Classics and the Western Canon discussion

I don't know about you, but I'm not nearly done with The Transcendentalist. But time moves along.

So here we'll start the first of a two week discussion of Emerson's Nature. This is the 1932 long essay/short book, not the later essay contained in the Second Essays. The Nature we want is here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29433

This week we read from the beginning through chapter 4 (Language).

I'm finding it challenging but also very thought-provoking. But I need a bit more maturing of thought before I'm ready to post, so I hope some others are ready now to get the discussion underway!

I included the introduction in my reading. I felt strangely uplifted and humbled at the same time. First he entitles us to be original and break with the "mores" of the past and then we are humbled when reminded that whatever man changes is relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I also wonder at his fine distinctions between common nature and philosophical Nature (with a capital N) and that he included his own body in the things that are "not me". I sense a custom blend of Deism and Stoicism.

I am looking forward to these discussions because I can empathize with one contemporary's opinion, "I find him very inspiring, but I don't understand a word of what he said."

I know we tending to be naturally commenting on the philosophy, but I hope it's okay to say how beautiful I am finding the language. It seems every paragraph as at least on sentence you could chop out and put in a commonplace book.

Coming into this reading I think most of what I thought about Emerson came from the one essay 'Self Reliance'.
I'm thinking especially of the quote:

‘a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines’

and my general sense of him was that he was not interested in consistency or the system, his ethos was basically leave your baggage behind, leave your roles behind, you need to get out of civilization to experience the world and rely on yourself for truth not others. I believed he was interested in inquiry rather than conclusions.

Approaching these works, that are new to me, I was interested whether he himself would be consistent in his philosophy, or whether there would be lots of diversions.

In 'Nature', I was surprised that his writing didn't seem radical at all to me. It seems to come directly from English Romanticism, the kick against utilitarianism, and the cry that the most important things in life are ones that can't be measured.

I am waiting for someone with a more sophisticated knowledge and understanding to correct me :)

Clari wrote: ""In 'Nature', I was surprised that his writing didn't seem radical at all to me. It seems to come directly from English Romanticism, the kick against utilitarianism, and the cry that the most important things in life are ones that can't be measured."

I do not have a more sophisticated knowledge, but I have been reading through some of the resources this morning, and the teacher's guide states explicitly that T was part of the larger movement of Romanticism. I guess your intuition is on track. [g]

David wrote: " I can empathize with one contemporary's opinion, "I find him very inspiring, but I don't understand a word of what he said."

My reaction is the opposite. I understand what he is saying (I've encountered those ideas before, especially in Plato and Plotinus), but unlike those two, I find Emerson strangely uninspiring.

When the Ghost of Christmas Past invited Scrooge to fly out of his bedroom window, he remonstrated, "I'm mortal, and liable to fall". Exactly how I feel reading Emerson at this point. I cannot command stones to turn into bread for me, nor bid the winds to bear me up when I fly, so "abdicate the kingdom" of the universe I must. Let others take the throne who can.

Like Clari, I find Emerson' s language very beautiful, but the huge discrepancy between his Transcendental ideal and the reality I experience prevents me from empathizing with and enjoying his works.

I will take a stab at Chapter 1: Nature
1. True solitude is only found in the contemplation and reverence of the stars and other natural objects.
2. Natural objects are always present.
3. Children are more romantic about natural objects than most adults.
4. We can always delight in nature, despite our circumstance, and we see our mood reflected in nature.
5. In the woods where he feels complete solitude, apart of from all people, judgment, and danger he is only left with the feeling that he is part of God.
6. He feels the bowing of plants in the wind is a nod of acknowledgment to him, and he nods back.
7. He then acknowledges this does not really occur, but is the perception of the man in harmony with nature. An individual's misfortune may cause him to perceive a natural object with bitterness, and nature as a whole will seem diminished when the population as a whole undervalues it.

Question: When Emerson says, ". . .[the stars] light the universe with their admonishing smile." does he mean admonish as in to warn or reprimand, and if so, of what? Or, does he mean admonish as in to advise or urge, and if so, to do what?

I am interested to hear what others have to say about the "transparent eyeball". An unseen see-er (or seer)? Consciousness? Soul? Is that all that is left after everything that is NOT HIM, including his own body (from the introduction), is stripped away?

