What do you think?
Rate this book
Library of America #15
Essays and Lectures
This first Library of America volume of Emerson’s writing covers the most productive period of his life, 1832–1860. Our most eloquent champion of individualism, Emerson acknowledges at the same time the countervailing pressures of society in American life. Even as he extols what he called “the great and crescive self,” he dramatizes and records its vicissitudes.
Here are the indispensable and most renowned works, including “The American Scholar” (“our intellectual Declaration of Independence,” as Oliver Wendell Holmes called it), “The Divinity School Address,” considered atheistic by many of his listeners, the summons to “Self-Reliance,” along with the more embattled realizations of “Circles” and, especially, “Experience.” Here, too, are his wide-ranging portraits of Montaigne, Shakespeare, and other “representative men,” and his astute observations on the habits, lives, and prospects of the English and American people.
This volume includes Emerson’s well-known Nature; Addresses, and Lectures (1849), his Essays: First Series (1841) and Essays: Second Series (1844), plus Representative Men (1850), English Traits (1856), and his later book of essays, The Conduct of Life (1860). These are the works that established Emerson’s colossal reputation in America and found him admirers abroad as diverse as Carlyle, Nietzsche, and Proust.
Emerson’s enduring power is apparent everywhere in American literature: in those, like Whitman and some of the major twentieth-century poets, who seek to corroborate his vision, and among those, like Hawthorne and Melville, who questioned, qualified, and struggled with it. Emerson’s vision reverberates also in the tradition of American philosophy, notably in the writings of William James and John Dewey, in the works of his European admirers, such as Nietzsche, and in the avant-garde theorists of our own day who write on the nature and function of language. The reasons for Emerson’s durability will be obvious to any reader who follows the exhilarating, exploratory movements of his mind in this uniquely full gathering of his work.
Not merely another selection of his essays, this volume includes all his major books in their rich entirety. No other volume conveys so comprehensively the exhilaration and exploratory energy of perhaps America’s greatest writer.
Here are the indispensable and most renowned works, including “The American Scholar” (“our intellectual Declaration of Independence,” as Oliver Wendell Holmes called it), “The Divinity School Address,” considered atheistic by many of his listeners, the summons to “Self-Reliance,” along with the more embattled realizations of “Circles” and, especially, “Experience.” Here, too, are his wide-ranging portraits of Montaigne, Shakespeare, and other “representative men,” and his astute observations on the habits, lives, and prospects of the English and American people.
This volume includes Emerson’s well-known Nature; Addresses, and Lectures (1849), his Essays: First Series (1841) and Essays: Second Series (1844), plus Representative Men (1850), English Traits (1856), and his later book of essays, The Conduct of Life (1860). These are the works that established Emerson’s colossal reputation in America and found him admirers abroad as diverse as Carlyle, Nietzsche, and Proust.
Emerson’s enduring power is apparent everywhere in American literature: in those, like Whitman and some of the major twentieth-century poets, who seek to corroborate his vision, and among those, like Hawthorne and Melville, who questioned, qualified, and struggled with it. Emerson’s vision reverberates also in the tradition of American philosophy, notably in the writings of William James and John Dewey, in the works of his European admirers, such as Nietzsche, and in the avant-garde theorists of our own day who write on the nature and function of language. The reasons for Emerson’s durability will be obvious to any reader who follows the exhilarating, exploratory movements of his mind in this uniquely full gathering of his work.
Not merely another selection of his essays, this volume includes all his major books in their rich entirety. No other volume conveys so comprehensively the exhilaration and exploratory energy of perhaps America’s greatest writer.
1150 pages, Hardcover
Published November 15, 1983
141 people are currently reading
4226 people want to read
About the author
Ralph Waldo Emerson
3,418 books5,295 followersRalph Waldo Emerson was born in Boston in 1803. Educated at Harvard and the Cambridge Divinity School, he became a Unitarian minister in 1826 at the Second Church Unitarian. The congregation, with Christian overtones, issued communion, something Emerson refused to do. "Really, it is beyond my comprehension," Emerson once said, when asked by a seminary professor whether he believed in God. (Quoted in 2,000 Years of Freethought edited by Jim Haught.) By 1832, after the untimely death of his first wife, Emerson cut loose from Unitarianism. During a year-long trip to Europe, Emerson became acquainted with such intelligentsia as British writer Thomas Carlyle, and poets Wordsworth and Coleridge. He returned to the United States in 1833, to a life as poet, writer and lecturer. Emerson inspired Transcendentalism, although never adopting the label himself. He rejected traditional ideas of deity in favor of an "Over-Soul" or "Form of Good," ideas which were considered highly heretical. His books include Nature (1836), The American Scholar (1837), Divinity School Address (1838), Essays, 2 vol. (1841, 1844), Nature, Addresses and Lectures (1849), and three volumes of poetry. Margaret Fuller became one of his "disciples," as did Henry David Thoreau.
The best of Emerson's rather wordy writing survives as epigrams, such as the famous: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Other one- (and two-) liners include: "As men's prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect" (Self-Reliance, 1841). "The most tedious of all discourses are on the subject of the Supreme Being" (Journal, 1836). "The word miracle, as pronounced by Christian churches, gives a false impression; it is a monster. It is not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain" (Address to Harvard Divinity College, July 15, 1838). He demolished the right wing hypocrites of his era in his essay "Worship": ". . . the louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons" (Conduct of Life, 1860). "I hate this shallow Americanism which hopes to get rich by credit, to get knowledge by raps on midnight tables, to learn the economy of the mind by phrenology, or skill without study, or mastery without apprenticeship" (Self-Reliance). "The first and last lesson of religion is, 'The things that are seen are temporal; the things that are not seen are eternal.' It puts an affront upon nature" (English Traits , 1856). "The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and of the merchants a merchant." (Civilization, 1862). He influenced generations of Americans, from his friend Henry David Thoreau to John Dewey, and in Europe, Friedrich Nietzsche, who takes up such Emersonian themes as power, fate, the uses of poetry and history, and the critique of Christianity. D. 1882.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was his son and Waldo Emerson Forbes, his grandson.
The best of Emerson's rather wordy writing survives as epigrams, such as the famous: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Other one- (and two-) liners include: "As men's prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect" (Self-Reliance, 1841). "The most tedious of all discourses are on the subject of the Supreme Being" (Journal, 1836). "The word miracle, as pronounced by Christian churches, gives a false impression; it is a monster. It is not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain" (Address to Harvard Divinity College, July 15, 1838). He demolished the right wing hypocrites of his era in his essay "Worship": ". . . the louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons" (Conduct of Life, 1860). "I hate this shallow Americanism which hopes to get rich by credit, to get knowledge by raps on midnight tables, to learn the economy of the mind by phrenology, or skill without study, or mastery without apprenticeship" (Self-Reliance). "The first and last lesson of religion is, 'The things that are seen are temporal; the things that are not seen are eternal.' It puts an affront upon nature" (English Traits , 1856). "The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, and of the merchants a merchant." (Civilization, 1862). He influenced generations of Americans, from his friend Henry David Thoreau to John Dewey, and in Europe, Friedrich Nietzsche, who takes up such Emersonian themes as power, fate, the uses of poetry and history, and the critique of Christianity. D. 1882.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was his son and Waldo Emerson Forbes, his grandson.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
Read
August 28, 2012By all rights I should give this a 5. Emerson is the quintessential American and quite frankly probably the quintessential human being, by my lights. At his peak, which he hits here often (see especially: The Poet, The American Scholar, The Divinity School Address, and the final chapter of The Conduct of Life), his every sentence falls like a fiery brand imprinting itself forever on my mind. Stylistically, he is an absolutely incredible writer, and his content burns. Emerson speaks to you and only you—reading these essays is about as close as an atheist like myself can get to understanding what it is like, for religious people, to have a personal experience with God (do not misunderstand this as me simply praising Emerson as a divinity).
