Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Our first week's reading is Emerson's essay "The Transcendentalist." It was given as a lecture (he was a prolific lecturer, giving over 1,500 lectures, many of which he later turned into essays) at the Masonic Temple in Boston in January, 1842, when he was 39 years old.

It can be found here:

http://www.emersoncentral.com/transce...

or another copy maybe (or maybe not) easier to read here:

http://transcendentalism-legacy.tamu....

Definitely easier to read (and download) here:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/e/emer...

Other essays by Emerson:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/e/emer...

Everyman wrote: "... in January, 1842, when he was 39 years old.
.."

Emerson was born on May 25, 1803. So he was 38 when he gave the lecture. (I detect some youthful enthusiasm throughout.)

When was his last lecture?

I guess I will dig in first.

I wanted to read this first essay cold turkey, without reading a bunch of excess material about transcendentalism. I was curious what would strike me. The cursory knowledge I brought to the essay was something like, "Transcendentalism was a movement that was a reaction against the Enlightenment. It focusednon intuition instead of scientific method or logic". If that is incorrect, or if any of my following questions can be answered by reading the encyclopedia entry on it, then please feel free to refer me elsewhere. :-)

" The light is always identical in its composition, but it falls on a great variety of objects, and by so falling is first revealed to us, not in its own form, for it is formless, but in theirs; in like manner, thought only appears in the objects it classifies."

I love this illustration. I guess the "light" he is referring to is philosophy? Or is it somthing else?

Right off the bat, I was reminded of Plato (as Thomas said). "I — this thought which is called I, — is the mould into which the world is poured like melted wax. The mould is invisible, but the world betrays the shape of the mould. You call it the power of circumstance, but it is the power of me." This is straight from the wax analogy from Timaeus, is it not?

The essay as a whole struck me as descriptive rather than a defense, or argument for transcendentalism. At first, this bothered me. Where were his arguments for his way of thinking?! :D I suppose this reveals the impression of my culture of Enlightenment in me. I also suppose it would be contrary to a Transcendentalist to provide arguments since they rely on inuition and not logic? (If that definition is even correct....)

This also struck me.:

"In action, he easily incurs the charge of antinomianism by his avowal that he, who has the Lawgiver, may with safety not only neglect, but even contravene every written commandment."

This is followed by:
"Shall we say, then, that Transcendentalism is the Saturnalia or excess of Faith; the presentiment of a faith proper to man in his integrity, excessive only when his imperfect obedience hinders the satisfaction of his wish."

I feel like I am missing something here, that I am not understanding how he is using these terms. First, he speaks almost as if under transcendentalism, the individual has no law to obey (antinomianism). Does he mean within the realm of religion or in general? As in, an individual is "free" in a way that a Jew, who must follow the law of Moses is not? Or that the individual is free in some sort of absolute way? And if so, how can he speak of obedience, imperfect or otherwise, if he believes there is no law to follow?

Genni wrote: "I guess the "light" he is referring to is philosophy? Or is it something else?..."

I'm probably taking it too literally, but I read "light" as "lightwaves" -- i.e., those wavelengths of light that are reflected from objects and that the brain perceives as objects. But, is such light truly "formless"?

Lily wrote: ".those wavelengths of light that are reflected from objects and that the brain perceives as objects. But, is such light truly "formless"? "

Light, as wave-particle, is as formless as it gets. :)

Lily wrote: "Genni wrote: "I guess the "light" he is referring to is philosophy? Or is it something else?..."

I'm probably taking it too literally, but I read "light" as "lightwaves" -- i.e., those wavelengths..."

I see. Well, he opens by talking about "old" and "new" thought and follows it with the light comment so that is why I thought he was using it as a metaphor.

I guess if I am to answer whether or not light is formless, we would have to define exactly what we mean by "form"... in true Platonic fashion. :D

Genni wrote: "how can he speak of obedience, imperfect or otherwise, if he believes there is no law to follow?"

Good question.

The Transcendentalist "has", but is not, "the Lawgiver", so there is still obedience to the Lawgiver, whatever that is.

Nemo wrote: "Genni wrote: "how can he speak of obedience, imperfect or otherwise, if he believes there is no law to follow?"

Good question.

The Transcendentalist "has", but is not, "the Lawgiver", so there i..."

If there is a Lawgiver, then there is a law to be given, right? So how can there be obedience to one without obedience to the other? Or am I getting it all wrong?

He may "contravene every written commandment" which is external to him, but still obey the command within him, for instance, his conscience (a la Kant), or some inspiration.