David wrote: "Question: When Emerson says, ". . .[the stars] light the universe with their admonishing smile." does he mean admonish as in to warn or reprimand, and if so, of what? Or, does he mean admonish as in to advise or urge, and if so, to do what?"

Both. To warn and to urge are like two sides of the same coin, so to speak, for to do something often involves not doing other things. As for "what", it's anyone's guess. I'd say to be confirmed to "the morality of nature" as the stars themselves are.

Genni wrote: "I have been reading through some of the resources this morning, and the teacher's guide states explicitly that T was part of the larger movement of Romanticism. I guess your intuition is on track. "

Do you know any ways that he is different from romanticism? My rather basic view at the moment is that he's just putting in prose form what Wordsworth et al put in poetry?

Clari wrote: "Genni wrote: "I have been reading through some of the resources this morning, and the teacher's guide states explicitly that T was part of the larger movement of Romanticism. I guess your intuition..."

I found this page comparing the two:
http://www.differencebetween.net/misc...

Clari wrote: "Genni wrote: "I have been reading through some of the resources this morning, and the teacher's guide states explicitly that T was part of the larger movement of Romanticism. I guess your intuition..."

I have no idea. I am just trying to put the pieces together. What you said sounds on track to me. I guess his focus is just a bit different. Where the poets or novelists would focus on the individual's experiences, Emerson seems to focus on the more religious aspects of the indiviual.

David wrote: "Clari wrote: "Genni wrote: "I have been reading through some of the resources this morning, and the teacher's guide states explicitly that T was part of the larger movement of Romanticism. I guess ..."

Oh, yay! Excellent.

David wrote: "I found this page comparing the two:
http://www.differencebetween.net/misc........."

Very useful, even though I probably don't find it any more completely understandable than Emerson when I start to parse some of the sentences! Thank you, David.

(I would also probably find useful something that so straight-forwardly compares Romanticism/Transcendentalism with Modernism/Post Modernism.)

Lily wrote: "(I would also probably find useful something that so straight-forwardly compares Romanticism/Transcendentalism with Modernism/Post Modernism.)"

Try comparing this:
The Difference Between Romanticism and Transcendentalism
with this:
The Difference Between Modernism and Postmodernism

David wrote: "Clari wrote: "Genni wrote: "I have been reading through some of the resources this morning, and the teacher's guide states explicitly that T was part of the larger movement of Romanticism. I guess ..."

Thanks for this, David, it's very useful. I wasn't so sure about point one, romanticism being linked to patriotism, I see the romantic poets I am familiar with more interested in the universality of nature and humans reaction to it. But it was very interesting, the main sense I got from it, is that Transcendentalism focuses much more on God at the centre.

Can anyone elucidate this section of the essay for me though please:

The lack of self growth and terror amongst fellows generates evil, and happiness and generosity are the good results of an act. Romantics believed in this concept as well; however, they likely stressed the power of good in preventing evil.

Clari wrote: "I wasn't so sure about point one, romanticism being linked to patriotism,...

Romantic Nationalism may provide some insight into the link between romanticism and patriotism.

I have also read that Transcendentalism helped form America's identity as intellectually, socially, philosophicaly, and artistically independent and separate from the old world. This sentiment seems to provoke a national sense of pride which may be patriotic, or just patriotic-like.

David wrote: "Lily wrote: "(I would also probably find useful something that so straight-forwardly compares Romanticism/Transcendentalism with Modernism/Post Modernism.)"

Try comparing this:
The Difference Betw..."

Thx, David! Helpful.

Here is my understanding of Chapter II Commodity
1) Contemplation of the purpose of the world reveals that man is provided for in ways that may be classified into 4 categories: commodity, beauty, language, and discipline.
2) Commodity are those material natural resources and natural processes that man can take advantage of to sustain his temporary and physical earthly needs.
3) Emerson says people who appear both spoiled and miserable are those that are neither properly mindful and grateful for, nor satisfied with the abundant commodity.
4) The "useful arts" are things like engineering and practical and applied technology that allow man to manipulate the material resources and processes for his benefit and improvements. These benefits have progressed to where even those in the society of lesser means benefit from them.
5) The purpose of the provisioning material resources and processes for human use is not and end to satisfy man's material needs, but a means to maintain and improve mankind's ability to do work.