So why only a 4? Because, as good as this is, his journals (released, in abridged form, in two wonderful volumes by the Library of America) tower above his essays. In his essays, he is the ultimate in self-confidence, but he is also abstract. In his journals, you see the self-doubt, the foibles, etc. that he struggled with, that gives his work the deep meaning it has. That the essays abstract out his life is a good thing in a way—it makes room for your life to fill in that space—but it's also a substantial barrier to seeing just what it means to be self-reliant, in the Emersonian sense. No doubt about it, the essays, lectures, and books are genius, but they only tell half the story. They pull out ideas from his the journals that serve as the battleground for those ideas, but in his case, it's imperative to see the battle itself. The essays and lectures are a history written by the victors, and skewed exactly as you would expect as a result.
So why only a 4? Because, as good as this is, his journals (released, in abridged form, in two wonderful volumes by the Library of America) tower above his essays. In his essays, he is the ultimate in self-confidence, but he is also abstract. In his journals, you see the self-doubt, the foibles, etc. that he struggled with, that gives his work the deep meaning it has. That the essays abstract out his life is a good thing in a way—it makes room for your life to fill in that space—but it's also a substantial barrier to seeing just what it means to be self-reliant, in the Emersonian sense. No doubt about it, the essays, lectures, and books are genius, but they only tell half the story. They pull out ideas from his the journals that serve as the battleground for those ideas, but in his case, it's imperative to see the battle itself. The essays and lectures are a history written by the victors, and skewed exactly as you would expect as a result.
Read
June 21, 2022I didn't read all of this book. I read selections for an eight-week discussion group.
In 11th grade I had an allergic reaction to Emerson that made me dread him. I think I found his prose indigestible. In college as an English major I tried to do the responsible thing by signing up for a class on American Transcendentalism to get over my repulsion. Unfortunately the very first lecture put me face to face once again with Emerson's "transparent eyeball" and I did not return.
So I come to Emerson with some baggage. I'm certainly predisposed to find fault with him and justify my earlier reflexive responses. But also now I'm married to an Americanist--Emerson figures in her dissertation--so I am motivated to try to understand Emerson better and fill a gap in my education.
I was relieved that everyone in the discussion group found Emerson irritating at least at times. His essays are most often exhortations to have "beautiful sentiments," to sense the divine oneness that unites all nature and all mankind, to cultivate and enhance the awareness of some shared universal divinity (the "Oversoul.") Emerson's method is not that of philosophers. He does not offer reasoned arguments and systematic conclusions. He writes in aphorisms, stringing them along in sonorous prose whose tone and diction draw heavily on Shakespeare and King James, usually ending with an inspirational climax about what individuals can achieve by following their divine nature. Here's an example from The Poet:
-----
Thou true land-lord! sea-lord! air-lord! Wherever snow falls, or water flows, or birds fly, wherever day and night meet in twilight, wherever the blue heaven is hung by clouds, or sown with stars, wherever are forms with transparent boundaries, wherever are outlets into celestial space, wherever is danger, and awe, and love, there is Beauty, plenteous as rain, shed for thee, and though thou shouldest walk the world over, thou shalt not be able to find a condition inopportune or ignoble.
-----
Clearly the goal is inspiration rather than analysis.
Emerson often embraces a very strong idealism where the products of the mind, being divine, are more real, more powerful, and more meaningful than anything else. He appeals to an inward perception of ineffable truth that he assumes we all feel, or at least is equally accessible to all of us, and that we each must strive to express authentically and personally. He never stops to worry about the kinds of conflict such a strong form of individual authority might lead to, seeming to assume that the nature of divinity will draw us all towards a kind of goodness that must inevitably be mutually compatible: "Duty is One thing with Science, with Beauty, and with Joy."
On the plus side, Emerson at least thinks of personal truth as a conditional and changing thing, never perfect and always subject to being reformulated more perfectly (see the "Circles" essay.) On the minus side, Emerson can easily be quoted in support of such deeply mistaken thinkers as Ayn Rand and Mary Baker Eddy. Emerson's aphoristic style practically invites such misreadings. He can certainly coin a catch phrase (see, for example, the over 1700 "Ralph Waldo Emerson > Quotes" here on Goodreads.) Any attempt to build a systematic philosophy from a few catchy Emerson excerpts is likely to fall into errors that Emerson himself did not exactly make.
At his best, Emerson offers a sense of power and beauty in the workings of the mind and nature. He will keep his place in classrooms as an early of peculiarly American spirit, both admiring and rejecting European traditions, preferring a path that starts in nature, prefers individual intuition over received tradition, and is as accessible to farmers as to philosophers.
At his worst, Emerson's exalted prose seems bathetic and willfully naïve, asserting implausibly that if only we pursue beauty and truth then all will be well. The "soul, which within us is a sentiment, outside of us is a law." "Justice is not postponed. A perfect equity adjusts its balance in all parts of life." "Every crime is punished, every virtue rewarded." (Those are all from "Compensation.")
I'm sure my anti-Emerson high school repugnance was largely a reaction to a highfalutin style that was simply beyond me, but after a more deliberate engagement I am largely unsympathetic to his goals and still find him pompous. He's more preacher than poet, and full of too much wishful thinking.
In 11th grade I had an allergic reaction to Emerson that made me dread him. I think I found his prose indigestible. In college as an English major I tried to do the responsible thing by signing up for a class on American Transcendentalism to get over my repulsion. Unfortunately the very first lecture put me face to face once again with Emerson's "transparent eyeball" and I did not return.
So I come to Emerson with some baggage. I'm certainly predisposed to find fault with him and justify my earlier reflexive responses. But also now I'm married to an Americanist--Emerson figures in her dissertation--so I am motivated to try to understand Emerson better and fill a gap in my education.
