divine and spiritual world behind it.
4. Discipline refers to the deeper moral and intellectual truths we can learn from nature.
Emerson grants a special place for the poet who he considers an interpreter of nature and in which all these aspects of nature come together. Nature is what connects us to spiritual and unseen things, while language allows us to describe our observations of nature. The poet brings these two activities together by using language to express his observations and the deeper spiritual, moral, and intellectual truths hidden behind nature. Since our access to the divine can only come through Nature and poetry is the use of language to express the deeper truths and lessons of nature, the poet is like the modern prophet of our age.
“Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs?”
Emerson sought to give us a new way to experience the world, a new philosophy, and a new religious and spiritual perspective to reflect the changing views of his time and not be beholden to the past. He centered this new way of experiencing the world in our experiences and his observations about Nature. (less)
“There I feel that nothing can befall me in life,— no disgrace, no calamity, (leaving me my eyes,) which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground, — my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, — all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God. The name of the nearest friend sounds then foreign and accidental: to be brothers, to be acquaintances, — master or servant, is then a trifle and a disturbance. I am the lover of uncontained and immortal beauty.”
However, it is clear that Emerson thought nature was capable of great inspiration, the highest in human life. To truly appreciate nature requires us to return to the perspective of a child or to become like an eyeball who sees nature purely without any other interest in the world. Unfortunately many adults have lost this ability. In this state we no longer worry about our small and insignificant problem; we become temporarily one with nature. Our normal course of thoughts and worries are gone. No problem is too big or important anymore.
Likewise, to appreciate nature fully requires solitude. To achieve solitude humans need to leave behind not only society, the big city, or the presence of actual people, but even one’s house, room, and media. When we consume media, even if completely alone, such as books, video games, or Netflix we’re engaging with the thoughts of other people, which is not true solitude alone with only our own thoughts and observations.
“To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society. I am not solitary whilst I read and write, though nobody is with me. But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars. The rays that come from those heavenly worlds, will separate between him and what he touches. One might think the atmosphere was made transparent with this design, to give man, in the heavenly bodies, the perpetual presence of the sublime. Seen in the streets of cities, how great they are! If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown! But every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile.”
Gazing on the stars is like a window into heaven. The sublime feeling that comes with pondering nature in solitude is the closest thing we can experience to the City of God on earth. Nature can change our moods for the better, while our moods and feelings can drastically change our temporary perspective of nature. When we feel sad the aspects of nature that we perceive wear the shape and color of our sadness.
According to Emerson, Nature has four different uses: commodity, Beauty, Language, and Discipline.
1. Commodity refers to the way Nature supports our physical needs and wants.
2. beauty refers to the pleasure nature gives beyond its utility. It includes the delight we take in the appearance and forms of nature such as a beautiful moonlit night or gazing at the stars, but also includes the admiration we feel for the virtuous actions of people and admiring art representing and interpreting nature.
3. Language refers to nature as the source of our language in so far as we created words to be symbols for things out in the world, words to represent things out in nature. It is about representation; words of human speech represent ideas about nature, while nature itself represents the divine and spiritual world behind it.
4. Discipline refers to the deeper moral and intellectual truths we can learn from nature.
Emerson grants a special place for the poet who he considers an interpreter of nature and in which all these aspects of nature come together. Nature is what connects us to spiritual and unseen things, while language allows us to describe our observations of nature. The poet brings these two activities together by using language to express his observations and the deeper spiritual, moral, and intellectual truths hidden behind nature. Since our access to the divine can only come through Nature and poetry is the use of language to express the deeper truths and lessons of nature, the poet is like the modern prophet of our age.
“Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs?”
Emerson sought to give us a new way to experience the world, a new philosophy, and a new religious and spiritual perspective to reflect the changing views of his time and not be beholden to the past. He centered this new way of experiencing the world in our experiences and his observations about Nature. (less)
May 13, 2022·naysayer· rated it liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: philosophy, short, 2022, audiobook
a paper currency is employed, when there is no bullion in the vaults
My enthusiasm climaxed at the beginning of the chapter on language. From then on, I was disappointed to find out the essay takes off to eye-rolling heights of spiritualistic hubris.
Emerson correctly realizes that "words are signs of natural facts". In particular, spiritual concepts unavoidably borrow their names from natural ones:
Every word which is used to express a moral or intellectual fact, if traced to its root, is found to be borrowed from some material appearance. Right means straight; wrong means twisted. Spirit primarily means wind; transgression, the crossing of a line; supercilious, the raising of the eyebrow. We say the heart to express emotion, the head to denote thought; and thought and emotion are words borrowed from sensible things, and now appropriated to spiritual nature. Most of the process by which this transformation is made, is hidden from us in the remote time when language was framed; but the same tendency may be daily observed in children. Children and savages use only nouns or names of things, which they convert into verbs, and apply to analogous mental acts.