Terms
Final Cause: Aristotelian term that denotes a purpose, goal or aim.
Commodity: Natural resources and processes that benefit mankind
Useful Arts: Engineering and practical/applied technology

Questions:
1. Does Emerson include the "useful arts" as a process commodity or something separate from commodity?
2. Why does he call these material benefits "mercenary benefits"?
3. What type of work does Emerson think we should do?
4. What does Emerson think the "Final Cause" of the world is, or does he just come up with his 4 categories of provisions in only contemplating a final cause?

Observations:
1. He uses the term "Final Cause", which is an Aristotelian term that denoting a purpose, goal or aim.
2. The bulk of this essay is descriptive. His ending statement seems to be that the "final cause" of commodity is to maintain man's ability to do work. This appears to be tacked on at the end and does not seem to logically follow from any previously stated premise.

Clari wrote: "I know we tending to be naturally commenting on the philosophy, but I hope it's okay to say how beautiful I am finding the language. It seems every paragraph as at least on sentence you could chop ..."

We can comment on anything we want to! And language is an important part of meaning, of course. Much of his writings were first offered as lectures -- the transcendentalist was -- and I think it shows. (Nature, though, was, I think, not originally a lecture but was always intended as an essay or short book.)

David wrote: "I have also read that Transcendentalism helped form America's identity as intellectually, socially, philosophicaly, and artistically independent and separate from the old world. "

I have thought that this arose more from the values of Self Reliance and Thoreau's challenges to authority than from "Nature," but I do need to look for it more in Nature.

David wrote: "I will take a stab at Chapter 1: ..."

One thing that struck me is that in some sense Emerson seems to be challenging the very principle of this group. He starts out the essay "OUR age is retrospective. ... 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?"

The principle of this group is that we can benefit from reading those works of genius of foregoing generations; letting the classics speak to us.

I do agree with Emerson that there is benefit also in looking afresh at nature and the world. But when he says "There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship" is he saying to throw away Plato, Aristotle, Dante, Shakespeare, Dickens, Kant, et. al., or will he accept a mixture where we build our own philosophical house, but not necessarily reject the building materials our forefathers have passed down to us?

Everyman wrote: "The principle of this group is that we can benefit from reading those works of genius of foregoing generations; letting the classics speak to us.
"

It is obvious from his writings that Emerson has done more than his share of reading the classics; OTOH, I think he is also saying that unless we "behold God and nature face to face", all the stuff we read won't do us much good, because their original meanings are lost to us.

Nemo wrote: "OTOH, I think he is also saying that unless we "behold God and nature face to face", all the stuff we read won't do us much good, because their original meanings are lost to us. "

Do you find this in the text? Or is it your thinking of what he would say if asked my question?

I made some marginal notes on the first sections of Nature, and am going to be bold enough to toss them out almost at random, to see whether they resonate with anybody.

I started at the start, with his six line epigraph (which doesn't appear in the Gutenberg version, but does in my Library of America text, and in this text version:
http://www.emersoncentral.com/nature):

A subtle chain of countless rings
The next unto the farthest brings;
The eye reads omens where it goes,
And speaks all languages the rose;
And, striving to be man, the worm
Mounts through all the spires of form.

I "get" the interconnectedness of thought in the first two lines. I'm not sure about the eye reading omens, still working on that. I puzzled for quite awhile over the fourth line, but think at the moment that it means that the rose speaks all languages; that it is, it speaks to all men (and women and especially children) in languageless language. I'm still working on the worm; is worm used just in the sense of man worming his way, or is it some metaphysical worm, and what are "spires of form"? The phrase doesn't come to any clarity in my mind.

Obviously it all meant something central to Emerson, but what exactly? (Or does poetry simply never mean exactly?)

"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? "

Whitman and Dickinson, it seems to me, both in very different ways embraced and created this poetry of insight and not tradition. Were they inspired by Emerson, or would they written the same without his influence (or that of the T movement in general)? What is the interplay among these literary giants?

Further: a "religion of revelation to us" implies several things. One, it implies a revealer who is present to, or at least available to, man in today's day and age. The traditional Christian theology is that the Bible, once written down, was the final revelation of God, and our job was just to understand and follow it.