Nemo wrote: "He may "contravene every written commandment" which is external to him, but still obey the command within him, for instance, his conscience (a la Kant), or some inspiration."

The antecedent of your "he", Nemo? The Lawgiver? Or whomever is or is not being "obedient"? Or...

Genni wrote: "I guess if I am to answer whether or not light is formless, we would have to define exactly what we mean by "form"... in true Platonic fashion. :D ..."

Sounds reasonable to me, Genni! And I'm not about to try that one, for something that we today describe sometimes as a wave, sometimes as a quantum or particle, sometimes as polarized, sometimes as ...!

Genni wrote: "If there is a Lawgiver, then there is a law to be given, right? So how can there be obedience to one without obedience to the other? Or am I getting it all wrong? "

The sense I get is that the Lawgiver is Nature. If we act in accordance with Nature, then we do not need laws. People will naturally do the right thing without the assistance of laws. This assumes that what is natural is the Good. It's similar to the idea in Plato that healthy and reasonable people will act in accordance with the Good, because the Good is what all people desire. The problem that arises in Plato is that unhealthy, unreasoning people sometimes desire what is not good due to a cloudy understanding of what the good really is.

Socrates demonstrates how to locate the Good through a process of reasoning, but I'm not sure yet if Emerson thinks reason is necessary. So far it seems that he believes people are good by nature, and they only deviate from that goodness by failing to obey the natural Lawgiver within. (Thinking ahead a little bit.... if the natural Lawgiver is not consistent, reason will not only be unnecessary, it could turn out to be an impediment.)

Lily wrote: "The antecedent of your "he", Nemo? The Lawgiver? Or whomever is or is not being "obedient"? "

"He" is the Idealist / Transcendentalist that Emerson is describing in this essay. I haven't figured out who or what exactly "the Lawgiver" is yet.

The essay seems to start to drift halfway through, as if Emerson was transferring his focus from his audience to his own inner thoughts, and consequently the second half of the essay is not as engaging as the first. Either that or my attention span has become terribly short.

Genni wrote: "Lily wrote: "Genni wrote: "I guess the "light" he is referring to is philosophy? Or is it something else?..."

I'm probably taking it too literally, but I read "light" as "lightwaves" -- i.e., thos..."

I took "light" to be a metaphor for Idealism. Light by itself has no form, but you can see it reflect off of whatever it illuminates. He seems to be implying that Idealism is formless without the context of its time in history and Idealism in the context of 1842 takes the form of Transcendentalism. I think he spells it out later when he says:

"This way of thinking, falling on Roman times, made Stoic philosophers; falling on despotic times, made patriot Catos and Brutuses;. . .and falling on Unitarian and commercial times, makes the peculiar shades of Idealism which we know. "

So this reading struck a chord in my younger self. reminded of a poem I used to enjoy very much. Before I get to the criticisms that my adult self has, I just wanted to reconnect for a moment:

I always looked up to the ones who walked away
Choosing themselves over preset ways
Of looking at a future that had no room
For the questions they lived for
Always knew I never could have walked away myself
My self worth was beyond any help
And I didn't care to test against
The rejection I had seen before

But those I loved so much they underwent this change
They're working forty hours, they got caught in the game

Like junkies running dry
The vulnerability
Like junkies running dry
They're always there on time
Like junkies running dry
We're never satisfied
Like junkies running dry

This wonderful generosity
A third of our lives to do what we please
Doesn't look that great to me
It doesn't even really look fair
They call it youthful idealism
And even I would have to agree with them
But some of us grow up
And it's still there

I grow up too slow, I don't wanna go
I grow up too slow, I don't wanna go

But now I'm working just like everyone else
But I'll get out, I'll get out of here!

Ok, so actually it's a song, but I've always thought of it more as a poem. The band was called Operation Ivy & a lot of their stuff was intensely idealistic like this. Anyway, I hadn't thought about them in years. But I was hearing this in my head while reading this week's selection.

My older self will return tomorrow to dig into all this a bit more critically.

"But ask him why he believes that an uniform experience will continue uniform, or on what grounds he founds his faith in his figures, and he will perceive that his mental fabric is built up on just as strange and quaking foundations as his proud edifice of stone."

Is Emerson exploiting Hume's problem of induction here, and if so, is it fair or unfair? Is he rejecting materialism by claiming it is deficient in providing certainty in all things or just trying to exploit this lack of certainty in all things to claim there must be something more or higher?

David wrote: ""But ask him why he believes that an uniform experience will continue uniform, or on what grounds he founds his faith in his figures, and he will perceive that his mental fabric is built up on just..."