Why not take it one step further and conclude that such ideas have no direct representation in language because they have no natural representation at all? I.e. that they're fictions whose existence goes hand in hand with their (arbitrary) linguistic representation? That it doesn't take a corrupt character for "old words [to be] perverted to stand for things which are not", but everyone is liable to fabricate and cling to such simulacra as if there were any gold to back up the banknotes?
I quite enjoyed the bucolic preamble though:
The misery of man appears like childish petulance, when we explore the steady and prodigal provision that has been made for his support and delight on this green ball which floats him through the heavens. [...] The field is at once his floor, his work-yard, his play-ground, his garden, and his bed.(less)
[...]
The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food. In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows. Nature says, -- he is my creature, and maugre all his impertinent griefs, he shall be glad with me. Not the sun or the summer alone, but every hour and season yields its tribute of delight; for every hour and change corresponds to and authorizes a different state of the mind, from breathless noon to grimmest midnight. [...] Yet it is certain that the power to produce this delight, does not reside in nature, but in man, or in a harmony of both.
Apr 24, 2022Paul Williams rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: american, classics, 19th-century, non-fiction
Rating may go up to a five after I've given this some thought.
I first read fragments of Nature in my undergraduate survey of early American literature. While I didn't quite get it at the time, it definitely stuck with me and has percolated over the last decade or so. I find that Emerson's arguments resonate with me--they certainly feel true, even if metaphysical ideas can't really be verified empirically. It's just difficult to keep straight where Emerson ends and either my own preexisting thoughts or ideas from the Doctrine and Covenants begin.
It's easy to see how the Sage of Concord--as Emerson was called in his day--is one of the most indispensable and foundational writers of the American tradition. Born after the Constitution was ratified, Emerson is our first significant man of letters for whom the United States was always a reality. In this essay he does not directly address questions of nationhood, but he is clearly digging into questions that will become major aspects of the American ethos. While you can see ideas that will later be taken up by Melville and, I suppose, Twain, I feel like ideas from this essay stretch down to the present day. Consider this quote from Nature:
"The reason why the world lacks unity, and lies broken and in heaps, is, because man is disunited with himself. He cannot be a naturalist, until he satisfies all the demands of the spirit."
Now compare that with this quote from Ursula K. Le Guin's 1968 novel, A Wizard of Earthsea:
“Ged had neither lost nor won but, naming the shadow of his death with his own name, had made himself whole: a man: who, knowing his whole true self, cannot be used or possessed by any power other than himself, and whose life therefore is lived for life's sake and never in the service of ruin, or pain, or hatred, or the dark.”
Fortunately, Emerson is a generous writer and so when his ideas pop up elsewhere they are prime for expansion and recontextualization, rather than overshadowing or weakening the newer text.
Emerson is also a remarkably lucid writer with a very clean writing style. There are some 19th century writing conventions that pop up, such as long sentences and the occasional archaism, and there are some 19th century attitudes that will raise an eyebrow for a modern reader, most especially brief moments when Emerson subordinates the non-human world to human will, which is quite at odds with the rapidly growing environmental orthodoxy of our era. However, in this regard I feel Emerson is definitely pretty typical of his era and, in fact, probably still more on the side of Nature than the majority of post-Enlightenment thinkers and writers. My point is that Emerson is readable and rational, and that's super valuable, even if you don't find him fully agreeable.
Bottom line, I recommend this essay. It's long enough that it'll take some time to get through, but much shorter than what you'll get from lots of other philosophers. And, if you come at it with an open mind, there's a lot, and I do mean a LOT, of really cool stuff that I think is legitimately healthy for the mind and for the spirit. (less)
I first read fragments of Nature in my undergraduate survey of early American literature. While I didn't quite get it at the time, it definitely stuck with me and has percolated over the last decade or so. I find that Emerson's arguments resonate with me--they certainly feel true, even if metaphysical ideas can't really be verified empirically. It's just difficult to keep straight where Emerson ends and either my own preexisting thoughts or ideas from the Doctrine and Covenants begin.
It's easy to see how the Sage of Concord--as Emerson was called in his day--is one of the most indispensable and foundational writers of the American tradition. Born after the Constitution was ratified, Emerson is our first significant man of letters for whom the United States was always a reality. In this essay he does not directly address questions of nationhood, but he is clearly digging into questions that will become major aspects of the American ethos. While you can see ideas that will later be taken up by Melville and, I suppose, Twain, I feel like ideas from this essay stretch down to the present day. Consider this quote from Nature:
"The reason why the world lacks unity, and lies broken and in heaps, is, because man is disunited with himself. He cannot be a naturalist, until he satisfies all the demands of the spirit."