I'm not sure whether Emerson is basically discarding the Bible and telling us to start afresh with today's revelations, or whether, more in line with Quaker theology, he accepts the Bible as revelation for its time but says that God's relationship with man didn't stop there, but that God is constantly revealing himself, and that we must view the Bible as a living document being constantly re-revealed to each generation.

It comes back to whether Nemo is right that Emerson respects and uses the past but in the light of continuing revelation, or whether Emerson basically is turning over a new leaf and locking the old leaves away.

Addendum to above: consider, in considering that final question, what Emerson meant by "Let us demand our own works and laws and worship."

"Let us interrogate the great apparition, that shines so peacefully around us. Let us inquire, to what end is nature?"

Apparition? This implies to me some presence that emerges from something or somewhere else. Isn't the whole point that nature is there, that it is what it is? How does it become, how is it properly described as, an apparition?

"But to a sound judgment, the most abstract truth is the most practical. "

Huh?

I have to keep reminding myself of his use of the term Nature. Nature is everything in the universe beyond soul, everything that is "Not Me."

But I'm a bit confused as to his dual meanings of nature, because later he distinguishes between nature and art, art being what happens when man mixes with natural things and makes things -- houses, ships, computers. In one use, nature is the things that man works on to create art (he definitely, it seems, uses art in the broad sense it used to have, including the fine arts and the practical arts), but Nature in the other sense includes both natural things and works of art. He claims that the difference is irrelevant, but I'm having trouble with that, because in the broadest sense, when one is in a factory or flying across the Atlantic in a Boeing 767 one is still in Nature. Which I don't think he means, so the difference, it seems to me, is far from irrelevant.

"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."

I actually like this a lot. It contradicts the dictionary definition of solitude, but I think I understand what he is saying. When I'm alone in the house and posting to Goodreads, I am in the presence of all those in this group because they are why I am writing. And when I read a book I am not alone because I am in the company of Emerson, or Thoreau, or Austen, or whomever.

It is enormously hard, isn't it?, to ever be solitary in today's world? When, really, are we?

"The charming landscape which I saw this morning, is indubitably made up of some twenty or thirty farms. Miller owns this field, Locke that, and Manning the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape. There is a property in the horizon which no man has but he whose eye can integrate all the parts, that is, the poet. "

I really like this passage. It requires looking beyond nature to, dare I say it, the nature of nature.

Combined with a later passage in this same section, "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," he seems to be agreeing with Protagoras that "man is the measure of all things." The land is there in nature, but it takes man to see landscape.

David wrote: "4. What does Emerson think the "Final Cause" of the world is, or does he just come up with his 4 categories of provisions in only contemplating a final cause?"

Great analysis, David.

In this section it seems that nature exists to serve mankind. It's a contrast to the previous section, in which he says that "Standing on the bare ground... all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball...I am part or particle of God."

There it seems that mankind is part of the integrated whole of nature, not its focus, and nature "admonishes" man for his egotism. In the Commodity section the relation seems reversed: nature is designed to serve man, both actively and passively as "art."

Maybe the "final cause" of the world will become clearer as the essay progresses... in any case, I am finding it helpful to keep the final cause in mind as I puzzle through it.

If being obscure is the sign of a great philosopher, then Emerson is successful. Lol

Anyway, it's way too late to think any more about this, but here:

"In the woods too, a man casts off his years, as the snake his slough..."

I don't know about you guys, but I feel like camping this weekend.

Genni wrote: "I"In the woods too, a man casts off his years, as the snake his slough..."

I don't know about you guys, but I feel like camping this weekend. ."

Me too, but I'm waiting to see what Emerson says about lions and tigers and bears.

Well, deity permeates all of nature, which means that the lions, tigers, and bears are inherently good, so we have nothing to worry about. They won't hurt us!!

Everyman wrote: ""But to a sound judgment, the most abstract truth is the most practical. "

Huh?"

Is that a rhetorical question?

Genni wrote: "Well, deity permeates all of nature, which means that the lions, tigers, and bears are inherently good, so we have nothing to worry about. They won't hurt us!!"