I was relieved that everyone in the discussion group found Emerson irritating at least at times. His essays are most often exhortations to have "beautiful sentiments," to sense the divine oneness that unites all nature and all mankind, to cultivate and enhance the awareness of some shared universal divinity (the "Oversoul.") Emerson's method is not that of philosophers. He does not offer reasoned arguments and systematic conclusions. He writes in aphorisms, stringing them along in sonorous prose whose tone and diction draw heavily on Shakespeare and King James, usually ending with an inspirational climax about what individuals can achieve by following their divine nature. Here's an example from The Poet:
-----
Thou true land-lord! sea-lord! air-lord! Wherever snow falls, or water flows, or birds fly, wherever day and night meet in twilight, wherever the blue heaven is hung by clouds, or sown with stars, wherever are forms with transparent boundaries, wherever are outlets into celestial space, wherever is danger, and awe, and love, there is Beauty, plenteous as rain, shed for thee, and though thou shouldest walk the world over, thou shalt not be able to find a condition inopportune or ignoble.
-----
Clearly the goal is inspiration rather than analysis.
Emerson often embraces a very strong idealism where the products of the mind, being divine, are more real, more powerful, and more meaningful than anything else. He appeals to an inward perception of ineffable truth that he assumes we all feel, or at least is equally accessible to all of us, and that we each must strive to express authentically and personally. He never stops to worry about the kinds of conflict such a strong form of individual authority might lead to, seeming to assume that the nature of divinity will draw us all towards a kind of goodness that must inevitably be mutually compatible: "Duty is One thing with Science, with Beauty, and with Joy."
On the plus side, Emerson at least thinks of personal truth as a conditional and changing thing, never perfect and always subject to being reformulated more perfectly (see the "Circles" essay.) On the minus side, Emerson can easily be quoted in support of such deeply mistaken thinkers as Ayn Rand and Mary Baker Eddy. Emerson's aphoristic style practically invites such misreadings. He can certainly coin a catch phrase (see, for example, the over 1700 "Ralph Waldo Emerson > Quotes" here on Goodreads.) Any attempt to build a systematic philosophy from a few catchy Emerson excerpts is likely to fall into errors that Emerson himself did not exactly make.
At his best, Emerson offers a sense of power and beauty in the workings of the mind and nature. He will keep his place in classrooms as an early of peculiarly American spirit, both admiring and rejecting European traditions, preferring a path that starts in nature, prefers individual intuition over received tradition, and is as accessible to farmers as to philosophers.
At his worst, Emerson's exalted prose seems bathetic and willfully naïve, asserting implausibly that if only we pursue beauty and truth then all will be well. The "soul, which within us is a sentiment, outside of us is a law." "Justice is not postponed. A perfect equity adjusts its balance in all parts of life." "Every crime is punished, every virtue rewarded." (Those are all from "Compensation.")
I'm sure my anti-Emerson high school repugnance was largely a reaction to a highfalutin style that was simply beyond me, but after a more deliberate engagement I am largely unsympathetic to his goals and still find him pompous. He's more preacher than poet, and full of too much wishful thinking.
December 11, 2015
I appreciate Emerson's passion, but his rhetoric is overblown and sophistical. He excuses his inconsistency with a pithy phrase that has become his trademark, but his careless thinking isn't so much a hobgoblin as a morass. He has a good heart, so it's hard to give the man a pitiful two-star review. Unfortunately, I think he's peddling snake oil. He provides the perfect argument against idealism while intending just the opposite. I admit that I didn't read all of these essays but like the fine people of Concord who crossed the street to avoid "Mad-dog Emerson," I feel compelled to do the same.
September 16, 2023
No American author is greater at expressing an idea in a sentence than Ralph Waldo Emerson, I'd say.
What are his ideas and how does he express them? Emerson is the principal proponent of Transcendentalism, which can be profitably described as idealism -- where, cribbing from German Idealism, Platonism, mysticism, and religious texts, he believes that reality is but an illusion, mind and matter are two modes of the same essence, and all tends towards perfection -- but with some focus on moral, political, and aesthetic individualism. While that might not sound too special, the versatility and probity with which Emerson conveys his ideas are. His densely written essays strike out in many directions at once, often leading to statements that conflict with others before emerging as the same ideas from different angles. I imagine Emerson's thought as a floodwater-filled river, roaring with eddies, currents, and debris careening every which way but ultimately all tending in the same direction.
Emerson's achievement as an essayist principally rests on the best pieces in his first three books, Nature, Essays: First Series, and Essays: Second Series. The title paper of the first book, "Nature," consolidates all of the core beliefs he will spend his life working with, while "The Divinity School Address" and "The American Scholar" find Emerson staking his major claims against existing religious institutions and in favor of an American cultural renaissance. The following two books boast "Self-Reliance" and "The Poet," expressing Emerson's individualist and aesthetic philosophies, respectively, among other famous papers like "The Over-Soul" and "Circles." No three of these books are perfect by any means -- the first features some rambling aggrandizing, and the latter two have their fair share of repetition ("Compensation," one of my least favorites, takes 20 pages to assert that for everything in life, "what goes around comes around") -- but all three have relatively underappreciated gems, and my favorites are "The Conservative," "Friendship," and "Experience" -- this last one includes a beautiful and frank brief expression of Emerson's grief over his son's tragic death.
A prodigious writer, Emerson also produced poems, translations, journals, uncollected essays for The Dial, letters, and no doubt many other things, but he also wrote three more books of essays later on which are significantly less successful. Representative Men, for those as unlucky as myself to have already read Thomas Carlyle's tiresome On Heroes, is bound to freshly annoy with its turgid, disorganized adulation for some major characters and one not-quite-minor character (Swedenborg). All of the profiles in the book have their moments, and "Shakespeare; or, the Poet" is worth a look, but the collection marks a retreat in Emerson's vision. Dimmer still, both in material and expression, is English Traits, wherein he shuffles and reshuffles cliches of English culture -- politeness, industry, warring spirit, love of hearth and home, Saxons and Normans and Celts and so on -- with very spotty glimmers of insight peeping through. "Stonehenge," a brief and playful account of Emerson's visit to, well, Stonehenge with a friend is about all I'd care to return to here. I hear The Conduct of Life is better, but I'm not going to attempt it for now as nothing in the table of contents spoke to me.
Now, to generously forget those last three books and return to the first three, Emerson's energy, range, and reach as a thinker and writer is plainly unique in American literature and no one particularly compares. His depth and originality, truth be told, is debatable; looking over the ideas churning within the exquisitely worded lines of the essays, I'm tempted to call his philosophy at a draw, particularly on two points that niggled me. Neither an iconoclast nor an uncritical ally of the reform movements of his day, he nevertheless repeatedly proclaims universal "love" to be the supreme principle and justifying aim of whatsoever means lead to it: this is stupid. And while I appreciate his reverence for the dignity and depth of the individual, it doesn't properly align, I can't imagine, with his more sweeping idealist concepts without some serious mystical contortions.
Ultimately, the artistry and pure living inspiration found in Emerson's work is longer lasting by far than what he has to say -- even more so, how he helped to animate greater writers at his feet: Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman.
I am a fragment, and this is a fragment of me.