I think Emerson is saying that, the objective "facts", from which the materialists claim to derive their certainty, originate and end in the consciousness of man, and therefore are just as "subjective" as anything else. Why do they believe what is true today will continue to be true tomorrow? Why do they believe the axioms that cannot be proven?

Nemo wrote: ".The essay seems to start to drift halfway through, as if Emerson was transferring his focus from his audience to his own inner thoughts, and consequently the second half of the essay is not as engaging as the fi."

If we are thinking of the same part of the essay, then I thought so also. When he starts talking about the "hermit" he sounds alternately panegyrical and critical. Who is he talking to?? Himself? Other transcendentalists? (Can we shorten transcendentalist to "T" or something...) or transcendentalists who take the idealism too far??

Lily wrote: "Genni wrote: "I guess if I am to answer whether or not light is formless, we would have to define exactly what we mean by "form"... in true Platonic fashion. :D ..."

Sounds reasonable to me, Genni..."

:D

Thomas wrote: "Genni wrote: "If there is a Lawgiver, then there is a law to be given, right? So how can there be obedience to one without obedience to the other? Or am I getting it all wrong? "

The sense I get is that the Lawgiver is Nature. If we act in accordance with Nature, then we do not need laws. People will naturally do the right thing without the assistance of laws. This assumes that what is natural is the Good. It's similar to the idea in Plato that healthy and reasonable people will act in accordance with the Good, because the Good is what all people desire. The problem that arises in Plato is that unhealthy, unreasoning people sometimes desire what is not good due to a cloudy understanding of what the good really is.

Socrates demonstrates how to locate the Good through a process of reasoning, but I'm not sure yet if Emerson thinks reason is necessary. So far it seems that he believes people are good by nature, and they only deviate from that goodness by failing to obey the natural Lawgiver within. (Thinking ahead a little bit.... if the natural Lawgiver is not consistent, reason will not only be unnecessary, it could turn out to be an impediment.) ."

I was thinking about the possibility of the Lawgiver as nature. But I went back and reread the essay and this stuck out to me.

"From this transfer of the world into the consciousness, this beholding of all things in the mind, follow easily his whole ethics. It is simpler to be self-dependent. The height, the deity of man is, to be self-sustained, to need no gift, no foreign force. Society is good when it does not violate me; but best when it is likest to solitude. Everything real is self-existent. Everything divine shares the self-existence of Deity."

He talks about the deity of man and then the divine sharing in that deity. So he is connecting this law within with deity??? Albeit a rather generic deity....

When he talks abot the mould and melted wax, it seems he is saying that deity is in everything and that deity is good, therefore everyone is good. So I think you are right about him thinking people are good by nature, since the deity is within.

"Do not cumber yourself with fruitless pains to mend and remedy remote effects; let the soul be erect, and all things will go well."

This made me think of existentialism. And I wondered if transcendentalism was kind of like idealism+existentialism??

I should add: I don't think existentialism was a full blown philosophy at this time. But I was wondering if maybe Emerson read Kierkegaard. :-)

Genni wrote: "When he starts talking about the "hermit" he sounds alternately panegyrical and critical. Who is he talking to?? Himself? Other transcendentalists? "

I think he's talking about the Transcendentalist character in general, but my first thought went to Thoreau, who was living in Emerson's household at the time he delivered this lecture. (Thoreau was working as Emerson's gardener.)

Genni wrote: ""But I was wondering if maybe Emerson read Kierkegaard. :-)..."

Emerson (1803–1882)
Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Comment from Wiki entry casts doubt, unless Emerson read Danish: "Kierkegaard's writings were written in Danish and were initially limited to Scandinavia, but by the turn of the 20th century, his writings were translated into major European languages, such as French and German. By the mid-20th century, his thought exerted a substantial influence on philosophy,[16] theology,[17] and Western culture.[18]"

This lecture was 1842. "On 29 September 1841, Kierkegaard wrote and defended his dissertation,'On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates.'" Either/Or was published in 1943.

Still, like your question, Genni, and will be curious to hear the overlaps you perceive.

Genni wrote: "If we are thinking of the same part of the essay, then I thought so also. When he starts talking about the "hermit" he sounds alternately panegyrical and critical. Who is he talking to?? ..."

Yes, Emerson spends the entire second half of the essay justifying the lifestyle of the "hermit", playing the parts of both critics and apologetics. It makes me wonder whether a man can really be his own worst critic. For the arguments presented here are not as incisive as they can be, imo.