Not only lions tigers and bears (oh my!) but what about parasites, germs and disease? And don't forget natural disasters? Earthquakes, floods, tsunami's, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc? I hope he does not blame those all on human sin like a few still like to do these days. I suspect Emerson would provide a perspective in which to say they are "good". To Emerson, even a corpse looks beautiful if it is lit correctly. The lighting crew from The Walking Dead, must not be getting it right.

I was struck by the corpse passage. Apparently about a year after her death, Emerson in his grief, had the coffin of his first wife opened to view the body. According tot he article I will link to below, he also opened his son Waldo's coffin. The article below provides some useful insights into this seemingly extreme perspective.

Emerson's Grave Encounter
http://www.firstparishnorwell.org/ser...

Everyman wrote: ""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."

This is probably my favorite and most practical thought so far from Emerson. If I want to be alone I just have to go outside and look at space, and when I do not want to be alone I can read or write. Adler, in "How to Read a Book" states many times that reading a book is a conversation with the author.

On second thought, sometimes when I am outside looking at the stars I am with Carl Sagan, or Neil deGrasse Tyson, or a plane or even a satellite goes by.

Everyman wrote: ""But to a sound judgment, the most abstract truth is the most practical. "

Huh?"

I found the next sentence helpful. "Whenever a true theory appears, it will be its own evidence. Its test is, that it will explain all phenomena."

I am not sure but it sounds like nod to science and maybe Occam's razor by being a way of saying, "follow the evidence - your conclusions may seen strange and abstract, but they will ultimately make sense as the most practical and simple explanations". He then puts a limit to this process by suggesting some things we may never be able to explain.

Everyman wrote: "Whitman and Dickinson, it seems to me, both in very different ways embraced and created this poetry of insight and not tradition. Were they inspired by Emerson, or would they written the same without his influence (or that of the T movement in general)? What is the interplay among these literary giants?"

Hopefully some of these things will be explored in detail on 'the other authors thread'. I think Whitman felt closely linked to Emerson, Whitman believed that he was the poet of USA that Emerson was calling for. And when Whitman printed his first book he sent one of the copies to Emerson.
If like me, you're drawn to letters of famous literary figures, this site is good and shows Emerson's reply to Whitman:

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/12/...

My notes on Nature: Chapter III Beauty
1. nature provides for man's love of beauty. This need seems to be spiritual in nature, as opposed to material in nature as commodity is.
2. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". or more literally, the perception of beauty is subjective. I suspect Emerson sees the perception of beauty objectively but seems to acknowledge others may be out of tune with nature, (ie., he sees beauty in winter but others do not)
3. Three aspects of Beauty.
a. There is beauty in observing natural forms and environments and this beauty is both a delight in and of itself and a restorative [spiritual] relief from less natural environments.
b. Virtuous actions [endeavours, both in failed attempts and victorious achievements] appear beautiful and are high moments in our remembered history that inspire the human spirit. These virtuous acts make material objects, human opinion, the times and nature itself small by comparison.
c. Virtuous thought also appears beautiful and complimentary to virtuous action.
1) Virtuous thought inspires virtuous actions which in turn inspire virtuous thoughts.
4. Beauty's purpose is not its reflective end, but its inspiration to create .
a. Art (with a captial A) is filtered through human artists to create single objects of art (with a lower case a).
5. A final cause of the world's existance is to satisfy the soul's love of beauty.
6. The final cause of outward [and finite?] beauty is to make us aware of inward eternal beauty.
7. Beauty is a separate part of the final cause of Nature (upper-case N).

Observations and questions
1. Emerson writes that the love of beauty impressed on man by the face of the world is called Taste. Why is Taste with an upper-case T used here? Is it because Taste is something that is NOT ME and therefore part of Nature (upper-case N)?
2. Man's emulation of or creation of new beauty is called Art, with an upper-case A. What is the difference between art with a lower-case a and Art with an upper-case A?
3. Commodity's Final Cause is to allow man to do work, The Final Cause of Beauty is to remind man of inward and eternal beauty. Emerson seems to be hinting that all of these final causes of what nature provides are going to add up to the ultimate Final Cause for the world. I wonder if he can pull that off?

Clari wrote: "If like me, you're drawn to letters of famous literary figures, this site is good and shows Emerson's reply to Whitman:

http://www.lettersofnote.com
."

Thanks for the link, Clari. I too like to read letters and journals of writers who fascinate me.