What are his ideas and how does he express them? Emerson is the principal proponent of Transcendentalism, which can be profitably described as idealism -- where, cribbing from German Idealism, Platonism, mysticism, and religious texts, he believes that reality is but an illusion, mind and matter are two modes of the same essence, and all tends towards perfection -- but with some focus on moral, political, and aesthetic individualism. While that might not sound too special, the versatility and probity with which Emerson conveys his ideas are. His densely written essays strike out in many directions at once, often leading to statements that conflict with others before emerging as the same ideas from different angles. I imagine Emerson's thought as a floodwater-filled river, roaring with eddies, currents, and debris careening every which way but ultimately all tending in the same direction.
Emerson's achievement as an essayist principally rests on the best pieces in his first three books, Nature, Essays: First Series, and Essays: Second Series. The title paper of the first book, "Nature," consolidates all of the core beliefs he will spend his life working with, while "The Divinity School Address" and "The American Scholar" find Emerson staking his major claims against existing religious institutions and in favor of an American cultural renaissance. The following two books boast "Self-Reliance" and "The Poet," expressing Emerson's individualist and aesthetic philosophies, respectively, among other famous papers like "The Over-Soul" and "Circles." No three of these books are perfect by any means -- the first features some rambling aggrandizing, and the latter two have their fair share of repetition ("Compensation," one of my least favorites, takes 20 pages to assert that for everything in life, "what goes around comes around") -- but all three have relatively underappreciated gems, and my favorites are "The Conservative," "Friendship," and "Experience" -- this last one includes a beautiful and frank brief expression of Emerson's grief over his son's tragic death.
A prodigious writer, Emerson also produced poems, translations, journals, uncollected essays for The Dial, letters, and no doubt many other things, but he also wrote three more books of essays later on which are significantly less successful. Representative Men, for those as unlucky as myself to have already read Thomas Carlyle's tiresome On Heroes, is bound to freshly annoy with its turgid, disorganized adulation for some major characters and one not-quite-minor character (Swedenborg). All of the profiles in the book have their moments, and "Shakespeare; or, the Poet" is worth a look, but the collection marks a retreat in Emerson's vision. Dimmer still, both in material and expression, is English Traits, wherein he shuffles and reshuffles cliches of English culture -- politeness, industry, warring spirit, love of hearth and home, Saxons and Normans and Celts and so on -- with very spotty glimmers of insight peeping through. "Stonehenge," a brief and playful account of Emerson's visit to, well, Stonehenge with a friend is about all I'd care to return to here. I hear The Conduct of Life is better, but I'm not going to attempt it for now as nothing in the table of contents spoke to me.
Now, to generously forget those last three books and return to the first three, Emerson's energy, range, and reach as a thinker and writer is plainly unique in American literature and no one particularly compares. His depth and originality, truth be told, is debatable; looking over the ideas churning within the exquisitely worded lines of the essays, I'm tempted to call his philosophy at a draw, particularly on two points that niggled me. Neither an iconoclast nor an uncritical ally of the reform movements of his day, he nevertheless repeatedly proclaims universal "love" to be the supreme principle and justifying aim of whatsoever means lead to it: this is stupid. And while I appreciate his reverence for the dignity and depth of the individual, it doesn't properly align, I can't imagine, with his more sweeping idealist concepts without some serious mystical contortions.
Ultimately, the artistry and pure living inspiration found in Emerson's work is longer lasting by far than what he has to say -- even more so, how he helped to animate greater writers at his feet: Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman.
I am a fragment, and this is a fragment of me.
January 18, 2022
作品集，整本书非常长：）爱默生是超验主义（强调人的主观能动性）和个人自由主义的代表人物。他对自己的总结是“In all my lectures, I have taught one doctrine, namely, the infinitude of the private man.”他相信万事万物皆有神性。所有的作品其实都是围绕着”Human” and “Nature”两大主题。
“There is throughout nature something mocking, something that leads us on and on, but arrives nowhere, keeps no faith with us. … The hunger for wealth, which reduces the planet to a garden, fools the eager pursuer. … Thought, virtue, beauty, were the ends; but it was known that men of thought and virtue sometimes had the headache, or wet feet, or could lose good time whilst the room was getting warm in winter days. Unluckily, in the exertions necessary to remove these inconveniences, the main attention has been diverted to this object; the old aims have been lost sight of, and to remove friction has come to be the end. “ from .
论柏拉图的哲学。“Philosophy is the account which the human mind gives to itself of the constitution of the world. Two cardinal facts lie forever at the base; the one and the two. - 1. Unity, or Identity; 2. Variety.” 柏拉图整合了亚洲和欧洲的思想精华。“The unity of Asia，and the detail of Europe; the infinitude of the Asian soul, and the defining, result-loving, machine-making, surface-seeking, opera-going Europe,- Plato came to join, and by contact, to enhance the energy of each.”
“The country of unity, of immovable institutions, the seat of a philosophy delighting in abstractions, of men faithful in doctrine and in practice to the idea of a deaf, unimplorable, immense fate, is Asia; and it realizes this faith in the social institution of caste. On the other side, the genius of Europe is active and creative: it resists caste by culture; its philosophy was a discipline; it is a land of arts, inventions, trade, freedom. If the East loved infinity, the West delighted in boundaries.” From
“The young scholar fancies it happiness enough to live with people who can give an inside to the world; without reflecting that they are prisoners, too, of their own thoughts, and cannot apply themselves to yours.” from
“But in England, the language of the noble is the language of the poor….And their language seems drawn from the Bible, the common law, and the works of Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Pope, Young, Cowper,Burns, and Scott.” From
里谈到了英语的平民化促进了英国国民的平等和民主意识，每个公民都被鼓励有自己的独立思考，这跟天朝几千年的愚民教育形成鲜明对比。财富一章英国对私��财产的保护也让人印象深刻。“The rights of property nothing but felony and treason can override. The house is a castle which the king cannot enter. The Bank is a strong box to which the king does not have the key.”这跟中国文化里的“普天之下，莫非王土”也是鲜明对照。
“There is throughout nature something mocking, something that leads us on and on, but arrives nowhere, keeps no faith with us. … The hunger for wealth, which reduces the planet to a garden, fools the eager pursuer. … Thought, virtue, beauty, were the ends; but it was known that men of thought and virtue sometimes had the headache, or wet feet, or could lose good time whilst the room was getting warm in winter days. Unluckily, in the exertions necessary to remove these inconveniences, the main attention has been diverted to this object; the old aims have been lost sight of, and to remove friction has come to be the end. “ from .
论柏拉图的哲学。“Philosophy is the account which the human mind gives to itself of the constitution of the world. Two cardinal facts lie forever at the base; the one and the two. - 1. Unity, or Identity; 2. Variety.” 柏拉图整合了亚洲和欧洲的思想精华。“The unity of Asia，and the detail of Europe; the infinitude of the Asian soul, and the defining, result-loving, machine-making, surface-seeking, opera-going Europe,- Plato came to join, and by contact, to enhance the energy of each.”
