Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Emerson and Nature

If you want to believe that Nature is sentient, and both loves and cares for humans, then it helps to live in an area like Concord, MA. The countryside there ripples in gentle folds, dotted with farms and generally prosperous. In Emerson's day, it was a bucolic paradise, close enough to Boston to attract a sophisticated population, and far enough away to be safe from the corrupting influences of civilization.
.
Emerson's house, The Old Manse (see the painting above), was an attractive one, large enough for his four children, plus servants, plus friends. Thoreau lived there for years, off and on. From the house, Emerson could stroll through peaceful woods and fields, where "Nature, red in tooth and claw" was rarely visible. Instead, his vision of Nature was one of peace and plenty, tamed by farms and made productive by farmers. Emerson could walk philosophically through rain and snow, knowing that his warm, snug abode lay nearby. That takes a lot of the sting out of the cold.

From this comfy position, it's possible for Emerson to write that Nature is a human being's spiritual guide, moral teacher, and source of wisdom. He can advocate contact with Nature as a cure for mental and physical disease, and can, without any sense of hypocrisy or irony, proclaim that Nature directs itself always to the good of humans, with a human-like benevolence. He doesn't mean, of course, that Nature "thinks" the way people think, but he does believe that it was designed (by exactly who or what, Emerson is vague) to benefit people.

Later in the 19th Century, people like Ambrose Bierce looked at this view of nature and scoffed mightily. They found it at best naive, and at worst, unforgiveably anthropocentric. In Emerson's world, humans are at the center of Nature, its point and focus. Nature reasons like a human, behaves like a human, and focuses creative energy on teaching humans and helping them develop sound bodies and minds. Nature functions a lot like a Boy Scout leader, to be honest. It's easy to believe in the utter goodness of Nature when one lives in Concord, and has scenes like the Old North Bridge, above, to comfort one. I still wonder, what would Emerson have thought if he'd lived in Canada and routinely been chased by mad walruses, or perhaps had his aunts nibbled by polar bears? I'm betting Nature wouldn't be so cuddly . . .
.
Henry David Thoreau, the Iconoclast of Concord, took Emerson at his word and set off, once, into the Maine woods, where he almost died from an overdose of Nature. The awareness that -- gasp -- Nature was indifferent to him created a crisis in his philosophy and a bit of a breach between himself and Emerson. Thoreau remained a Transcendentalist, but he backed way off from the idea that Nature is aware of humans and wants to help them. I think this is the saner, and safer, position.

9 comments:

  1. Emily Dean.....

    Emerson's nature was a controlled nature. Set as to please humans, not to portray true nature ie being chased by walruses or nibbled upon by bears or wolves and what not. It was what they wanted to believe about nature, versus what nature was truely about, survival of the fittest. Nature is beauiful but it is also dangerous and it can kill you if it want. So I guess in that aspect it is like a human. With the ability to do what it want when it wants without its prey knowing otherwise.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. i dont blame him for his view of nature, because when you are within the woods or the fields. You are in your element and its not too rare to feel as one and spiritual with the beautifull surrondings i would probably write the same way and i appreciate the emotional aspects of it

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like where emerson comes from regarding nature also. I believe he is right, you can find your-self and the true nature of your soul of you become self relient and find beauty and comfort in great vast world that surrounds us. However it is nieve to think that nature knows you're there. I think he should of known better. If you must rely on your-self for self-fulfilment, you can't just go into the woods and think the woods are gonna help you out. reliance on your-self can't be dependent on a reliance on nature.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Emerson would have seen very little separation between the "self" and "Nature," in the spiritual sense, although they would be very distinct in the philosophical sense. Thre is "Me," and "Not Me," and Nature falls into this last category, but it also is "Me" in that I observe it, understand it, and am shaped by it. (And in this statement it's the Emersonian "I," not the Janet "I".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ashlyn DiCiero


    What I find interesting about Emersons view on nature, is that his actual experince in an uncontrolled atmosphere was unbelieveably limited.( Stating that he stayed in a tent and still had his aunts bring food out to him... not sooo much a wealth of knowledge in my books) It does question in my mind how certian poets express a romantic side of nature; that its the cure for every aliment, that if you connect enough with nature it will never harm you. I think that these certian poets posed false images and a falso knowledge to their followers.I just find it hard to follow a poet and (actually take them seriouly) when you find out reasoning for intrusting so much into the "nature" element

    ReplyDelete
  6. Genny said...

    I dont blame Emerson for viewing nature the way he did. Because, even I sometimes feel a certain peace and feeling of saftey when your out in a field or in the woods. How can we blame him for having this view of nature when he never had a bad experience? For those who have been through a hurricane, tornado, flash flood, etc. wouldn't view nature as this postive thing. But, obviously Emerson never had been though that. So as nieve as it is, we have to give him a little slack.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would have to agree with everyone views in this post, even Emerson a little. I think that nature is so beautiful, unpredictable and the most important thing in our lives. Emerson might have gone to the extreme, but maybe he just had such high respect for Nature, he truly believed in what he was writing. I am from CA and have been experienced earthquakes, and I also was lost in the woods at 12 for about 8 hours. Both of these event happened because of Nature, they were the scariest events in my life even up to date. I can honestly say that I am not afraid and still respect and love Nature as much if not more than before I experience these events. So what I am getting at is maybe, even if Emerson had a harder life he would have still had the same passion and motivation towards Nature.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Emerson had no real reason to view nature in any other way. He had never experienced it in a negative way. I agree with him in the fact that nature is very beautiful. We should respect it and enjoy it. However, nature is very unpredictable. Sometimes, like Shylah was saying it is not very enjoyable.
    -Katy Simpkins

    ReplyDelete
  9. Adam said...

    I read some from his essay "Nature" and the only question i could ask myself is "is he freaking insane"? To live in MA means I'm sure they had snow, did he not that would take life if it had the chance? I feel Thoreau should throw his ass out into the snow and lock the doors! Maybe that seems harsh, but then maybe he will get a taste of what he is preaching....
    But who know he could say that the snow was huging him a little to hard! lol

    ReplyDelete