Everyman wrote: " I'm still working on the worm; is worm used just in the sense of man worming his way, or is it some metaphysical worm, and what are "spires of form"? "

A subtle chain of countless rings
The next unto the farthest brings;
The eye reads omens where it goes,
And speaks all languages the rose;
And, striving to be man, the worm
Mounts through all the spires of form.

So far the essay seems to revolve around the interconnectedness and interdependence of people and nature, and I read the poem as a sort of précis of that theme.

The chain is a physical representation of interconnectedness. The Great Chain of Being is what comes to mind.

An omen is connected through time with that which it portends (however mysteriously.)

I couldn't figure out the rose, but your comment helped me and sounds right: The rose speaks a universal language that connects all people in "languageless language."

The worm strives to be man... well, hmmm. I'm not so sure about that, but if we read the "spires of form" to be the metamorphosis of the worm into moth or butterfly, can we extend this to evolution? That would be the ultimate connection between nature and humankind from the beginning of time.

Is it just me, or does the "transparent eye-ball" remind someone else of the Eye of Sauron?

David wrote: "Here is my understanding of Chapter II Commodity... 3. What type of work does Emerson think we should do?"

Emerson seems to think it is best when men retire from society to better experience nature (I’m still pondering the nature vs. Nature point you brought up, btw). That doesn’t really tell us what kind of work we should do. Unless, striving to attain constant childlike wonderment counts as work- which, for poets, it might. However, Emerson opens the essay describing his own personal experience in nature. Is he describing a course of action that ought to be taken by Mankind or telling us about himself?

Everyman wrote: "I do agree with Emerson that there is benefit also in looking afresh at nature and the world. But when he says "There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship" is he saying to throw away Plato, Aristotle, Dante, Shakespeare, Dickens, Kant, et. al., or will he accept a mixture where we build our own philosophical house, but not necessarily reject the building materials our forefathers have passed down to us? "

Take heart, Everyman! As Emerson points out, nothing divine dies and all good is eternally reproductive. This is why we see, for instance, Homer reproduced in Dante and even Joyce. The poetry of TS Eliot is filled with voices of the past. The words of our literary forefathers symbolically capture something divine. And thus, great literature will never die!

Everyman wrote: ""Let us interrogate the great apparition, that shines so peacefully around us. Let us inquire, to what end is nature?"

Apparition? This implies to me some presence that emerges from something or s..."

My knee-jerk response to your statement “Isn't the whole point that nature is there, that it is what it is?” Is that Nature isn’t there. Nature is symbolic of the transcendental spirit (just as words are symbolic of nature). And we can only experience nature with our flawed senses- i.e. not as well as children, or poets, or transcendentalists. So nature as we experience it is not, in fact, there. It is a vehicle through which we experience the divine. Er… something.

Everyman wrote: "It is enormously hard, isn't it?, to ever be solitary in today's world? When, really, are we? ..."

Strictly speaking? Never, ever.

As you said, when you're alone in your study reading, you're in the company of other minds; when you're not reading, but simply thinking, you are employing language which is a heritage from yours ancestors; even when you "empty your mind", as in some form of meditation, you still carry in you the genes of all your ancestors, who live on through you, so to speak. You are never alone.

To paraphrase Bernard Shaw, pitting solitude against society is pitting the stupidities of one against the stupidities of many, the same difference between tyranny and democracy.

Nemo wrote: "Everyman wrote: ""But to a sound judgment, the most abstract truth is the most practical. "

Huh?"

Is that a rhetorical question?"

Not at all. I don't understand what Emerson means by the most abstract truth being the most practical. Do you? If so, please explain for me!

Everyman wrote: " I don't understand what Emerson means by the most abstract truth being the most practical..."

I gave this question some more thought and looked up several meanings of the word abstract and found this one helped me to one suggestion that seems plausible:

ABSTRACT - Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
EXAMPLES: "abstract concepts such as love or beauty"
SYNONYMS:theoretical, conceptual, notional, intellectual, metaphysical, ideal, philosophical, academic

So maybe he is saying that [to his subjectively sound reasoning - projected objectively to the rest of mankind] the "thoughts or ideas" of "Nature, commodity, beauty, language, art or Art, etc. are the most practical or the most usable guidelines for why and how to live.