“The country of unity, of immovable institutions, the seat of a philosophy delighting in abstractions, of men faithful in doctrine and in practice to the idea of a deaf, unimplorable, immense fate, is Asia; and it realizes this faith in the social institution of caste. On the other side, the genius of Europe is active and creative: it resists caste by culture; its philosophy was a discipline; it is a land of arts, inventions, trade, freedom. If the East loved infinity, the West delighted in boundaries.” From
“The young scholar fancies it happiness enough to live with people who can give an inside to the world; without reflecting that they are prisoners, too, of their own thoughts, and cannot apply themselves to yours.” from
“But in England, the language of the noble is the language of the poor….And their language seems drawn from the Bible, the common law, and the works of Shakespeare, Bacon, Milton, Pope, Young, Cowper,Burns, and Scott.” From
里谈到了英语的平民化促进了英国国民的平等和民主意识，每个公民都被鼓励有自己的独立思考，这跟天朝几千年的愚民教育形成鲜明对比。财富一章英国对私��财产的保护也让人印象深刻。“The rights of property nothing but felony and treason can override. The house is a castle which the king cannot enter. The Bank is a strong box to which the king does not have the key.”这跟中国文化里的“普天之下，莫非王土”也是鲜明对照。
March 24, 2016
In alluding just now to our system of education, I spoke of the deadness of its details. But it is open to graver criticism than the palsy of its members: it is a system of despair. The disease with which the human mind now labors, is want of faith. Men do not believe in a power of education. We do not think we can speak to divine sentiments in man, and we do not try. We renounce all high aims. We believe that the defects of so many perverse and so many frivolous people, who make up society, are organic, and society is a hospital of incurables. A man of good sense but of little faith, whose compassion seemed to lead him to church as often as he went there, said to me; "that he liked to have concerts, and fairs, and churches, and other public amusements go on." I am afraid the remark is too honest, and comes from the same origin as the maxim of the tyrant, "If you would rule the world quietly, you must keep it amused." I noticed too, that the ground on which eminent public servants urge the claims of popular education is fear: 'This country is filling up with thousands and millions of voters, and you must educate them to keep them from our throats.' We do not believe that any education, any system of philosophy, any influence of genius, will ever give depth of insight to a superficial mind. Having settled ourselves into this infidelity, our skill is expended to procure alleviations, diversion, opiates. We adorn the victim with manual skill, his tongue with languages, his body with inoffensive and comely manners. So have we cunningly hid the tragedy of limitation and inner death we cannot avert. Is it strange that society should be devoured by a secret melancholy, which breaks through all its smiles, and all its gayety and games?
But even one step farther out our infidelity has gone. It appears that some doubt is felt by good and wise men, whether really the happiness and probity of men is increased by the culture of the mind in those disciplines to which we give the name of education. Unhappily, too, the doubt comes from scholars, from persons who have tried these methods. In their experience, the scholar was not raised by the sacred thoughts amongst which he dwelt, but used them to selfish ends. He was a profane person, and became a showman, turning his gifts to a marketable use, and not to his own sustenance and growth. It was found that the intellect could be independently developed, that is, in separation from the man, as any single organ can be invigorated, and the result was monstrous. A canine appetite for knowledge was generated, which must still be fed, but was never satisfied, and this knowledge not being directed on action, never took the character of substantial, humane truth, blessing those whom it entered. It gave the scholar certain powers of expression, the power of speech, the power of poetry, of literary art, but it did not bring him to peace, or to beneficence.
When the literary class betray a destitution of faith, it is not strange that society should be disheartened and sensualized by unbelief. What remedy? Life must be lived on a higher plane. We must go up to a higher platform, to which we are always invited to ascend; there, the whole aspect of things changes. I resist the skepticism of our education, and of our educated men. I do not believe that the differences of opinion and character in men are organic. I do not recognize, beside the class of the good and the wise, a permanent class of skeptics, or a class of conservatives, or of malignants, or of materialists. I do not believe in two classes. You remember the story of the poor woman who importuned King Philip of Macedon to grant her justice, which Philip refused: the woman exclaimed, "I appeal": the king, astonished, asked to whom she appealed: the woman replied, "from Philip drunk to Philip sober." The text will suit me very well. I believe not in two classes of men, but in man in two moods, in Philip drunk and Philip sober. I think, according to the good-hearted word of Plato, "Unwillingly the soul is deprived of truth." Iron conservative, miser, or thief, no man is, but by a supposed necessity, which he tolerates by shortness or torpidity of sight. The soul lets no man go without some visitations and holy-days of a diviner presence. It would be easy to show, by a narrow scanning of any man's biography, that we are not so wedded to our paltry performances of every kind, but that every man has at intervals the grace to scorn his performances, in comparing them with his belief of what he should do, that he puts himself on teh side of his enemies, listening gladly to what they say of him, and accusing himself of the same things.
But even one step farther out our infidelity has gone. It appears that some doubt is felt by good and wise men, whether really the happiness and probity of men is increased by the culture of the mind in those disciplines to which we give the name of education. Unhappily, too, the doubt comes from scholars, from persons who have tried these methods. In their experience, the scholar was not raised by the sacred thoughts amongst which he dwelt, but used them to selfish ends. He was a profane person, and became a showman, turning his gifts to a marketable use, and not to his own sustenance and growth. It was found that the intellect could be independently developed, that is, in separation from the man, as any single organ can be invigorated, and the result was monstrous. A canine appetite for knowledge was generated, which must still be fed, but was never satisfied, and this knowledge not being directed on action, never took the character of substantial, humane truth, blessing those whom it entered. It gave the scholar certain powers of expression, the power of speech, the power of poetry, of literary art, but it did not bring him to peace, or to beneficence.
When the literary class betray a destitution of faith, it is not strange that society should be disheartened and sensualized by unbelief. What remedy? Life must be lived on a higher plane. We must go up to a higher platform, to which we are always invited to ascend; there, the whole aspect of things changes. I resist the skepticism of our education, and of our educated men. I do not believe that the differences of opinion and character in men are organic. I do not recognize, beside the class of the good and the wise, a permanent class of skeptics, or a class of conservatives, or of malignants, or of materialists. I do not believe in two classes. You remember the story of the poor woman who importuned King Philip of Macedon to grant her justice, which Philip refused: the woman exclaimed, "I appeal": the king, astonished, asked to whom she appealed: the woman replied, "from Philip drunk to Philip sober." The text will suit me very well. I believe not in two classes of men, but in man in two moods, in Philip drunk and Philip sober. I think, according to the good-hearted word of Plato, "Unwillingly the soul is deprived of truth." Iron conservative, miser, or thief, no man is, but by a supposed necessity, which he tolerates by shortness or torpidity of sight. The soul lets no man go without some visitations and holy-days of a diviner presence. It would be easy to show, by a narrow scanning of any man's biography, that we are not so wedded to our paltry performances of every kind, but that every man has at intervals the grace to scorn his performances, in comparing them with his belief of what he should do, that he puts himself on teh side of his enemies, listening gladly to what they say of him, and accusing himself of the same things.
Read
February 13, 2016I'm reading Emerson's Essays, Series 1 & Series 2 from the American Library Edition, so while the collection is a little different, I am left with a series of questions which I would love to discuss with someone.