Now compare that with this quote from Ursula K. Le Guin's 1968 novel, A Wizard of Earthsea:
“Ged had neither lost nor won but, naming the shadow of his death with his own name, had made himself whole: a man: who, knowing his whole true self, cannot be used or possessed by any power other than himself, and whose life therefore is lived for life's sake and never in the service of ruin, or pain, or hatred, or the dark.”
Fortunately, Emerson is a generous writer and so when his ideas pop up elsewhere they are prime for expansion and recontextualization, rather than overshadowing or weakening the newer text.
Emerson is also a remarkably lucid writer with a very clean writing style. There are some 19th century writing conventions that pop up, such as long sentences and the occasional archaism, and there are some 19th century attitudes that will raise an eyebrow for a modern reader, most especially brief moments when Emerson subordinates the non-human world to human will, which is quite at odds with the rapidly growing environmental orthodoxy of our era. However, in this regard I feel Emerson is definitely pretty typical of his era and, in fact, probably still more on the side of Nature than the majority of post-Enlightenment thinkers and writers. My point is that Emerson is readable and rational, and that's super valuable, even if you don't find him fully agreeable.
Bottom line, I recommend this essay. It's long enough that it'll take some time to get through, but much shorter than what you'll get from lots of other philosophers. And, if you come at it with an open mind, there's a lot, and I do mean a LOT, of really cool stuff that I think is legitimately healthy for the mind and for the spirit. (less)
This is poetry in the purest sense of the word. It shines a glorious light on the absolutely beautiful, imaginative, and thoughtful mind of Emerson.
There was so much in this essay to think about, and deconstruct. But overall, my biggest takeaway was the lovely realization that we are a part of something wonderful here on earth. We are surrounded by creation. We are surrounded by something much bigger than ourselves... which is also entirely ourselves.
Emerson says it best,
“We cannot bandy words with Nature, or deal with her as we deal with persons. If we measure our individual forces against hers we may easily feel as if we were the sport of an insuperable destiny. But if, instead of identifying ourselves with the work, we feel that the soul of the workman streams through us, we shall find the peace of the morning dwelling first in our hearts, and the fathomless powers of gravity and chemistry, and, over them, of life, preexisting within us in their highest form.”
There was another bit that really stood out to me in regard to the craving for nature in her truest sense:
“It is an odd jealousy, but the poet finds himself not near enough to his object. The pine-tree, the river, the bank of flowers before him, does not seem to be nature. Nature is still elsewhere. This or this is but outskirt and far-off reflection and echo of the triumph that has passed by and is now at its glancing splendor and heyday, perchance in the neighboring fields, or, if you stand in the field, then in the adjacent woods. The present object shall give you this sense of stillness that follows a pageant which has just gone by. What splendid distance, what recesses of ineffable pomp and loveliness in the sunset! But who can go where they are, or lay his hand or plant his foot thereon? Off they fall from the round world forever and ever. It is the same among the men and women as among the silent trees; always a referred existence, an absence, never a presence and satisfaction. Is it that beauty can never be grasped? in persons and in landscape is equally inaccessible? The accepted and betrothed lover has lost the wildest charm of his maiden in her acceptance of him. She was heaven whilst he pursued her as a star: she cannot be heaven if she stoops to such a one as he.”
I have found in my life that there always is a desire deep within my heart, for a beauty, a love, an adventure, even a life, which I cannot grasp. I think that this desire is within us all. I think we are really all searching for the same thing. Something that cannot really be found here, and now. But we can catch glimpses of it in nature. We can feel it maybe for the briefest moments when we are in tune with the Spirit. I think that Emerson really understood that there is something much bigger than ourselves taking place on this earth. But I think he also understood that we are a true part of it. And that fact is quite exciting, and honestly pretty down right magical when you think about it.💚
(less)
There was so much in this essay to think about, and deconstruct. But overall, my biggest takeaway was the lovely realization that we are a part of something wonderful here on earth. We are surrounded by creation. We are surrounded by something much bigger than ourselves... which is also entirely ourselves.
Emerson says it best,
“We cannot bandy words with Nature, or deal with her as we deal with persons. If we measure our individual forces against hers we may easily feel as if we were the sport of an insuperable destiny. But if, instead of identifying ourselves with the work, we feel that the soul of the workman streams through us, we shall find the peace of the morning dwelling first in our hearts, and the fathomless powers of gravity and chemistry, and, over them, of life, preexisting within us in their highest form.”
