>Nature, Self-Reliance, The Oversoul, Circles, History, Spiritual Laws, The Poet, Experience, Character, Representative Men; The Transcendentalist, The American Scholar, The Young American
You can skip the rest, read his poetry, and then read William James. Finally, read Nietzsche (Nietzsche cannot be understood without a solid understanding of Emerson).
He’s pretty inspiring and writes with the fervor of a young nation discovering its own intellectual potential for the first time and not yet getting weary of the countless wars and controversies and other detritus of history inevitable when you have thousands of years of it like in European countries. On the other hand, his philosophy isn’t exactly rigorous, it was mainly read for the vibes even back then. He’s an artists philosopher, not necessarily a philosophers philosopher
> On the other hand, his philosophy isn’t exactly rigorous, it was mainly read for the vibes even back then. He’s an artists philosopher, not necessarily a philosophers philosopher
Well put, he’s more like that old-fashioned posh term, “a man of letters”, than a very rigorous philosopher, but that doesn’t mean he’s not worth reading. Nietzsche loved him, too. In other ways he’s even more of a mystic at times (The Over-Soul, Nature), not quite making philosophical arguments, but expressing what he sees as spiritual experiences others can also experience, whether it comes from contemplation of nature’s beauty, urging the joys of silent solitude in nature, or from absorption in the realization of pantheism. In other ways he’s also sort of an inspirational/“self-help” writer to others with philosophical, poetic, literary or artistic leanings (corny as those phrases have become today with all the “motivational speakers” and whatnot). Very good stylist, too.
You appear not without knowledge and you utilize stylish language yourself: could you perhaps name some writers of Emerson's calibre from the period, let's say 1850-1930?
I'm European, I know some excellent writers from the early 1900's, like Gertrude Stein and Sherwood Anderson, and of course I know James and the great Peirce, and I don't like Hawthorne and Melville, but otherwise I struggle to see what literature did in those times in the US.
I’m flattered but not really, you overrated me, I think you’re probably a better judge on this than I am, at least with regards to the authors you’ve mentioned whom I haven’t read all of. The most obvious answer is probably Thoreau (Walden particularly) but it might be too obvious an answer.
I don't consider reading philosopher philosophers' works in full to be valuable at all. You're better off just reading encyclopedias/summaries on them and skipping their autistic labyrinthine works.
Interesting, I know that Melville attacked it with his Bartleby.
It looks like you're trying to use Ruskin and Carlyle as a buffer for your own stupidity, so I'll just put those quotes in context for anyone lurking, so they don't get mislead by this garbage.
1, from CONSIDERATIONS BY THE WAY: >[...] wise men have met this obstruction in their times, like Socrates, with his famous irony; like Bacon, with life-long dissimulation; like Erasmus, with his book “The Praise of Folly;” like Rabelais, with his satire rending the nations. [...] The first lesson of history is the good of evil. [...] Plutarch affirms that the cruel wars which followed the march of Alexander, introduced the civility, language, and arts of Greece into the savage East; introduced marriage; built seventy cities; and united hostile nations under one government. The barbarians who broke up the Roman empire did not arrive a day too soon. Schiller says, the Thirty Years’ War made Germany a nation. Rough, selfish despots serve men immensely, as Henry VIII. in the contest with the Pope; as the infatuations no less than the wisdom of Cromwell; as the ferocity of the Russian czars; as the fanaticism of the French regicides of 1789. The frost which kills the harvest of a year, saves the harvests of a century, by destroying the weevil or the locust. Wars, fires, plagues, break up immovable routine, clear the ground of rotten races and dens of distemper, and open a fair field to new men.
2 & 3, from NEW ENGLAND REFORMERS: >Nothing shall warp me from the belief that every man is a lover of truth. There is no pure lie, no pure malignity in nature. The entertainment of the proposition of depravity is the last profligacy and profanation. There is no skepticism, no atheism but that. Could it be received into common belief, suicide would unpeople the planet. It has had a name to live in some dogmatic theology, but each man’s innocence and his real liking of his neighbor have kept it a dead letter. I remember standing at the polls one day when the anger of the political contest gave a certain grimness to the faces of the independent electors, and a good man at my side, looking on the people, remarked, “I am satisfied that the largest part of these men, on either side, mean to vote right.” I suppose considerate observers, looking at the masses of men in their blameless and in their equivocal actions, will assent, that in spite of selfishness and frivolity, the general purpose in the great number of persons is fidelity. The reason why any one refuses his assent to your opinion, or his aid to your benevolent design, is in you: he refuses to accept you as a bringer of truth, because, though you think you have it, he feels that you have it not. You have not given him the authentic sign.
>Nothing shall warp me from the belief that every man is a lover of truth. There is no pure lie, no pure malignity in nature. >The reason why any one refuses his assent to your opinion, or his aid to your benevolent design, is in you: he refuses to accept you as a bringer of truth, because, though you think you have it, he feels that you have it not. You have not given him the authentic sign.
Not even Plato succumbed this low, even though he had to learn the hard way. Also: ''Quid est veritas?''.
In his own words: >The first lesson of history is the good of evil. >There is no pure lie, no pure malignity in nature. >The entertainment of the proposition of depravity is the last profligacy and profanation.
In Ruskin's estimation, Emerson had failed to rightly perceive the world's darkness or to understand its implications and the resultant need for action. In refusing to entertain the proposition of depravity, Emerson had blinded himself to the necessity of actively struggling against the 'deadly reality.' Believing this, Ruskin came to doubt Emerson's teaching and to esteem his ideas as Carlyle once had before knowing him better--"elevated, but airy, idle; made of moonshine, mostly, alas!"
It looks like you're trying to use Ruskin and Carlyle as a buffer for your own stupidity, so I'll just put those quotes in context for anyone lurking, so they don't get mislead by this garbage.
1, from CONSIDERATIONS BY THE WAY: >[...] wise men have met this obstruction in their times, like Socrates, with his famous irony; like Bacon, with life-long dissimulation; like Erasmus, with his book “The Praise of Folly;” like Rabelais, with his satire rending the nations. [...] The first lesson of history is the good of evil. [...] Plutarch affirms that the cruel wars which followed the march of Alexander, introduced the civility, language, and arts of Greece into the savage East; introduced marriage; built seventy cities; and united hostile nations under one government. The barbarians who broke up the Roman empire did not arrive a day too soon. Schiller says, the Thirty Years’ War made Germany a nation. Rough, selfish despots serve men immensely, as Henry VIII. in the contest with the Pope; as the infatuations no less than the wisdom of Cromwell; as the ferocity of the Russian czars; as the fanaticism of the French regicides of 1789. The frost which kills the harvest of a year, saves the harvests of a century, by destroying the weevil or the locust. Wars, fires, plagues, break up immovable routine, clear the ground of rotten races and dens of distemper, and open a fair field to new men.
2 & 3, from NEW ENGLAND REFORMERS: >Nothing shall warp me from the belief that every man is a lover of truth. There is no pure lie, no pure malignity in nature. The entertainment of the proposition of depravity is the last profligacy and profanation. There is no skepticism, no atheism but that. Could it be received into common belief, suicide would unpeople the planet. It has had a name to live in some dogmatic theology, but each man’s innocence and his real liking of his neighbor have kept it a dead letter. I remember standing at the polls one day when the anger of the political contest gave a certain grimness to the faces of the independent electors, and a good man at my side, looking on the people, remarked, “I am satisfied that the largest part of these men, on either side, mean to vote right.” I suppose considerate observers, looking at the masses of men in their blameless and in their equivocal actions, will assent, that in spite of selfishness and frivolity, the general purpose in the great number of persons is fidelity. The reason why any one refuses his assent to your opinion, or his aid to your benevolent design, is in you: he refuses to accept you as a bringer of truth, because, though you think you have it, he feels that you have it not. You have not given him the authentic sign.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Could it be received into common belief, suicide would unpeople the planet.
See, this evinces his liberalism. He can't live with the idea that humans are depraved and cannot see how anyone else can live with it either. He is so bound up in this ideal that people are essentially good that anything else terrifies him. But of course the kinds of things that happen in a society which denies original sin or at least something like it are evident for anyone to see who has eyes.
no but dutch van der linde keep telling me i should read this guy
>Nature, Self-Reliance, The Oversoul, Circles, History, Spiritual Laws, The Poet, Experience, Character, Representative Men; The Transcendentalist, The American Scholar, The Young American
You can skip the rest, read his poetry, and then read William James. Finally, read Nietzsche (Nietzsche cannot be understood without a solid understanding of Emerson).
He’s pretty inspiring and writes with the fervor of a young nation discovering its own intellectual potential for the first time and not yet getting weary of the countless wars and controversies and other detritus of history inevitable when you have thousands of years of it like in European countries. On the other hand, his philosophy isn’t exactly rigorous, it was mainly read for the vibes even back then. He’s an artists philosopher, not necessarily a philosophers philosopher
> On the other hand, his philosophy isn’t exactly rigorous, it was mainly read for the vibes even back then. He’s an artists philosopher, not necessarily a philosophers philosopher
Well put, he’s more like that old-fashioned posh term, “a man of letters”, than a very rigorous philosopher, but that doesn’t mean he’s not worth reading. Nietzsche loved him, too. In other ways he’s even more of a mystic at times (The Over-Soul, Nature), not quite making philosophical arguments, but expressing what he sees as spiritual experiences others can also experience, whether it comes from contemplation of nature’s beauty, urging the joys of silent solitude in nature, or from absorption in the realization of pantheism. In other ways he’s also sort of an inspirational/“self-help” writer to others with philosophical, poetic, literary or artistic leanings (corny as those phrases have become today with all the “motivational speakers” and whatnot). Very good stylist, too.
You appear not without knowledge and you utilize stylish language yourself: could you perhaps name some writers of Emerson's calibre from the period, let's say 1850-1930?
I'm European, I know some excellent writers from the early 1900's, like Gertrude Stein and Sherwood Anderson, and of course I know James and the great Peirce, and I don't like Hawthorne and Melville, but otherwise I struggle to see what literature did in those times in the US.
I’m flattered but not really, you overrated me, I think you’re probably a better judge on this than I am, at least with regards to the authors you’ve mentioned whom I haven’t read all of. The most obvious answer is probably Thoreau (Walden particularly) but it might be too obvious an answer.
artist philosopher > philosopher philosopher
I don't consider reading philosopher philosophers' works in full to be valuable at all. You're better off just reading encyclopedias/summaries on them and skipping their autistic labyrinthine works.
Yes he was a based transmitter of German Romantic ideas to America
Him, Carlyle and Goethe were like this, son. Like this.
He-ey...
wtf?
Read a good biography
Yeah, it's pretty good.
Currently reading Society & Solitude, as well as Collected Poems & Translations. He was a very good writer.
"Mistah Emerson-- He dead."
Moby Dick absolutely wrecked Transcendentalism
Interesting, I know that Melville attacked it with his Bartleby.
>Nothing shall warp me from the belief that every man is a lover of truth. There is no pure lie, no pure malignity in nature.
>The reason why any one refuses his assent to your opinion, or his aid to your benevolent design, is in you: he refuses to accept you as a bringer of truth, because, though you think you have it, he feels that you have it not. You have not given him the authentic sign.
Not even Plato succumbed this low, even though he had to learn the hard way. Also: ''Quid est veritas?''.
The dangerous thing about him is that he does not believe in evil.
How so, and why would that be dangerous?
In his own words:
>The first lesson of history is the good of evil.
>There is no pure lie, no pure malignity in nature.
>The entertainment of the proposition of depravity is the last profligacy and profanation.
In Ruskin's estimation, Emerson had failed to rightly perceive the world's darkness or to understand its implications and the resultant need for action. In refusing to entertain the proposition of depravity, Emerson had blinded himself to the necessity of actively struggling against the 'deadly reality.' Believing this, Ruskin came to doubt Emerson's teaching and to esteem his ideas as Carlyle once had before knowing him better--"elevated, but airy, idle; made of moonshine, mostly, alas!"
Emerson was right.
It looks like you're trying to use Ruskin and Carlyle as a buffer for your own stupidity, so I'll just put those quotes in context for anyone lurking, so they don't get mislead by this garbage.
1, from CONSIDERATIONS BY THE WAY:
>[...] wise men have met this obstruction in their times, like Socrates, with his famous irony; like Bacon, with life-long dissimulation; like Erasmus, with his book “The Praise of Folly;” like Rabelais, with his satire rending the nations. [...] The first lesson of history is the good of evil. [...] Plutarch affirms that the cruel wars which followed the march of Alexander, introduced the civility, language, and arts of Greece into the savage East; introduced marriage; built seventy cities; and united hostile nations under one government. The barbarians who broke up the Roman empire did not arrive a day too soon. Schiller says, the Thirty Years’ War made Germany a nation. Rough, selfish despots serve men immensely, as Henry VIII. in the contest with the Pope; as the infatuations no less than the wisdom of Cromwell; as the ferocity of the Russian czars; as the fanaticism of the French regicides of 1789. The frost which kills the harvest of a year, saves the harvests of a century, by destroying the weevil or the locust. Wars, fires, plagues, break up immovable routine, clear the ground of rotten races and dens of distemper, and open a fair field to new men.
2 & 3, from NEW ENGLAND REFORMERS:
>Nothing shall warp me from the belief that every man is a lover of truth. There is no pure lie, no pure malignity in nature. The entertainment of the proposition of depravity is the last profligacy and profanation. There is no skepticism, no atheism but that. Could it be received into common belief, suicide would unpeople the planet. It has had a name to live in some dogmatic theology, but each man’s innocence and his real liking of his neighbor have kept it a dead letter. I remember standing at the polls one day when the anger of the political contest gave a certain grimness to the faces of the independent electors, and a good man at my side, looking on the people, remarked, “I am satisfied that the largest part of these men, on either side, mean to vote right.” I suppose considerate observers, looking at the masses of men in their blameless and in their equivocal actions, will assent, that in spite of selfishness and frivolity, the general purpose in the great number of persons is fidelity. The reason why any one refuses his assent to your opinion, or his aid to your benevolent design, is in you: he refuses to accept you as a bringer of truth, because, though you think you have it, he feels that you have it not. You have not given him the authentic sign.
>Could it be received into common belief, suicide would unpeople the planet.
See, this evinces his liberalism. He can't live with the idea that humans are depraved and cannot see how anyone else can live with it either. He is so bound up in this ideal that people are essentially good that anything else terrifies him. But of course the kinds of things that happen in a society which denies original sin or at least something like it are evident for anyone to see who has eyes.