Perhaps I am perverse, but I can't figure out where to stand in relation to Emerson. I suppose I want to be a believer, to follow him, to take his essays as personally instructive and applicable to my life. And yet at the same time, for the most part, I can't find how they are of use in these times. So that seems to make them interested mostly from a literary point of view, the peculiar choice and use of words takes a while to get used to. I'm still working on that.
As a woman, I find that Emerson takes the patriarchal attitude of Western thought absolutely for granted, this and what feels like his embrace of the status quo, are really stultifying for me as a reader. I'm perplexed because, naturally, I am reading as a person living in the 21st century and he was writing in the middle of the 19th century. So how do I make sense of where he is in relation to the other writers and thinkers of his time? I can't seem to parse these differences clearly.
Afterall, isn't Emerson supposed to be rather timeless, and to have considered himself able to engage with the thought of Plato and Shakespeare as easily as with Carlyle or others of his own generation? His assertion that all mind is one, all from the one source suggests that if his thinking is correct then I should be able to find the merit in his thinking if his thinking is sound.
However, what do we do with the plurality of understanding which has come to consciousness since his time? He easily ascribes terms like idiot and imbecile but in this era, we reach out and connect with the feeling and thought of those who were not taught to reason using classical logic, but whose stories and life experience are now recognized as worthy of consideration. Consciousness has grown far beyond the strictures of the academy, but Emerson's work seems to be all in response to that limited point of view.
On the other hand, I find that he has remarkably catholic views, acknowledging that all mind is one, and that we area all part of each other. I am left wondering if he is one of the last of the enlightenment classicists of if he is one of the earliest modernists?
I suppose American thought has always perplexed me. I see it all in relation to issues of economy and history, perhaps because I understand the progression and impact of those matters, but American thinking stands apart.
Perhaps I am perverse, but I can't figure out where to stand in relation to Emerson. I suppose I want to be a believer, to follow him, to take his essays as personally instructive and applicable to my life. And yet at the same time, for the most part, I can't find how they are of use in these times. So that seems to make them interested mostly from a literary point of view, the peculiar choice and use of words takes a while to get used to. I'm still working on that.
As a woman, I find that Emerson takes the patriarchal attitude of Western thought absolutely for granted, this and what feels like his embrace of the status quo, are really stultifying for me as a reader. I'm perplexed because, naturally, I am reading as a person living in the 21st century and he was writing in the middle of the 19th century. So how do I make sense of where he is in relation to the other writers and thinkers of his time? I can't seem to parse these differences clearly.
Afterall, isn't Emerson supposed to be rather timeless, and to have considered himself able to engage with the thought of Plato and Shakespeare as easily as with Carlyle or others of his own generation? His assertion that all mind is one, all from the one source suggests that if his thinking is correct then I should be able to find the merit in his thinking if his thinking is sound.
However, what do we do with the plurality of understanding which has come to consciousness since his time? He easily ascribes terms like idiot and imbecile but in this era, we reach out and connect with the feeling and thought of those who were not taught to reason using classical logic, but whose stories and life experience are now recognized as worthy of consideration. Consciousness has grown far beyond the strictures of the academy, but Emerson's work seems to be all in response to that limited point of view.
On the other hand, I find that he has remarkably catholic views, acknowledging that all mind is one, and that we area all part of each other. I am left wondering if he is one of the last of the enlightenment classicists of if he is one of the earliest modernists?
I suppose American thought has always perplexed me. I see it all in relation to issues of economy and history, perhaps because I understand the progression and impact of those matters, but American thinking stands apart.
February 11, 2025
I finished a marathon dutiful read. I am really glad to have finally sat down with Emerson: 1295 pages worth. I remember in graduate school that I tired of his somewhat rosy view of the world. And I see now that he spends plenty of words on the ills of the soul, yet I still disagree with his premise that man makes his own world. Nature does not exist for human beings to uncover its wonders. And I got pretty exasperated with his love for everything Saxon. I see him as a proto-white supremacist who just assumes that anything English, and by extension, Anglo American, is better than all other cultures. His use of the term race seems more in line with a cultural definition--the French race, the German race, the Hindoo race. Still, he seems blissfully unaware of the tragedy of circumstance. However, the man is a giant thinker and has an incredible insight and I see that he he insists on "man thinking" which runs so counter with our national suspicion against anything thoughtful or reflective. This book was really important in my ongoing education.
February 26, 2019
Turns out Emerson is remembered for his best work. The collected work is interesting because it reveals more of the mind behind the essays, but the essays themselves feel more like a product of their time than bolts of genuine, timeless insight like his best pieces. He raises interesting questions about his wide-ranging subjects of interest - national character, the nature of the sacrament of Communion and whether it makes sense given the history of the early Church, and every virtue he could think of. He doesn't manage to answer these questions convincingly. I'm not sure if it's disappointing or inspiring to discover that he was more of an early New England Malcolm Gladwell or Paul Graham than the sort of intellectual titan I had assumed. So he wasn't perfect. Fine. Doesn't his lack of perfection make his grand successes like Self Reliance even greater, and even more accessible to we fellow mortals?
October 10, 2018
“Our age is retrospective,” wrote Emerson. Emerson fought for individuals to trust the divine within and stop relying on past individuals to tell us what to do. “Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst...They are for nothing but to inspire.” Fascinating read. I think I’m a Transcendentalist.
December 20, 2013
Emerson was one of the most influential writers of my adolescence. I read his entire collected works, even the journals, and felt a deep communion with him always.
July 23, 2017
Emerson is America’s great Transcendental philosopher of nature. I’m not a nature lover, however. I don’t think more truths are to be had walking through a forest than walking down a city street. I don’t think nature is an unambiguous good, extolling lessons of virtue and justice. Nature, to me, is more equivocal, more problematic. Let’s be perfectly clear: It’s trying to kill you. All the time. Everywhere. It is a remorseless battleground for survival.
It’s through these jaded eyes I’m reviewing the key essays as I read them:
The American Scholar – Emerson would have his scholar divorced from an active social, political and commercial life. His views would certainly not jibe with the philosophy of a college education today, in which young adults are prepared for jobs and careers. Emerson, importantly, missed the revolution that was happening right before his nose – the industrial revolution. In light of those changes, Emerson’s views seem rather quaint and, well, 19th century.
The Poet – Emerson prepared the soil, planted the seed and nurtured the blossom that was to become Walt Whitman (and, in some respects, Emily Dickinson). As many people have noted, Emerson’s ideal poet, described here, is embodied in Whitman and his quasi-Eastern philosophy, his new voice/meter, his focus on the American experience. As he says:
“For it is not metres, but a metre-making argument, that makes a poem,—a thought so passionate and alive, that, like the spirit of a plant or an animal, it has an architecture of its own, and adorns nature with a new thing.... For, the experience of each new age requires a new confession, and the world seems always waiting for its poet.” (pg. 450)
I read the Library of America edition. It is a beautiful book with authoritative text. Buy why, why, why, oh why wouldn’t you include an index? Why? How is a reader to look up information with this edition? I wanted to see Emerson’s references to poetry. Not with this edition. I’ve grudgedly accepted that the Library of America editions are going to have no introduction and approximately half the notes you need to fully understand the text. But no index on a book of essays? That’s outrageous. Yes, outrageous.