There was another bit that really stood out to me in regard to the craving for nature in her truest sense:
“It is an odd jealousy, but the poet finds himself not near enough to his object. The pine-tree, the river, the bank of flowers before him, does not seem to be nature. Nature is still elsewhere. This or this is but outskirt and far-off reflection and echo of the triumph that has passed by and is now at its glancing splendor and heyday, perchance in the neighboring fields, or, if you stand in the field, then in the adjacent woods. The present object shall give you this sense of stillness that follows a pageant which has just gone by. What splendid distance, what recesses of ineffable pomp and loveliness in the sunset! But who can go where they are, or lay his hand or plant his foot thereon? Off they fall from the round world forever and ever. It is the same among the men and women as among the silent trees; always a referred existence, an absence, never a presence and satisfaction. Is it that beauty can never be grasped? in persons and in landscape is equally inaccessible? The accepted and betrothed lover has lost the wildest charm of his maiden in her acceptance of him. She was heaven whilst he pursued her as a star: she cannot be heaven if she stoops to such a one as he.”
I have found in my life that there always is a desire deep within my heart, for a beauty, a love, an adventure, even a life, which I cannot grasp. I think that this desire is within us all. I think we are really all searching for the same thing. Something that cannot really be found here, and now. But we can catch glimpses of it in nature. We can feel it maybe for the briefest moments when we are in tune with the Spirit. I think that Emerson really understood that there is something much bigger than ourselves taking place on this earth. But I think he also understood that we are a true part of it. And that fact is quite exciting, and honestly pretty down right magical when you think about it.💚
(less)
May 22, 2017Frances rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Shelves: non-fiction, classics, social-studies, san-francisco, historical
For a tiny set of 3 essays, this took me a surprisingly long time to finish reading. It was sort of like reading/watching Shakespeare- you have to snap into reading it, which means you have to be in the flow of reading. I found myself re-reading sections, because I'd reach the end of the page and realize I hadn't absorbed anything.
That being said, when I WAS snapped in I loved it. I don't necessarily agree with everything he believed, but much of that could be because he wrote this in the 1840s. The idea that this was quintessentially American because it proposed the idea of going for a walk in the woods delights me.
I think the more I reread this, the more I'll get out of it and I like the idea he wrote it like that on purpose. His ideas are ones you sit with and think about, and it's good to foster that behavior in myself. (less)
That being said, when I WAS snapped in I loved it. I don't necessarily agree with everything he believed, but much of that could be because he wrote this in the 1840s. The idea that this was quintessentially American because it proposed the idea of going for a walk in the woods delights me.
I think the more I reread this, the more I'll get out of it and I like the idea he wrote it like that on purpose. His ideas are ones you sit with and think about, and it's good to foster that behavior in myself. (less)
Dense. Compact. Thoughtful. Insightful.
So why only 3 Stars. Lack of Clarity. Emerson did highlight his focus: Let us inquire to what end is nature. Yet I passed that focus twice. I had read past half-way point when I realized, after reading an rereading, that Emerson was simply describing various aspects of Nature and some of those aspects would be somewhat repeated.
I read this Emerson selection with a group. I move on to another selection: "Ode, Inscribed to W. H. Channing" (less)
So why only 3 Stars. Lack of Clarity. Emerson did highlight his focus: Let us inquire to what end is nature. Yet I passed that focus twice. I had read past half-way point when I realized, after reading an rereading, that Emerson was simply describing various aspects of Nature and some of those aspects would be somewhat repeated.
I read this Emerson selection with a group. I move on to another selection: "Ode, Inscribed to W. H. Channing" (less)
Sep 10, 2018 02:39AM · flag
Sep 10, 2018 10:08AM · flag
Sep 11, 2018 11:26PM · flag
Sep 15, 2018 07:53PM · flag
Jun 12, 2019 11:24PM · flag
ok thanks for your comment, taylor ...more
Jun 13, 2019 02:26PM · flag
Jun 13, 2019 05:33PM · flag
Jun 13, 2019 07:18PM · flag
Jun 14, 2019 04:59PM · flag
so work about the "sublime" is... not philosophical or spiritual? ...more
Sep 28, 2019 11:36AM · flag
Jan 19, 2020 10:58AM · flag
Jan 19, 2020 01:03PM · flag
Jan 19, 2020 01:06PM · flag
your comment sends and i lo ...more
Jan 20, 2020 09:21AM · flag
Jan 21, 2020 09:18AM · flag
This ...more
Apr 07, 2020 03:28PM · flag
Aug 26, 2020 07:13AM · flag