Kyle wrote: "Ok, so actually it's a song, but I've always thought of it more as a poem. The band was called Operation Ivy & a lot of their stuff was intensely idealistic like this. Anyway, I hadn't thought about them in years."

Hee hee. Operation Ivy. I thought that sounded familiar...

Thomas wrote: "Genni wrote: "When he starts talking about the "hermit" he sounds alternately panegyrical and critical. Who is he talking to?? Himself? Other transcendentalists? "

I think he's talking about the T..."

Thanks for that tidbit! That puts it a little more in perspective.

Lily wrote: "Genni wrote: ""But I was wondering if maybe Emerson read Kierkegaard. :-)..."

Emerson (1803–1882)
Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Comment from Wiki entry casts doubt, unless Emerson read Danish: "Kierkeg..."

Thanks for doing the leg-work on that, Lily! I knew they were contemporaries, but did not know when Kierkegaard's writings were translated, so I guess I was off-base with that idea. :-)

Nemo wrote: "Genni wrote: "If we are thinking of the same part of the essay, then I thought so also. When he starts talking about the "hermit" he sounds alternately panegyrical and critical. Who is he talking t..."

Agreed!

Genni wrote: "...I knew they were contemporaries, but did not know when Kierkegaard's writings were translated, so I guess I was off-base with that idea. :-) ..."

I've always had a fascination, at the edges of my curiosity, with near simultaneous discoveries in different parts of the world. I will suggest ideas/philosophies might also be considered "discoveries." It is often not feasible to establish causal relationships, but there is frequently evidence of certain preceding inventions or occurrences or ideas having made the succeeding ones possible.

Emerson begins his lecture by describing Transcendentalism as "the very oldest of thoughts." It seems to me that many reformers seek to pass off their often radical views as rooted in the past.

David wrote: "Emerson begins his lecture by describing Transcendentalism as "the very oldest of thoughts." It seems to me that many reformers seek to pass off their often radical views as rooted in the past."

There is nothing new under the sun, eh? :)

Genni wrote: " I guess the "light" he is referring to is philosophy? Or is it something else?
"

The light comes up again "The Transcendentalist... believes in miracle, in the perpetual openness of the human mind to new influx of light and power; he believes in inspiration, and in ecstasy." So I saw light as miracles that inspire. Sort of, the spark of divine in all nature.

The transcendentalists have a concept of the Over-Soul- which is another Emerson essay. For brevity purposes, I pilfered the following definition of the over-soul from the internet: "a spiritual essence or vital force in the universe in which all souls participate and that therefore transcends individual consciousness" That's what the passages on light brought to my mind.

Everyman wrote: "sometimes the best way to clarify your thoughts for yourself is to try to express them to others."

Great advice, Everyman. Here I go:
The essay begins by asserting that transcendentalism is idealism. Emerson contrasts this idealism with materialism. Materialists, according to Emerson, rely on experience and the world of the senses. Idealists/transcendentalists, on the other hand, understand that our senses are flawed and Truth is something that transcends the senses. “Mind is the only reality, of which men and all other natures are better or worse reflectors.”

In the fifth paragraph Emerson sets up the morality of the transcendentalist. He says, “It is simpler to be self-dependent. The height, the deity of man is to be self-sustained, to need no gift, no foreign force.” Of course, this poses a problem for the role of the transcendentalist individual in society- this is where he launches into the hermit discussion and I sort of started to tune out.

Emerson seems to be illustrating the possibility of achieving a higher morality by transcending what society dictates as morally appropriate. This idea will reappear when we read Civil Disobedience. Though the role of the transcendentalist in society may be difficult, the transcendentalist is open to the miraculous, magnificence of nature that inspires enthusiasm for what is great and holy.

Ashley wrote: "Of course, this poses a problem for the role of the transcendentalist individual in society- this is where he launches into the hermit discussion and I sort of started to tune out. "

Emerson gives his audience a small dose of Transcendental medicine here, and at least three "tune out". :)

This is my first Emerson read, and I have to admit he baffles me. He praises the solitude of the "hermit", and yet, he spends his life touring and lecturing. If this essay is any indication, he often retreats into himself during lectures, thinking out loud before a live audience; and if this group read is any indication, not a small portion of his audience would tune out on the spot. What then is the purpose of his public lectures?

Genni wrote: "This made me think of existentialism. And I wondered if transcendentalism was kind of like idealism+existentialism??"

This article "Overcoming the Oversoul: Emerson's Evolutionary Existentialism" may be of some interest to you. In all fairness, it is kind of long. But the discussion of the Oversoul might touch on some of your deity questions. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche make an appearance :) The link:

http://www.rwe.org/articles/373-overc...

Emerson says "it is simpler to be self-dependent", but that only begs the question of whether it is better to be.

David wrote: "Emerson says "it is simpler to be self-dependent", but that only begs the question of whether it is better to be."

But is it even possible to be truly "self-dependent"?

Setting aside "the deity of man" argument for the moment, where would we be without those who make our clothes, food and shelter, let alone those who pay our bills?

Nemo wrote: "Setting aside "the deity of man" argument for the moment, where would we be without those who make our clothes, food and shelter, let alone those who pay our bills?
"

. . .and who allows people to build cabins near their pond on their land? It seems even people experimenting in self-reliance still need a place to stay :)

"The idealist, in speaking of events, sees them as spirits. He does not deny the sensuous fact: by no means; but he will not see that alone. He does not deny the presence of this table, this chair, and the walls of this room, but he looks at these things as the reverse side of the tapestry, as the other end, each being a sequel or completion of a spiritual fact which nearly concerns him."

How are events seen as spirits? Is this akin to tapping into the mood or excitement of say a sporting event or a music concert?

How do you look at objects from the other end? Is this similar to acknowledging for example that here is a chair made of wood from a tree born from 14 billion years of nature in the universe, harvested by man and fashioned into such by a human craftsman?

David wrote: "who allows people to build cabins near their pond on their land? It seems even people experimenting in self-reliance still need a place to stay :) "

Even then, reliance on the rich provisions of nature isn't really "self-reliance" either.

David wrote: " Is this similar to acknowledging for example that here is a chair made of wood from a tree born from 14 billion years of nature in the universe, harvested by man and fashioned into such by a human craftsman? ."

Something like that. Emerson would take it further and say that the universe itself is fashioned by a craftsman, the Mind.

David wrote: "Quoting Emerson: "The idealist, in speaking of events, sees them as spirits. He does not deny the presence of this table, this chair, and the walls of this room, but he looks at these things as the reverse side of the tapestry, as the other end, each being a sequel or completion of a spiritual fact which nearly concerns him""

I don't really have a handle on what Emerson means by "spirit," but I love the reverse-side-of-the-tapestry image. It seems similar to the shadows in Plato's allegory of the cave. The idealist sees and understands everything that the materialist does, but understands that the sensual is only a shadow of ultimate reality.

I wonder what Emerson would have thought of "The Secret"

David wrote: "I wonder what Emerson would have thought of "The Secret""

Emerson is extraordinarily optimistic, but I hope he draws the line... somewhere.

I haven't read The Secret, but judging by the popularity of the book, I have to say the author sure knows how to exploit the secret, whatever it is, to his/her own advantage. As they say, you can't argue with the results. :)

Genni wrote: I guess the "light" he is referring to is philosophy? Or is it something else?

I understood that sentence as being about the nature of thought. You don't actually "see" light; you only see what it illuminates. In the same way, thoughts are necessarily about things. So as light is revealed in the form of the things it falls on, thoughts are revealed in the form of their objects. So in the metaphor, light is likened to thought, I believe?

I'm with everyone who felt like this started drifting midway through. It was interesting to me that Emerson basically began by saying: There are two kinds of people in this world, materialists and idealists(/transcendentalists). Very universal. But then he got so ridiculously specific about what a transcendentalist is, which felt very exclusionary. How many people could really fit the description he came up with?

Nemo wrote: "...I have to say the author sure knows how to exploit the secret, whatever it is, to his/her own advantage. As they say, you can't argue with the results. :)"

I would suggest we can't argue with Emerson's results either as both have survived about the same test of time. "The Secret" is rooted in the "Law of Attraction" which started appearing within Emerson's lifetime in the 1870's. Does anyone know if this so-called "law" is a result of Transcendentalism or do they both share some other common ancestor of thought of the time?

Sorry if I keep bringing up "the secret", but the materialist in me is recoiling a bit from Emerson's philosophy being delivered with so much woo and so many deepities. It is like reading a physics lecture presented in the form of a sermon, which I suppose is part of the point. Of course, Emerson's woo is a much higher quality than "the secret", but I just can't help but compare them when I read all of this new-age-like "becoming one with the universe/nature" thought going on.

Rachel wrote: "But then he got so ridiculously specific about what a transcendentalist is, which felt very exclusionary. How many people could really fit the description he came up with? "

I find myself hesitating to criticize Emerson because there are so many people that either fit, or try to fit (it is an ideal remember) his description that I am not sure how socially acceptable it is to criticize these days. Has it ironically become the same sort of beyond question dogma that it preaches to challenge?