It’s through these jaded eyes I’m reviewing the key essays as I read them:
The American Scholar – Emerson would have his scholar divorced from an active social, political and commercial life. His views would certainly not jibe with the philosophy of a college education today, in which young adults are prepared for jobs and careers. Emerson, importantly, missed the revolution that was happening right before his nose – the industrial revolution. In light of those changes, Emerson’s views seem rather quaint and, well, 19th century.
The Poet – Emerson prepared the soil, planted the seed and nurtured the blossom that was to become Walt Whitman (and, in some respects, Emily Dickinson). As many people have noted, Emerson’s ideal poet, described here, is embodied in Whitman and his quasi-Eastern philosophy, his new voice/meter, his focus on the American experience. As he says:
“For it is not metres, but a metre-making argument, that makes a poem,—a thought so passionate and alive, that, like the spirit of a plant or an animal, it has an architecture of its own, and adorns nature with a new thing.... For, the experience of each new age requires a new confession, and the world seems always waiting for its poet.” (pg. 450)
I read the Library of America edition. It is a beautiful book with authoritative text. Buy why, why, why, oh why wouldn’t you include an index? Why? How is a reader to look up information with this edition? I wanted to see Emerson’s references to poetry. Not with this edition. I’ve grudgedly accepted that the Library of America editions are going to have no introduction and approximately half the notes you need to fully understand the text. But no index on a book of essays? That’s outrageous. Yes, outrageous.
January 16, 2018
Emerson was - in my mind - beyond brilliant. While I have always heard of him, he was brought to my attention after reading Thoreau's Walden for the first time in 2017. It was then, that I was seriously introduced to Ralph Waldo Emerson.
NOTE #1: I read his famous "Nature" in this book. Then I went on to read "The American Scholar" which is a famous speech he gave at Harvard (where he - and Henry David Thoreau - and Troy Farlow, ha! went to college - might as well have some fun here!). And then I read some - but not all - of his essays in this book as well: Self-Reliance, Nature (the essay), and one or two others. But I did not read this book in its entirety.
NOTE #2: While I have rated it 5 stars, I have done so simply because his brilliance is beyond me - Thoreau is more to my liking - and was MUCH easier for me to digest. But yes, Emerson is something to behold, that is for sure. Nothing but RESPECT for Ralph Waldo Emerson.
NOTE #1: I read his famous "Nature" in this book. Then I went on to read "The American Scholar" which is a famous speech he gave at Harvard (where he - and Henry David Thoreau - and Troy Farlow, ha! went to college - might as well have some fun here!). And then I read some - but not all - of his essays in this book as well: Self-Reliance, Nature (the essay), and one or two others. But I did not read this book in its entirety.
NOTE #2: While I have rated it 5 stars, I have done so simply because his brilliance is beyond me - Thoreau is more to my liking - and was MUCH easier for me to digest. But yes, Emerson is something to behold, that is for sure. Nothing but RESPECT for Ralph Waldo Emerson.
July 1, 2022
Though I thoroughly enjoyed what I read of Essays, I found I grew tired of Emerson about halfway in. Since this book is, quite literally, a collection of his essays and sermons, I found I could "only" read about 600 pages' worth before I felt it was time to retire it (lol).
Emerson perfectly encapsulates the tenets of the American Transcendentalist movement without even trying -- he simply exudes it by who he is and what he believes. I find Transcendentalist beliefs to be beautiful, though I am equal parts religious and spiritual (whereas this small pocket of people placed a heavy emphasis on making their own rules, following their own intuition, and relying on the self entirely for what one needs rather than an omnipotent God).
The way Emerson speaks about life and all of its elements left me captivated, and I definitely plan on reading more about Transcendentalism in the future because of the engaging way in which he presented it.
Emerson perfectly encapsulates the tenets of the American Transcendentalist movement without even trying -- he simply exudes it by who he is and what he believes. I find Transcendentalist beliefs to be beautiful, though I am equal parts religious and spiritual (whereas this small pocket of people placed a heavy emphasis on making their own rules, following their own intuition, and relying on the self entirely for what one needs rather than an omnipotent God).
The way Emerson speaks about life and all of its elements left me captivated, and I definitely plan on reading more about Transcendentalism in the future because of the engaging way in which he presented it.
January 18, 2022
I enjoyed returning to Emerson, in part because he was one of those authors that I ran into, in tiny doses, in high school and LOVED. So, coming back to him as an adult was inevitable and rewarding.
And challenging: 19th century philosophical prose is dense, and so progress was slow. But some of these essays rise to the level of prose poetry. I'd particularly recommend the chapter in the first series of essays on "The Over-Soul" and the part of "The Conduct of Life" on "Worship". Emerson is oft quoted, and deservedly so, with sentences like
"A man is a god in ruins." and "God builds his temple in the heart on the ruins of churches and religions."
Yes, Emerson is dated in his thinking on, for instance, race and gender. But there is a lot here to ruminate on, and this is as close to a personal religious text as I'm likely to find.
And challenging: 19th century philosophical prose is dense, and so progress was slow. But some of these essays rise to the level of prose poetry. I'd particularly recommend the chapter in the first series of essays on "The Over-Soul" and the part of "The Conduct of Life" on "Worship". Emerson is oft quoted, and deservedly so, with sentences like
"A man is a god in ruins." and "God builds his temple in the heart on the ruins of churches and religions."
Yes, Emerson is dated in his thinking on, for instance, race and gender. But there is a lot here to ruminate on, and this is as close to a personal religious text as I'm likely to find.
September 17, 2020
I'm sure every good thing that can be said about this book has been said countless times.
I go to it often to find a quote I've read in another book so I can see the original context in which it was written.
I also use it for a "turn to a random page" book.
I will own it forever.
I go to it often to find a quote I've read in another book so I can see the original context in which it was written.
I also use it for a "turn to a random page" book.
I will own it forever.
October 14, 2019
Holy mother, I finally finished this tome of beauty. I read it in small increments, with other books in between, throughout the past 16 months and it was always a treat. Emerson is a wonder.
May 3, 2020
I might take the book mark back to the front and start this over again.
Awesome fails description.
Awesome fails description.
Read
June 26, 2020Read this to free yourself.
February 18, 2021
Read "Nature".
December 22, 2021
Can't get enough Emerson! This hits the spot nicely.
Want to read
August 28, 2024Close reading poetry
Read
September 25, 2024what a silly guy
April 23, 2025
Literally me
December 17, 2009
I'm adding this on 12-17-09:
I have been checking this in and out of the library since August, I think will just post as I go. It is just too dense to somehow, summarize with a simple “Thumbs up!” More recently I have been focusing on how Emerson represented and interpreted a certain climate that existed in New England during this time. Mormonism developed in the same climate and this is of interest to me. There are some important parallels in how Emerson views man and the doctrine of the Mormon Church. For example, LDS doctrine emphasizes eternal progression, and the divine parentage of every spirit. Emerson is obsessed with harnessing an inner divine power. In his The American Scholar, he says “[man:] shall look forward to an ever expanding knowledge as to a becoming creator.” Still riot inciting today are his thoughts on the divinity of Jesus Christ as discussed in his address to the Harvard School of Divinity. He sees Jesus Christ as no more divine that all mankind, or perhaps, less offensively, we are no less divine. “One man [Jesus Christ:] was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, `I am divine. Through me, God acts; through me, speaks.” While LDS people are devoted to a divine Christ as a member of the Godhead, every soul has the seed of divine potential. This is a radical idea now but, it seems that, perhaps, at least among certain circles in New England in the early 1800s, this was an idea that was being explored.
Self-reliance drove me crazy. Am I foolishly consistent, and therefore, of little mind, or and I simply consistent in some respectable way?? One quote which I am endeared to at the moment is, “Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.” What if we allowed ourselves to grow, evolve, improve, and rather that treat this a betrayal of past ideas, simply embrace the new in a unselfconscious way?
Enough for now.
This was a rollercoaster for me because of my personal journey right now, but there is some very humbling wisdom here. It feels, to me, very timeless. We each, at some point, must own ourselves and trust ourselves. It isn't immoral if we believe we are divine by design. It is time to grasp our individual purpose releasing all external "duty."
I have been checking this in and out of the library since August, I think will just post as I go. It is just too dense to somehow, summarize with a simple “Thumbs up!” More recently I have been focusing on how Emerson represented and interpreted a certain climate that existed in New England during this time. Mormonism developed in the same climate and this is of interest to me. There are some important parallels in how Emerson views man and the doctrine of the Mormon Church. For example, LDS doctrine emphasizes eternal progression, and the divine parentage of every spirit. Emerson is obsessed with harnessing an inner divine power. In his The American Scholar, he says “[man:] shall look forward to an ever expanding knowledge as to a becoming creator.” Still riot inciting today are his thoughts on the divinity of Jesus Christ as discussed in his address to the Harvard School of Divinity. He sees Jesus Christ as no more divine that all mankind, or perhaps, less offensively, we are no less divine. “One man [Jesus Christ:] was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, `I am divine. Through me, God acts; through me, speaks.” While LDS people are devoted to a divine Christ as a member of the Godhead, every soul has the seed of divine potential. This is a radical idea now but, it seems that, perhaps, at least among certain circles in New England in the early 1800s, this was an idea that was being explored.
Self-reliance drove me crazy. Am I foolishly consistent, and therefore, of little mind, or and I simply consistent in some respectable way?? One quote which I am endeared to at the moment is, “Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.” What if we allowed ourselves to grow, evolve, improve, and rather that treat this a betrayal of past ideas, simply embrace the new in a unselfconscious way?
Enough for now.
This was a rollercoaster for me because of my personal journey right now, but there is some very humbling wisdom here. It feels, to me, very timeless. We each, at some point, must own ourselves and trust ourselves. It isn't immoral if we believe we are divine by design. It is time to grasp our individual purpose releasing all external "duty."
try-again-later
October 10, 2009The thing I like the best about Emerson is that he provides a pattern of life that I can live with. He balances the spiritual, intellectual, emotional, and physical lives in a way that seems quite useful to me.
I probably won't give this five stars just because he can be long-winded and boring at times, but there is still plenty of excitement too.
I definitely am finding the second series of essays inferior to the first. I had high hopes for "Experience" for instance but found it unclear and bloated.
In his essay on Intellect Emerson talks about finding an author who can mirror back your own mind to you. I think this is the primary reason that I am grooving on him so much right now. I feel like as much as other authors have amazed or excited me, Emerson's is the closest I have come to meeting a really kindred mind.
To me he really provides a pattern of a spiritual and intellectual life, which is in many ways is what I am searching for in reading. I think he would approve of this. That's not to say that I think that's what people should be searching for in reading, or even that I will continue with that later. Rather that has been one of my overriding motivations in reading for some time. Perhaps it will change now to a more general search for expression and variety.
"Circles" is in my opinion the center (pun intended) of his system.
I've also noticed that I much prefer Emerson to Nietzsche. Although they are after very similar things Emerson does so without the pretention pomposity and sheer ranting crazy that is Nietzsche's work. Emerson writes without the bitterness that seems to come from a childish feeling of not being appreciated.
I would like to offer a few comparison/contrast quotes although they will have to be seen as cherry-picked rather than scholarly chosen.
Transvaluation of all values
The uber-mensch
Metaphysics
I probably won't give this five stars just because he can be long-winded and boring at times, but there is still plenty of excitement too.
I definitely am finding the second series of essays inferior to the first. I had high hopes for "Experience" for instance but found it unclear and bloated.
In his essay on Intellect Emerson talks about finding an author who can mirror back your own mind to you. I think this is the primary reason that I am grooving on him so much right now. I feel like as much as other authors have amazed or excited me, Emerson's is the closest I have come to meeting a really kindred mind.
To me he really provides a pattern of a spiritual and intellectual life, which is in many ways is what I am searching for in reading. I think he would approve of this. That's not to say that I think that's what people should be searching for in reading, or even that I will continue with that later. Rather that has been one of my overriding motivations in reading for some time. Perhaps it will change now to a more general search for expression and variety.
"Circles" is in my opinion the center (pun intended) of his system.
I've also noticed that I much prefer Emerson to Nietzsche. Although they are after very similar things Emerson does so without the pretention pomposity and sheer ranting crazy that is Nietzsche's work. Emerson writes without the bitterness that seems to come from a childish feeling of not being appreciated.
I would like to offer a few comparison/contrast quotes although they will have to be seen as cherry-picked rather than scholarly chosen.
Transvaluation of all values
The uber-mensch
Metaphysics
March 30, 2010
A wealth of information. I feel my relative had incredible spiritual teachings that the world didn't accept until this age. It proves to me that although his thoughts weren't as acceptable then, they give us great awareness of the spirituality of life and the struggles of the human, while living on earth. He is very deep and each time I read this book, I learn more. Again this is proof as to how we learn as humans. We each have the understanding according to our level of consciousness and so when we grow in consciousness and we read again, we learn more. This is why a teaching given from the spiritual realm continues to transcend. This is the greatest hope of tomorrow, that we will always transcend everything and come up higher.
December 30, 2008
Am I putting this up here just to make myself look smart? Ummm...let's skip that one, and just say that I'd never read him before, might have missed him if it hadn't been assigned for class and I really loved this book. Scary how perfectly someone could nail the America of today when writing over a hundred years ago. Also gotta love someone who tells students at the Harvard Divinity school that it's okay not to get into Jesus if you're not feeling him (not an exact quote). John Lennon would approve.
January 19, 2009
This compendious, rather unwieldy (yet still portable!) collection of R.W. Emerson's essays, poems, lectures, and other assorted literary marginalia is great--you can really see his development as the grand poobah of self-reliance and metaphysical Idealism. While the overly abstract and sometimes contradictory language can be a real bear to get through, it's worth it--it's a privilege to see such a great mind at work and I found myself coming across aphorisms that I didn't know were originally by Emerson.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews