Lobo's essay

For those who might care, I present the first draft of my essay:

The Internet. Arguably the greatest thing man has created. It is an invention that has brought the sum of human experience and wisdom into each and every home. No doubt something to be loved by all. However, I believe that some of America’s greatest minds, namely Emerson, Whitman, and Thoreau would detest and fight against its existence.

Thoreau found the news to be a useless distraction. One that removed people from the area around them and brought their thoughts to faraway lands and to situations they had no power over whatsoever (not that they have much power on their own situations). Thoreau would have hated the Internet for its power to bring news and gossip from around the world to people in a matter of seconds. The Internet manages to connect people to all of the rest of Earth with ease. That’s what it was designed for. The Transcendentalists would have detested such interconnectivity. In an age where even the hobos have cell phones and laptops, where can one go to escape? The answer oddly enough lies within the Internet. While the Internet provides for an unprecedented amount of connection, it also allows for complete anonymity. Emerson said that one must retire from not only society but also from his chamber. This was necessary to escape from ideas other than your own original ones entering your mind. Emerson also said that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” This leads me to the conclusion that Emerson not only wanted people to retire from their chamber, but also from themselves. The Internet’s total anonymity provides for the perfect way to escape oneself. On anonymous forums it is possible to express and think freely without fear of retribution for what is most probably nonconformity. In addition the immense amounts of different opinions leads to so much variability of what is expressed, coupled with the fact that everyone can add to it that there really is no fear of being too influenced. In every single little forum thread you can find so many conflicting opinions that you can easily build your own from scratch; and from there have an original opinion. So in that regard I say the Transcendentalists are wrong. The Internet does not deprive you in your ability to escape.
Another thing the Transcendentalist would find at fault with the very concept of the Internet is how it removes you from nature. To be on the Internet you must be on a computer and be near a source of bandwidth. These things are almost always found inside is the normal presumption. The Transcendentalists, who believe that nature is akin to God and that nature is that with which me must find a connection to, would loathe this dependency on streaming electrons. However again they would be wrong. While the Internet can easily be seen to deprive one of Nature it is easy to reconnect thanks to the Internet. Even as I type this I can, with a few clicks and a couple of keystrokes, place myself at any point of the globe. A little typing and instantly I can gaze at the forests of Amazon, a few more keystrokes and I find myself in the Sahara, again and I am in the frozen tundra of Siberia. The Transcendentalists couldn’t access this kind of instant nature! They had to hike miles out into the woods to get to nature, and then they were restricted to what little biomes they could visit. The Internet on the other hand allows for me to see the entire world. Furthermore the internet does not deprive one of access to nature. I can easily get a satellite uplink on my computer and go out into the forest, and still have access to both nature and all of human experience and knowledge simultaneously. Not too shabby a deal.

Another issue that the Transcendentalists would have with the Internet is the sheer fact that one can access so much information with such ease. I believe that the Transcendentalists, especially Emerson, would have detested how much knowledge can be gained second hand. Again I find myself to disagree with them. In their time knowledge was spread via paper and word of mouth, thus making knowledge sources subjective was extremely easy. However, now that knowledge can be spread so quickly and, thanks to Wikipedia (lets face it, how often do we use other sources?), it can be edited easily. This of course leads to information having to be much more objective. Objectivity is needed because if everyone is capable of adding what they think about something with anonymity then they can just as easily complain about information being biased. Therefore the information, while received secondhand is in a much more pure form then that which would have been presented to the Transcendentalists. Life is so much easier nowadays.

While the Transcendentalists were very intelligent and were assuredly some of America’s greatest thinkers, their ideas remain unnecessary in the face of the Internet. While their ideas do make for an interesting read, they cannot be put into the context of the internet and hope to hold up. In short, the Internet is awesome, and the Transcendentalists are outdated.

any and all comments appreciated.

A new idea, a new direction...

I was going to bring Emerson back into our time, and have him make comments on life as we know it today, as many of my classmates were doing, but then I came across a different idea. I wrote about Emerson as talking to me directly, and not really saying anything new, but helping me to see something in a different light. I would post it, but I'm not sure about it yet. There are still somethings that need tweaking. I just thought that I would replenish my earlier post by actually blogging about a solid idea. The assignment says that we need to, in some way make the words relevant to an event in our lives, and as many of you have probably already heard me say, with college around the corner I am finally noticing the beauty of Telluride. This is what I wrote about, Emerson helping me truly see nature. :)

!#$@#$!

In my essay I am going to bring Emerson into the future and see his take on the great 21st century America. he will look at the materialistic items we treasure, the conformity on the everyday scale and the lack of finding true nature as are computer addicted, text messaging, world of war craft playing masses get paler indoors everyday . it will be fun to give his views on the irrelevant objects we cherish and views of people in modern society.

For my essay i'm thinking of writing more from a journal style instead of a formal essay. I havent decided exactly what i'm going to write about but i think i'm going to take a few different points that i've highlighted while reading and discuss not only my opinion on them but how they could relate to the world today. The way I'll be writing this will be similar to the way Abbey wrote 'thoreau and other friends'. I'll have the different 'entries' of this journal dated along the days that we've gotten the different writings we've recieved so far in class and use my annotations to discuss different points. When finished it will basically be my person interpretation of how these points relate to todays world and to myself.

Ideas... Ideas...

So it took me a while to decide what to write about and I'm still keeping an open mind, however, I think the topic for my essay is going to be modern day lifestyles. I'm going to discuss how everything we do and wear and believe in is shaped and based off of something else. Nothing is original anymore since it has most likely already been done. As children, we learn from our parents, teachers, peers, and elders who have learned from the people before them and so on and so forth. With this trickle down of information and traditions, there are only discreet and small changes to the way we do things. I am going to bring Thoreau, Emerson and Whitman all back to life just as E.B. White did and get their opinions and thoughts on being original, and how that does not seem to exist anymore. I am going to criticise the world as we know it through their eyes. With three strongly opinionated authors I feel that this essay will turn out alright.

NO AUTHORITY

“It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.”

“The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and the heart of the child.”

“Who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood?”

These are some of the quotes from Emerson that will help me spark more ideas about my essay. I am planning on using a combination of ideas from Emerson to help me et my point across. One of my main ideas will be the stages of growing up and how your mind becomes more brainwashed by the world and the whole system every day. From going to school all the way to watching news, the mind only gets dumber as you grow up. I will present all of this information by a simple scenario of me going to a normal day of school. Then all of the sudden I will have some sort of problem with the authority in my school and I will go crazy. All of the sudden I realize that I have no purpose in following all the kids around in my school and I decide to live a more simple life. Then with out hesitation I pack up every thing I need to live on my own and I start driving. From there I will drive until my tank is empty and then I abandon my car and travel on skies. You must realize that it is the middle of winter and it isn’t exactly the easiest time o lie in the woods. I put the skins on my skies and start skinning up into lizard head pass. I go for a while until I come upon Emerson living in a craze fort built into the snow. From there it goes from two people of a different generation camping together, to two imaginations that are of the same generation, and it becomes more of a sleepover in Emerson’s nature dwelling

Education

To be completely honest, I’m not quite exactly sure what to say in this essay. What I do know is that I will be arguing Emerson’s point of education (through Divinity School and Self-Reliance) with present day examples. I believe that Emerson is trying to expound upon the idea of education as an individual concept. His writings lead me to believe that education or academics are achieved only when one does not conform to the “fathers” complete beliefs “So to regard the young child, the young man requires, no doubt, rare patience: a patience that nothing but faith in the remedial forces of the soul can give... If he has his own vice, he has its correlative virtue. Every mind should be allowed to make its own statement in action, and its balance will appear.” Emerson is not against the idea of formal education, but rather against the idea of the normality of all of the trivial and petty do’s and don’ts. He emphasizes the instances of learning through nature and from what I feel one’s own inclination towards textual meanings “Is it not manifest that our academic institutions should have a wider scope; that they should not be timid and keep the ruts of the last generation, but that wise men thinking for themselves and heartily seeking the good of mankind, and counting the cost of innovation, should dare to arouse the young to a just and heroic life; that the moral nature should be addressed in the school-room, and children should be treated as the high-born candidates of truth and virtue?”

The never ending quest of a divine equilibrium between man and the unknown source of nature has fairly been the main struggle between human kind since the beginning of time. The unanswerable question- Why are we here, and who is responsible? continues to bewilder us and keep us searching for an answer. Every civilization has grasped a unique understanding of all existence through centuries of careful observance. It seems that the only way for man to find a sense of spiritual balance is through worshiping and paying respect to life and all of existence, "The foregoing generations beheld god and nature face to face". The true superiority is nature.
The birth of Christ dramatically changed all life as we know it. with 50% of the general population of North America alone being Christian, and other countries reaching up to 98%, Christianity alone has enough power to put this world to an end. It has gotten to a point where we cant do anything about it, its a part of everything, we dont know life without diehard religious groups. Why is this, why do people seek the creator, and why do they have all these ideas about origin that they arent even sure about. Religion has always had the same basic structure. If you look at ancient Egypt, Persia, and Greece, they all have similar stories, maybe even coincide all together. All the profits are known to have been resurrected from the dead to eternal life, even on the same day. Jesus, evidently, is the most recent. But judging on how in all these different places that had no form of contact at all had a profit resurrected and come back to life on the same day, suggests something peculiar. The Ancient Egyptians and Greeks had many gods of different sources of nature, and each of which is in the sky, constellations. How do you think people get any ideas of a supernatural conception other than observance of what is around us? i Believe its a bond with nature, at the beginning it is at least, then people go crazy and kill and get greedy because thats how we are, There is no way we can really grasp the true significance of everything. the best we can do is enjoy our surroundings and be one with nature, because thats the closest we will and ever have been with a sense of god. like Emerson has said- "We are now so far from the road to truth, that religious teachers dispute and hate each other, and speculative men are esteemed unsound and frivolous".

Transcendentalists and teh interwebz!

For my essay i think i'm going to be looking at the internet, and what the transcendentalists would think of it. Personally i think that while certain parts of it would appeal to them, over all they would hate it. Mostly I think this for a few reasons, the greatest of which is that the internet removes you from nature. Additionally I think that they wouldn't like that everything on the internet is a secondhand source, that pages like Wikipedia prompt conformity. On the other hand I think they would like all the porn. Procreant urges are really easy to satisfy with the internet's help. I think that explaining all that will be the first half of my essay and then in the second half I'm going to defend the internet and say that the Transcendentalists are wrong. I will talk about how things like Google Earth enable people get a view of places that they can't otherwise see, and about how Google Earth can put someone in any part of the world with just a few keystrokes. Also how people can retire to solitude easily on the internet. And while this is a strange and at first glance wrong statement, it is true. I think that when Emerson said that you must retire from society and your chamber, he meant more than just retiring from the opinions and ideas of everyone else but also from yourself. As he said "A foolish constancy is the hobgoblin of little minds". Thus i believe that he wanted people to retire from themselves as well as other's minds. And where better to simultaneously retire from yourself than the completely anonymous internet? On the internet people can express their thoughts freely without worry that "for nonconformity the world will whip you with it's displeasure". Thats the basic idea. I have a few more points that i don't really want to get into, but if anyone has any ideas for other ways in which either the Transcendentalists could attack the internet, or i could defend it, I would appreciate it if you were to share.

Good Old Mother Nature

For my transcendentalists essay I am going to be exploring throughout the mountains on my snowboard and at the same time I will be comparing my experience to what Walt Whitman has described about the power of nature. I will point out specific ideas about have nature is shaping my life and then I will talk about how my time in the mountains is similar and different than what Whitman describes in song of my self. When I am venturing through the mountains I will also bring up Whitman's idea about how people are not contained between their hat and boots. Then I will take Whitman's idea and apply it to my own life. Overall I am going to write about my adventure in nature and compare it to Whitman's ideas. 

My ideas so far....

I seem to be a bit stuck on how I want to work this into my essay completely but I know what my main topic of discussion will be... With this essay I would like to work with the idea of self-reliance. I want to go off of specific ideas of today, such as the media and explain how I think Emerson would react to our current society. I will touch on the points of conforming for others and also use that to play off the point of "imitation is suicide." I can strongly relate to the concepts that Emerson states in his writings and I think that from that I can add personal expericenes to really improve the essay. Such ecxperiences will be from times I have really had noting to fully rely on but myself and I was able to pull through and succeed.

“I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear, not did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite unnecessary…For most men, it appears to me, are in a strange uncertainty about it, whether it is of the devil or of God, and have somewhat hastily concluded that it is the chief end of man here to “glorify God and enjoy him forever.” -- Henry David Thoreau

Only twice a year I go to church. Each time I ask myself the same question; “why am I here?” Every time I hear the church bells ring my stomach cringes because I know in just moments a man who refers to himself as close to God will preach and praise the Lord for all that he’s worth in our lives. To me that’s not much. This isn’t to say I dare to create uncouth opinions about these people who find solace in prayer and the Lord, but more to criticize the dependence on something we don’t even know exists. Thoreau “wished to live deliberately” and not miss anything, so he escaped to the woods. Even though this getaway exists solely in his imagination, his belief that he can find true life here is similar to that of finding a valid life within the unrealistic reality of Church. This dependence on God, on Christ won’t get you anywhere. Although, neither will the idea of solitude. Escaping by living through the eyes of another or running away to find that “living is dear” is in no way really living. The fears of conformity may scare people into these impractical faiths, but little do they realize that facing conformity is the only way to escape it. To see what’s wrong with society today gives each one of us the chance to make better decisions and become ourselves.


As I began to write this essay my ideas changed and shifted but I think the point I will attempt to continue to make that conforming to a religion or personal solitude in the long run wont really help you find yourself. In order to find who you truly are and what you have interest in you first must not only experience other things but notice how other people (society) goes about their lives. Just because you choose to observe this conformity doesnt mean you have to become a part of it. eventually each person becomes their own and this is only truly found by immersing yourself in whatever possible and not finding a dependence on religion or something else. Obviously, my ideas arent totally developed, but usually my writing gets stronger as it progresses.

My plan...

My plan for this essay is to basically critique Modern American culture through the eyes of Whitman, Thoreau, Emerson. Like in your example I will write about how Thoreau would react to the instant way we get news via the internet and how everyone knows everything about everyone through social networks like facebook and myspace. Emerson's belief in "imitation is suicide" would contrast highly with the celebrity culture and how every little girl is trying to imitate and wear the same things as her favorite star. The way many people in the city have forgotten nature would of course disgust Whitman. I will basically critique the modern culture through the ideas of these authors.

Trany Essay

No not that kind of trany...

I think that I am going to explore in my essay an interaction with Whitman of some sorts. To me Whitman has the most original and individual relationship and views of the world. His affinity with nature correlates with mine, and I think that he would be a very interesting person to talk to. I imagine that he would hardly ever say anything that was direct or simple or sensible. Probably something that is totally unrelated, but most importantly genuine. Even in the 19th century he was the child, he was the innocent one. Now I will introduce him to the 21st, he will be like a newborn, yet able to articulate and flow brilliant poetry. I might have him skiing with me, kayaking, admiring the beauty of our town. Or maybe a bright sunny day or maybe a day with light fluffy powder. I will use his innocence to comment on society and my lifestyle. Whitman can judge me and our society without the constraints of pre-existing knowledge.

I'm not sure yet, so any suggestions on friday morning will be welcome.

Zero Draft

Ok well my initial plan was to post a couple pages of a draft up here, but instead I decided to post what Lavender dubs a "zero" draft.

I was having difficulties with an idea to use for my essay, and I am still unsure as a method of structuring, but I have an idea I think I can run with. I mentioned in an earlier post how I thought that Emerson was the most profound. However, I didn't really back up my statement with any specifics. After sorting though it, I decided that it is because he took a position on religion that I had come to believe was a much less conflict-inducing view.

So, that being said, I was thinking of using that as a springboard (particularly his Divinity School Address) to write my essay on religion.

I've previously attempted to write an attack on the church in the Protest ISP. While it impressed a few people, I felt very little satisfaction from it. So I will not be writing another, at least not in that style.

Instead I was considering writing a "solution" per se, rather than a complaint. I think this could be quite interesting as I have a lot of back research that I can use ON TOP of Emerson's poignant quotes like "Meanwhile the doors of the temple stand open day and night...", "Jesus was of the true race of prophets", or (possibly my personal favorite) "Wherever there comes a man, there comes a revolution." (this one could easily fit into my philosophy for anyone who is questioning that one's relevance, but I won't go into a long detailed description of why).

I am still debating on how to frame it. It was suggested to "go" to a church service, possibly bump into Emerson, or just use his quotes. However, these ideas don't strike me as something that'd work well. I'm not throwing them off the table, but I would be interested in any other ideas that could be interesting. (other ideas I've thought about/been suggested are to write my own doctrine, modernize the Divinity School Address, etc.)

Feedback is much appreciated

Ideas hummm.....

I'm not sure what I am thinking about this Essay. I'm not even sure I have much to say, but I do know that Emerson was the one that I found most insightful and he will be the one I write about. I think I am going to take him on a tour of telluride on a summer day. See what he has to say about the environment, and what has become of society. I don't really know what I am supposed to be saying in this blog, my essay will be in monday. Yep...

what i'm thinking...

My idea is to look at what my summer was like through the eyes of these American Romantics. I will touch on some hikes, work, and some other things that I think might be interesting to look at while taking these intellectuals' viewpoints. I don't think it will be too hard because their beliefs are much like mine, I'm really excited to start this paper!

Separation of church and state

I am writing about how Emerson criticizes religion, but really what it has become. I am taking it to the next level, though, and showing the history, present, and future of separation, and lack thereof, of church and state. "God himself, into the open soul, is not explored as the fountain of the established teaching in society." This quote can be used as a starting point for the separation between ministers as in the way when reaching god. If we do not need a middle man to reach a "higher being" than we do not need to mix that faith into education, or a "higher knowledge." These are the issues I will address in my essay:

- Presidency/government (Obama = Muslim?): we have ALWAYS had a christian president. the government has always been affected by christian values.

- Schools/education: reading the bible in school, Christmas break, allusions to the history of Christianity

- Constitution/history: all man created equal, freedom of religion

- Founding fathers left England to escape religious persecution, all white Christians

- New issues: abortion

- Why? we should have a diverse group in government and in everyday life, and on paper we do, but in reality we don't.

I would love some feedback on some other quotes that relate to my topic!

Appearance

Nowadays appearance counts much more than who we really are. Most of the times you're forced to show yourself as people want you to be and it happens so often that almost nobody today knows the real "you".
Usually one of those few people is a friend: someone you grew up with, someone you've known in many years, someone you've spent a lot of time with. It takes a very long time to show who you really are.
Both Emerson and Walden said, in many different ways, that you must be self-confident without the need of relying on other people. "My life is for itself and not for a spectacle" Emerson wrote, meaning "you must think about yourself because what other people think is not important", or "What I must do is all that concerns me, not what people think".
They both found themselves when surrounded by nature: (Emerson) "He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time"; (Walden) "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essensial facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived" or "Every morning was a cheerful invitation to make my life of equal simplicity, and I may say innocence, with Nature herself".
At this point the obvious questions to which I want to find an answer are: When are we allowed to be ourselves? What do we need to be ourselves?

Rough Draft on Essay

The calm wind gently cooled me as I sat and watched the grass wave back in forth. The silence soothed me and took me away from the commotion and clammor of the "real world." The liberty and peace in nature gave me a safe house from reality. The clouds drifted above me swirling and transforming with the wind. Nature in itself is the one thing that has originality. Like a child nature conforms to nothing and is simply unique compared to everything else. In this modern day world it is impossible to be original. The corrupt society pushes you to be cool by judging you. The youth intently attempts to fit in and be a part of the closed minded groups that the enterprises encourage and advertise. I am a billboard myself by wearing brand name clothing and advertising for what is cool. I do not care if you are apart of the essentially blind sea of the mindless drones in our society. The freethinkers have seemed to have faded away. If Ralph W. Emerson were to come into our time and world he would be ashamed to call himself apart of the human race. Our material world is so predictable and is falling into black hole technology. We should love and cherish nature and what opportunities it presents to us, instead of destroying it and passing it by. Why can't we all see as children? To be able to wake up in Telluride is being given a gift everyday. The luscious beautiful colors create a unique painting on the same canvas everyday. All the cliffs and mountains are transformed through the different seasons. Each turn can be a new adventure or just a chance to appreciate what we have and love nature for its simplicity. This is what I cherish about our planet, but the ignorance of man is always looking for something else more exciting. In this I have been corrupted and may contradict myself for I am a conformist. In nature I truly find myself, but all of the other material sins of man, I have committed. I may sometimes grow bored in nature, or want to add to it by listening to music, or even leave it to go watch a movie, but I realize what nature is and how it affects my life. Everybody takes nature for granted at some point, but the people that can acknowledge this and respect nature have taken a step ahead of the conformists. This knowledge is true and pure knowledge, not what school teaches you or what is essential in the "real world", but what is really significant and real.

essay topic

I'm going to write my essay about having originality, Emerson's idea of an original relationship to the universe. In any circumstance, those who are successful are those who found somthing within themselves that was unique. That is the key to success. It doesn't matter what it is, if it is unique, it doesn't have to compete with anything else. No one can imitate what you do best better than you can, so take what you have inside and exploit it in every way possible. Use it as your weapon against any and every obstacle you may run over. You might see someone doing something and say "wow, I wish I could do that". Well you might be able to do whatever that is but to get there you have to take your own path. Taking someone else's route means you aren't letting YOUR full potential be brought to life. I also want to talk about Emerson's take on religion because it is very unique. Religion is an organized group, those who follow it's teachings only follow because others do. Emerson was religious, but it was sincerely from within. Individual religion is good because it is coming from you and pertains to you. One man's philosophy won't always be relevant to another's life. I have always felt very strongly towards doing your own individual thing and I think it's amazing that there was someone at that level during the 1800's. I would like to base my essay around my views on religion and groupism and tie in individuality and originality. 

In a world of Conformity can one truely be a nonconformist?

What defines conformity? And why do we view conformity a bad thing in all aspects? If you think about it aren't we just bits and pieces of others who have influenced our lives in some way or another? As children don't we all say "I want to be like him/her when I'm older?" We all strive to be a better person, so couldn't you consider that conforming to what others think constitutes a good person? What constitutes an individual? For everyone of us is like our parents, siblings, and friends, our individuality is molded by the way we were raised and it what environment we were raised in. If you were raised in a negative setting then the likely hood of you being a negative person is greater then if you were raised in a positive environment.
On the other hand conformity isn't always good but neither is it bad. If you allow yourself to be persuaded to do drugs at a party that would be a form of negative conformity, but if you said no like others at the party it would be a form of positive conformity. And isn't a nonconformist simply a person conforming to the idea of nonconformity?

First few pages

My door was not locked. Of course it was not locked. As Thoreau once said, “What is a house but a sedes-a seat?” When I read this line I was in gentle concurrence, but hardly about to downsize. What I had never bothered to consider, of course, was that Thoreau and his “real estate” company would one day come knocking, or rather, bursting on my door.

The first thing I picked out of him was his shadow. Typical, but rather beardy, it slowly elongated itself on the wall of my modest coatroom. At first thinking nothing of it I merely took the time to recall Emerson. “With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.” Emerson. The man who’s musings I has both admired and despised. The man who was famously “anti-social.” Never had I thought his pattern of recluse would be broken with me.

The first thing I noticed of him was the smell. A country smell, which to me seemed ironic, as I had always considered him to have been a rather classy gentleman. The scent was, well, as Whitman would say, “The sniff of green leaves and dry leaves, and of the shore and dark-color’d sea-rocks, and of hay in the barn” I smile to myself. Whitman had always amused me. The man who talked on street corners and sat naked on the shore. Yet never had I though that the river where he chose to, as he saw it, be one with nature, would be mine.

The first thing I found was that I was faced with a sudden grip of terror. What terrible rules of time must have been broken? What would god say if…of course. That was it. What would god say? He would say what they believed him to say, which, from a group as strange as this could be rather diverse indeed. Emerson attacked the Church in his Divinity School Address with a “noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus.” Had these three men, through some twist of fate and logic, decided that rather than bring Jesus back down to the race of mortals they would join him in the race of gods? Unlikely, yes, but no more so then having arguably the three greatest American intellectuals of the nineteenth century striding into my home.

I stood in awe as they walked past me, giving me little more then a glance. The stopped in the middle of my living room and looked at the abode surrounding them with mystified eyes. Emerson was the first to speak. After looking around at all of the books of history and fiction he said to the bookcase, “Man is timid and apologetic: he is no longer upright.” At this queue the man who I was sure was Thoreau walked over to Emerson, pulled a trash bag out of his coat, and started to pull books of the shelf and put them inside of it.

Meanwhile Whitman had circled like a dog preparing a nest on my carpet, and started to remove his cloths. Upon seeing my look of shock he simply shrugged and said “every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. Walt at this stage was hardly a young, good-looking man, and this thought was rather disturbing. Before Whitman had completed stripping an angry voice came over from where my backpack was. It turned out that Emerson had discovered excerpts of his work inside, and they had infuriated him. I caught what he was saying midsentence; “like children who repeat by rote the sentences of grandmams and tutors…painfully recollecting the exact words they spoke” His tirade against the teaching and memorization of his work suddenly switched viewpoints. He was suddenly yelling about the unjustness of having butchered his books into 15 page installments. I felt as uncomfortable as bewildered. How did I go about telling the great thinker of his time he was contradicting himself? How do I point out a hole in logic far more famous than mine could ever be?

By this point Whitman had finished undressing, and was making towards the door he had enter from. I was by now operating in a sort of shock induced semi-vegetative stat, but was still able to chase after him. I did not think the neighborhood had ever had a man bathe naked in Cornett Creek (for that was where he was headed), nor did I think they wanted to witness it now. I watched in horror as he skipped jauntily across the alley, and plunked himself down on the bank.

First Draft

Peruvian sunlight blazes down on me, making my shoulders ache as we march down the road, maneuvering past vendors and stray cats. It’s so empty in Arequipa, which is usually a bustling city. But not now. Not today.
My host family is dressed in their best. Skirts shimmy, dress shoes clack. And then there’s me. Oh, and Emerson of course. Two vanillas amongst a sea of chocolate. We are so out of place together walking towards the church. I fidget nervously with my hands, tying and retying my ponytail over and over again so that I have something to do with them. I smooth my skirt, feeling jumpy. Emerson is in a tailored suit of dark brown, which matches his dark brown hair distinguished with gray and dark eyes. Unlike me – I’m trembling like a cat in a rainstorm and keeping my eyes averted from all passersby – Emerson strolls casually down the street, his head held high and a confident smirk on his face. I wish it were that easy for me.
The wrought-iron gates swing open to admit us. My host mother takes my hand firmly, shoving her way through the now swarm of people trying to get the best spot. I grab Emerson’s hand – it’s so big compared to mine – to drag him with me. As soon as we are through the gate with other well-dressed Hispanics, we are mob from all sides. The homeless. Some of them are lepers. One man is missing his eyes; one woman holds her arms up imploringly because she has no hands to plea with.
“I have heard a devout person, who prized the Sabbath, say in bitterness of heart, ‘On Sundays, it seems wicked to go to church.’” Emerson says, turning his face away from the man with no legs and one arm with a disgusted sort of sadness. I blush but refuse to answer.
We sit down together in a pew, so close I’m practically sitting on Emerson’s lap. The bench is so full that my little sister has to sit on her grandfather’s lap in order for everyone to fit. The service is about to begin. We’re so far in the back that I can’t see the preacher, but I hear him loud and clear. I try to listen; try to understand, even though the sermon is all in Spanish. When we stand to sing, Emerson leans down to me to whisper, “Meantime, whilst the doors of the temple stand open, night and day, before every man, and the oracles of this truth cease never, it is guarded by one stern condition; this namely; It is an intuition. It cannot be received second hand.” And while my host family sings songs in a foreign tongue I comprehend only in the simplest of ways, I realize that Emerson is right.
I have never been a religious person. My dad is agnostic on the best of days, and throughout my youngest childhood my mother always sought a more spiritual path. The town I have grown up in, however, bubbles over with religion – mostly Christianity. As a little girl my classmates diligently went to church, diligently wore crosses on their necks and went to religious camps, and diligently spewed to me what their parents and religious leaders had always said: go to church. Believe in God. Or you’ll end up in Hell. The thought of those words constantly echoed in my ears from classmates and even teachers makes me feel claustrophobic. I look up at the ceiling for comfort only to find a scene of God’s greatness spreading out above me like some great fishing net.
“Churches are not built upon on his principles,” Emerson murmurs to me. He points at the pulpit where a carving of Jesus dying blossoms in ivory. “But on his tropes.” I scowl, but only because I know he’s right. Maybe once, long ago, Christianity was about people trying to find light in darkness. People wanted to be good back then. They wanted to be righteous not only for themselves, but for future generations. They wanted to prove that they weren’t monsters like their warring brethren. But after Jesus died and the church itself took over, the message changed. No longer does this religion inspire hope, I think to myself as I glance at my host mother holding her child protectively, as though trying to hide him from the eyes of sinners. Now it only inspires fear.
“There is no doctrine of the Reason which will bear to be taught by the Understanding.” Emerson continues. “Jesus Christ belonged to a true race of Prophets.”
I feel my scowl deepen, but also can’t help but look around to make sure no one heard him. If anyone in this church heard Emerson say that, we’d be thrown to the lions. But he’s right – again. The more I read about it, the more it makes sense: Jesus is kind of like Buddha: a highly enlightened man. But that’s just it: he was a man. That’s why people related to him. I look up at Emerson.
“One man is true to what is in you and me. Thus is he, as I think, the only soul in history who has appreciated the worth of man.” Emerson says. I nod in understanding. “But what a distortion did his doctrine and memory suffers in the same, in the next, and the following ages! The true Christianity, - a faith like Christ’s in the infinitude of man, - is lost. None believeth in the soul of man, but only in some man or person old and departed.” Emerson storms, his voice growing with his agitation. I shush him because people are starting to stare. I don’t want to get kicked out – I would disrespect my family if that happened. Still though, the man wearing the long white robe is an imposter. He isn’t doing the religion justice. Instead he is only installing more fear into these people – who watch him like some kids watch TV, with wide eyes and slacked jaws – and not only that, but he is installing prejudice and judgment. It makes me so furious I almost stand up to leave. But really, I remind myself, it isn’t the preacher’s fault. It’s the institution’s fault.
Emerson nods back towards the entrance, where those poor people are still sitting, begging for something, anything, to see them through the day and into the next. “But the very word Miracle, as pronounced by Christian churches, gives a false impression: it is Monster.” I nod sadly, feeling my heart go out to them. They know no better. They are probably so helpless for life that they crawl beneath the overhang of the roof, resting against the pulsing walls and begging for Jesus to save them. They don’t know that the new institution that Emerson has pointed out to me doesn’t include them. When they die, they will only become mortar for the foundation of its lies.

Almost a year later and I’m in a store back home. It smells of incense and the air is permeated by the sound of Native American flutes. There are crystals, paintings and books of fairies and angels, books of spirituality. I find what I’m looking for along the wall. A pentacle – a simple thing, really, made from sterling silver. It glints from the lights and the bouncing crystal laughter of the store. After Peru I realized that religion wasn’t bad, it just wasn’t for me. So I’m trying a new path – a spiritual one. I glance through the window, and swear that I see my good friend Emerson give me the thumbs up.

Essayer

I am going to write an essay similar to that of Edward Abbey's. I can use a specific, or maybe non-specific instance or outing in nature to frame a deluge of thoughts and observations. I will get transcendental and philosophical on nature, it's powers, and the powers that created nature. A whole lot of why's, and and some attempts of a few how's will be utilized in my stab at why we are here. I believe our existence is meaningless, but what we think about ourselves is all that really matters in our worlds of perception. What worth and value we give each other and our thoughts are the world.

Essay Topic.

For my transcendentalism essay I am going to focus on the idea of conformity. For we conform to everything and everyone whether we mean to or not. I find it fascinating how each and every character in fiction is built much like we are. Bits and pieces of other's, now don't get me wrong everyone is their own person but every person is molded by someone else. Just like the characters in a book. Conformity is something that comes natural to us.

Essay Ideas

I think I will structure my essay similarly to Abby's, based around an experience of mine in nature, leading to musings on nature, and the nature of people, and the nature of nature itself, all using the ideas of all three transcendentalists to frame my own thoughts. Where this will take me I'm not quite sure , but I think it will have something to do with conformity and reflections on the beauty of the world around us. Disconnected though these may sound I think that they can be combined. Every leaf of grass, or snowflake, is different from every other such object in existence, or ever to have existed. But this doesn't make such things oddities-rather, two identical blades of grass would be most incredible. Which leads to the idea that the only way to stand out is to blend in. I don't know exactly where I'll go with this, but I'm sure it will evolve as it is written.

conformity

For my essay, I plan on exploring Emerson's views on conformity and being true to yourself. What event I will use to explore conformity, I have no clue. I want to write about, "what I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think," "imitation in suicide," and "trust thyself." A journal entry is the structure that I've picked, but again, I'm unsure at this point what event will best tell of the ideals aforementioned, or perhaps I should just make a situation up. Hmmmmm...

Common Application

Future Plans. What are you going to do with your future, and based on your answer do we want you at our school? This seems quite nonsensical for undergraduate universities to accept you based on what you think you want to pursue after you graduate. I mean honestly how many people end up changing their majors or career paths throughout their undergraduate education? I view college as the time in your life to figure out what you want to do; really, how experienced or knowledgeable are you fresh out of high school?
Demographics. A college wants to know where you are from, if you are married, and your ethnicity. How could that possibly affect your performance at an undergraduate institution? Colleges often argue that they want to diversify their inclusive campuses, but how diverse are they when they discriminate in their application process? In our modern day it seems a little barbaric that colleges must accept a certain percentage of each ethnicity to meet a set quota to receive adequate funding.
Family. This section of the application requires the student to fill out information about their parents and siblings. Remind me again, who is applying to college? Oh right, the student, not their parents or siblings. How could your parents past or your siblings present possibly impact your chance of being admitted to college? Why do colleges require this information? To ensure that you come from a family sufficiently qualified to attend their institution, when you're the one actually applying? I'm finding it hard to understand the purpose of the family section, and i am sure I'm not alone in this endeavor.
Academics. Finally something that makes sense! It seems appropriate for them to want to know where you went to school and how well you performed at that school in hopes that you will carry on your current pattern at their university. I believe this section should constitute the entire common application. By applying you're telling them that you would fit in there, and you have an earnest interest in attending their school, all they really need to know is that your level of academic interest and achievement match their standards. Can they really base your admission of anything other than this section? I guess the section labeled tests would also follow under this rule, because if you weren't super motivated throughout high school you can still prove that your intellectually capacity meets their standards.
Activities. This section is basically asking how well you can participate in extracurriculars and still be successful in all other areas of your life? It does make sense, but i believe the point of extracurriculars is to escape from the academic setting that occupies such a large portion of your life. Therefore it seems a bit ironic that colleges want to know how you occupy your time when trying escape the demanding high school curriculum. I think activities should not be such a large factor the admission process because is in no way relates to your academic performance, it is simply voluntary recreation and should not be given such credit.
Writing. The application forces you to submit your most prized piece of writing in hopes that they will find something inspiring within you and you will be admitted to college. If you really think about shouldn't college being writing to you telling you how inspiring they are in hopes that you will choose to apply to their college? I don't mean the mass of junk mail you receive from random colleges, I'm talking about personal letters sent directly to you. As Emerson states in his infamous essay on self-reliance, " It is the harder because you will always find those who think they know what is your duty better than you know it." Is there any more proof of this than the common application or college admission process?
Signature. The final section require you to check three boxes acknowledging that nothing can be altered, all of the information is accurate, and that you understand you are not guaranteed admission into any one college. Where is the trust? Why would anyone lie about who they are to be admitted into college, because obviously if they had to do so they wouldn't be a very good fit. I think it would be painful to live, breathe, and exist for four years in a place where you have no purpose or identity. Can the colleges put a little trust in the students that they know themselves well enough to decide where they would fit in an prosper? The ultimate question is this, do colleges think they know your duty better than you, and therefore inherit the power decide the fate of your future education plans?

The "Fun" Essay - Ideas and Musings

Firstly, thank you Lavender for the idea of critiquing spirituality and religion in my essay. Due to how much I enjoyed "The Divinity School Address", I think it is perfectly fitting.
My essay, much like the Green River essay, will be story based. I think I'll take myself back to the first time I went to church in Peru with my host family. Except Emerson will be coming with me too. We will sit and critique the ideas of the church while I find my way towards my spirituality.
I'm considering integrating the passage from pg. 105 - 106, starting the third paragraph down on 105 to the third paragraph down on 106.
"The true Christianity, - a faith like Christ's in the infinitude of man, - is lost." (114)
"That tradition characterizes the preaching of this country...that it is travestied and depreciated, that it is behooted and behowled." (112, third paragraph down)
"'On Sundays, it seems wicked to go to church."(113)
Any other suggestions are welcomed.

Transendentalist Essay.

For my essay I envision a story that borders on fiction. In it I intend on having not just one, but all three of the authors whom we have studied entering my house. I am going to explore their characteristics and ideas through how they interact with a modern household. I suspect the story will be more humorous and chaotic then a traditional essay, and for that I am grateful.

Some of the basic pieces include: Thoreau throwing away all that he deems unnecessary, Emerson yelling about the unjustness that only excerpts of his work lie in my backpack, and Whitman running to the creek across from me naked, greatly disturbing all my neighbors.

Whitman is #1

Out of all three transcendentalists that we have read, each individual has a couple of good thoughts, but no one compares to Whitman. Walt Whitman may have had some ideas come from Emerson, therefore I also enjoy Emerson's pieces of work. Whitman pieces take bits and pieces about Emerson's philosophy about nature and then he takes it to the next level. Whitman Starts out Song of Myself by saying " I celebrate myself, and what I assume you shall assume..." Whitman creates an idea saying that he enjoys life and that he assumes everyone else enjoys life as much as he does. Throughout Whitman's writing he paints a magnificent in my mind and even though it can be hard to understand sometimes, the image he creates is unique. Whitman creates such vivid images that you just want more and more and that is what I like about Whitman.

Emerson

Emerson is for sure the best trascendentalist of all...mainly because of his original ideas.
He encouraged people to believe in themselves, to fallow their own istinct and to live regardless others' opinions.
He was incredibly devoted to nature and according to the description he gave of it (the stars as heavenly worlds, the perpetual presence of the sublime seen...), he seemed to know its real essence. When he says "nature never wears a mean appearance" he means that it will never pretend to be something different, it will always appear in the same, absolutely real way. Because of its perfection, nobody will ever stop being curious and willing to discover its innermost secret...
Being alone, in solitude doesn't really mean being alone... one can be alone even sorrounded by a crowd. Everyone has their own way to enter their own world and it can be either when surrounded by nature (like Emerson), or among thousands of people.
The point is, that Emerson was brave enough to be completely honest and say to the world what he really thought. At that time people considered his thought outrageous, now, after more than a century, a lot of people like me are full of admiration.

Emerson

I. Love. Emerson. I love him! While all the Transcandentalist were great in their own respects, I found Emerson to be, by far, the most poignant. Some of the ideas he spoke of really resonated with me. Emerson's point of view reminds me of a quote by Albert Einstein: "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." Emerson's child-like view is reminiscent of this. I love to see how passionate Emerson is about this. I love how he sees God in nature. It just makes so much sense that if you want to find God, you can go look for him, all alone, out in the splendor of nature. I feel that Emerson really embraces his life, really appreciates it, doesn't take it for granted. That's how I want to be. To see him living that really inspires me!

EmerSon gets it done

My favorite of the three core transcendentalist is Ralph Waldo Emerson. To me he most represents the best aspects of the movement. He had the original idea, not the first person ever of course, to find God through being alone out in the woods or some other kind of nature. He is in himself a sort of religious revolution. He took god out of the hands of the institution and the church and put it into the hands of each individual who wishes to truly reach nirvana. I think that is beautiful. For all this time people have been sheep, just like the church has said. People have been used for their lives, money, and land only for the churches, and its leaders/employee's own gain. Emerson let god come back directly to people, and if more in the world could think like him, we would be living in a much better place.

Emerson & friends

Out of the three transcendentalists we covered (Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau) I find myself a fan of Whitman the most. I really didn't enjoy Emerson at all, his ideas were extremely spiritual, which I personally find to be absolute crap. Thoreau was good, but he seemed very distant. Whitman on the other hand was A) not particularly religious in his writings and B) his writing style was much more interesting and engaging. Whitman seemed like someone that I would enjoy being around. He was a little eccentric, and I thought it was great. He also kept everything fairly grounded. So i found Whitman to be not only the most enjoyable read, but to have presented the best ideas in the best manner.

(P.S. Sorry I'm posting this late Lavender my internet was down all weekend)

Transcendentalists

Well...after reading all three transcendentalists, I have to say that the most influential and famous of the three, Thoreau, is my LEAST favorite. While his ideas are very practical, I found his passage from Walden disappointing in that it had very few quotes that made me sit there and consider the depths which he was probing. As opposed to Emerson and Whitman who both had many, many quotes that made me think.

Whitman, while basically just reiterating Emerson's ideas, he did so in a very poetic and less religious way. He was very exuberant and descriptive.

However, even though I thoroughly enjoyed "Song of Myself" I have to say that Emerson's readings were the most compelling. He was arguably the first (Wordsworth, it could be argued presented these ideas before Emerson) to create these transcendentalist ideas, and because of that I feel that Whitman and Thoreau, while they attempted to go their own way (particularly Whitman in my opinion) they were just imitations of the original writer, Emerson.

Thoreau, Walt, and Ralph

Out of the three writers Ralph W. Emerson remains my favorite. His ideas were revolutionary and knew, and even though the other two are great writers, Emerson's ideas are everywhere in their writings. He influenced both of them strongly, and all of their ideas are similar Emerson is the original. So maybe it's not that I like his ideas more, but it's that his thoughts are embedded in with the poetry of the other two. So to me he is the most original of the three.

Wally

I believe that Walt Whitman, of the three transcendentalists we read, has impacted me the most. His poetry might be a little hard to understand and he might be a little off, but I think I can relate to him the most. Emerson is the originator of most of Walt's content, but Walt presents it in a way different; more secular and relevant to me. Emerson is mostly concerned with changing the church and its practices; and he is very focused on Jesus, who is not that important to me. Whitman uses Emerson's belief about the individual, but presents them in a less religious fashion. And for a non-religious person like me, it works.
Thoreau would be my person of choice, but there are a few things I don't agree with. I might not agree with some of the stuff Whitman says, but the difference is I don't understand it. Thoreau is a brilliant writer. He can weave descriptions of his surroundings into a transcendentalist testament. I really enjoy and appreciate that, but then he will take a turn and ramble onto something irrelevant and distracting. Thoreau is a little bit of a snob too. He seems very self-important and self-righteous.
Whitman is my man. He the correct balance of: religion & transcendentalism, nature & society, and movement & art. Whitman is not trying to change anyones mind, he is simply trying to get people to think, and buys his poetry. He takes the movement from critical essays and self-important ramblings to a pure form of art, which is just as powerful as any of the other writers. His descriptions and metaphors are something special. I don't understand all of it, but of what I do, I relate to and enjoy it.

Transcendentalists

I find it hard to pick a favorite writer from the few we have studied for a few different reasons. First, the fact that all of their works and ideas are so similar, Emerson is a little harder to understand but I like the way he thinks and questions things for himself, this fact alone may sway me towards him in deciding my favorite. His views on religion and Jesus actually seem legit, and I am far from religious myself. Second, while their writings are so similar they differ slightly as well, I may like Emerson's thought processes the best but Thoreau's views on how to live life mimic mine on some levels. I don't see myself as lazy or unmotivated but at points I guess I can be, but like Thoreau I don't believe in materialism and though it may be fun to have a high speed life I can definitely find beauty in the simple things. And as for Whitman, I think he is a little intense but I still think the things he writes about are interesting. I like them all.

Author of choice

My author of choice would have to be Emerson. His writing is extremely direct and concise. He gets his main point out loud and clear without digressing from the main idea. I love his courage to express his own opinion without caring what others think. Especially in the Divinity School Address, when he explicitly abases harvard, after being asked to speak there, which to most would be considered a great honor. I know that he took this as a chance to promulgate his voice, but it was extremely radical and innovative for the coeval era. Even though this was decades ago, his ideas are still prevalent and issues that we are addressing currently; teach through experience, being the most important to me. I know that I can relate to Emerson despite the fact we live decades apart and he is very straight forward. For me, his ability to want to correct religion, not abolish it, was commendable. He could of easily just deprecated Christianity as a whole, but he clearly establishes the errors. His writing can be a slightly undecipherable at times, but if you re-read and remind yourself of the theme present, it can be understood and praised. I attribute to him the inception, at least voicing, of instilling the disadvantages of imitation in us. We are often taught to look up to your elders, and as they do (school for example, divinity school), but Emerson reminds us to be ourself otherwise we cannot rise above and be all that we can be. Between his audacity, integrity, and ideas, Emerson is by far my favorite of the three transcendentalists authors we have read.

Ramblings

Emerson and Thoreau were men of firm beliefs, with important points to make and ideas to get across (Emerson perhaps more than Thoreau). Though while I find their writing interesting, I cannot claim to agree with or to fully understand much of what they say. Whitman, however, feels as if he is giving voice to my childhood experiences, describing my memories in the words that were beyond me at that time. Not all of Song of Myself feels that way, of course, but the sections that do are to me like the warm, nostalgic (but not melancholy) feeling one gets when catching a whiff of some scent that brings vivid scenes of winter evenings at one's grandmother's, or whatever it may be. "The play of shine and shade on the trees as the supple boughs wag" elegantly sums up cumulative hours I would spend laying in the woods, watching the wind blow. It would gently toss the aspens about, so that the sun would shine one moment through a slightly yellowed , paper-thin leaf and then that leaf would flutter away, only for the next breeze to bring it back to that place again. I haven't watched the trees in a long time. They are still just as beautiful in their simplicity I'm sure, but I suppose Emerson was right; "few people see the sun". The rest of that particular stanza of Whitman's resonated just as deeply with me, but the remainder of the poem did not do so until towards the end of our excerpts (section 6). "A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands, How could I answer the child? I do not know more than he." This, and the entire grass section following, was so beautiful and so profoundly true, it is my favorite of the passages we have read thus far. It reminds me of the song "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?", though I can't quite say why. Its a rather morose notion, but I find it somewhat comforting, the fact that we all turn to grass in the end. No matter rich or poor, what race or religion, no matter what principles we might have fought and died for in life, we grow into grass alongside lifelong enemies, or strangers, of those that we loved. "The smallest sprout shows that there is no death". All three transcendentalists express the desire to become a part of nature, which every one of us eventually does. We will all become the grass, and the rain, blow on the wind, float in the sea, cycle through the world as tiny particles of ourselves. I realize I'm not making much sense but Whitman says what I feel quite eloquently.

"If you want me again look for me under your boot-soles.

You will hardly know who I am or what I mean,
But I shall be good health to you nevertheless,
And filter and fibre your blood.

Failing to fetch me at first keep encouraged,
Missing one place search another,
I stop somewhere waiting for you."

Three Great Minds

The more I look into the writings of Emerson, Whitman and Thoreau, I begin to see all the sides that they present. When I first read any of their works I get the main idea but not entire picture they want me to see. Once we go over it in class I have a much greater understanding toward their views on life. So far, I think Emerson is my favorite writer of the three. This is not because he may be the name that I hear most often, but because I understand where he is coming from and I think his ideas are actually plausible. With Thoreau and Whitman their thoughts seem like more of a reach and not as easily changeable. At the time when Emerson presented some of his ideas, many people said that they were way to far-fetched too but now that we look back on them, his seem the closest. Also, his thoughts about how an individual should live their life are quite intriguing. He says that the only one that you should put your whole faith in and rely on is yourself. This concept makes a lot of sense to me because you are the one who guides your life an YOU are the one who can decide the outcome of your life. You have the control. Lastly, Emerson shows his thoughts in a way that can be understood fairly easily and you do not have to dig too deep to discover his meaning. On the other hand, he does hide some bigger meanings within the smaller ones but they are easily pieced together. As for Whitman, his works are not exactly "hidden" or confusing but some of the text just makes you wonder what the true point he wants you to get from it is. With Thoreau, I'd have to say he is my least favorite of these men. In my standpoint, his views are very difficult to understand and when you read his work, it seems as if he is just rambling on and on and never reaching a final conclusion or point.

I would like to add to my previous post and throw in some thoughts about Whitman. Reading his Song of Myself poem, it is apparent that the same ideals are important to him as well. The title of the poem suggests the importance of the self and that Whitman, indeed, "celebrates [himself]." As I previously mentioned about each of us seemingly coming from nature, Whitman enforces. His belief that "My tounge, every atom of my blood, formed from this soil, this air", suggests that each of us indeed part of nature to turly find ourselves we must "lean and loaf" to simply "[observe] a spear of summer grass." Something that simple can connect us with everyhing, with each other, allowing us to truly understand ourself.
My liking has turned toward each of these authors because I agree with everything they say. Though not terribly fond of each writing style, the messages displayed are meaning to my beliefs.

Each author we have been presented with through out this class has given us each a different message, whether through word choice, writing style, or simply what they say. I have to say I like things about both Emerson and Thoreau. Each of them present something totally different, though pieces of it can be found to be quite similar. Emerson's Nature, his Divinity School Address, and his Self Reliance all offer a to-the-point argument that lets the reader see a single side of everything. Each of his pieces links together in offering the same message that the self "cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time" and experiences all that the his own will and power has to offer. His message I find to be true. All factors of life matter, of course, but really the most influential person in your life is your self. You make your decions, you think your thoughts, and you find unique experiences to liven up your life. Emerson's belief that a connection to nature only strengthens this proves also to be true. Originally, our ancestors and our genes all resided in a peaceful nature that was once uninhabited. As time moved forth things changed (obviously) but that small connection to the beauty, the treatury, the uniqueness of nature allows each man and women to regain that strength of youth this is "the healthy attitude of human nature."
Thoreau, though expressing his ideas in a much broader stance, with a completely different writing style, seems to connect to some of Emerson's points. His talk of his home in the country that is a"forever new and unprofaned, part of the universe" correlates beautifully with Emerson's idea that nature offers solitude. Thoreau, in the country, truly seems to find himself. Not only as a poet, who truly owns the land, but just as a human being with the "simplicity, and I may say innocence with Nature." Through this he may "renew thyself completely each day: do it again, and again, forever again." By himself, in the serenity of nature, he too is finding the peace and harmony of what could be. Although Emerson might suggest to translate this knowledge further into the laps of society, Thoreau seems to need nothing more than his home in the woods with a pond an "infinite expecation of the dawn."

Who do i like?

Although the doctrines of these three transcendentalists share many similarities i think i would prefer Emerson. For some reason i felt a connection to his words, while with Whitman and Thoreau i felt disconnected and unable to relate. I think i enjoyed reading Emerson the most because his ideas seemed logical rather than revolutionary. I felt like the other two were somehow trying to prove their transcendentalism, while Emerson expressed it naturally. Although his readings were very dense i comprehended more of it than when i read Walden. I think i enjoyed how organized his thoughts were, for example in The Divinity School Address he lays out what he is going to talk about and rarely goes off on tangents. It made it much easier to grasp the meaning of his words when you knew what he was talking about. I really liked how he used objects or concepts to reflect a greater meaning. The quote i chose for our "non-paper" assignment was about how the roses aren't retrospective or focused on the future, they live in the present. I liked this because i think Emerson is making a connection to nature through the roses, and how all of nature is like this and we should emulate it. However i did not like Thoreau's metaphors or symbolism because i couldn't always put the pieces together. Overall i would prefer to read Emerson because although his ideas are sync with Thoreau and Whitman's he presents them in a much more elegant and relatable fashion.

Emerson

Of the three amazing writers that we have been studding for the past three weeks, Emerson's words have kind of pooped out at me and slapped me in the face. I have finally found some one who thinks in the same way that I do. Obviously the two of us don't think in the exact same way, but it just feels like Emerson hit home base with some of the amazing ideas that he put forth. Ever since I have been little, the woods have been a peaceful and divine place for me. Whenever i feel like nothing is going write in my life, the only thing that can heal me is a long hike. Some people do not understand this, they will be so confused as to why you would want to be in the woods with bugs, rain, bears and every thing else that nature can through at you. this is why i enjoyed Emerson's writing so much, he says every thing so perfectly. "few adult persons can see nature," "yet it is certain that the power to produce this delight does not reside in nature, but in man, or in a harmony of both." I don't think any one else in the world could put that any better way. You cant just walk into the woods and expect to feel different. You have to believe in it, you have o become a part of that nature and observe from different perspectives. I feel like next time the whole world feels like it is coming down on me, all I will need is an essay written by Emerson and a path that leads into the woods.

Emerson the Awesome :)

Out of all of the authors we have read, I enjoyed Emerson the most. Emerson's writing was concise and to the point. While some of his language is a little confusing and sometimes muddles the point, the point can always come across. I enjoy his brazen point of view. For the era he grew up, he certainly had clashing points of views, especially with his speech, "The Divinity School Address". It was my favorite. This was when he was still happy, still optimistic. His point was rash and probably sored the pride of most of the graduating students...and the Dean...oh hell and everyone else in New England at the time, but it was beautifully put and blunt. I loved how he talked about life being "retrospective" and that the preachers were teaching something second hand that could never be understood that way again. I loved the idea of the sublime being the purity and fullness of man, and the Jesus was just a prophet, not a "god". And I very much enjoyed his piece "Self-Reliance", even though he sounded bitter and grouchy. The idea that contradiction (I can't directly quote, but I think this was the general idea) is the hobgoblin of small minds was brilliant.
Out of all of the classical writers I've read, he was possibly my favorite.

Three men

Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman. Three smart, classy, and influential men. Three men who built a spider web between themselves of interconnected ideas, beliefs, and even metaphors. Yet three men who enacted the ideas they wrote on paper in very different ways.

Of the three Emerson is the most hypocritical. Through his dense philosophical gospel he rarely if ever bothers to include information that could come of use or seem practical to the common man. He revels in hiding true instruction under piles of metaphors and spiritual thoughts.

Of the three Thoreau is the most humorous. His apparent ease and comfort with how he approaches life. His clear neglect of duties most would consider necessary. His laziness. These are that attributes that, when combined with his prodigious writing ability, serve to grow him into a character that easily brings a smile to my face.

Of the Three Whitman is the most approachable. His humanity, wit and sociability serve to present a man who I would like to sit down for coffee with. The image of him as a "dirty man from down south" make him even more endearing in my mind. His poetry, while insightful and beautiful, is also bold in a way that almost feels reckless and rebel. I see him as a man who balanced a healthy enjoyment of society and bravery towards it.

Puzzled

At first, after reading Thoreau's piece I was puzzled as to what connection you were trying to have us make though Thoreau's literature and that of Emerson. However, as I went back to reread the piece I came to discover that it was the writing style that was preventing me from making the connection between the ideologies. Emerson being such an intriguing and diverse author and Thoreau being a literary artist of more of a modern nature, threw me for a loop. However, Thoreau is stating some good points such as; we must learn to reawaken ourselves. This is similar to becoming re-inspired to find our own truth in nature. One of Emerson's main points. In addition, by saying that it is one thing to be able to paint or sculpt a particular picture, (through imitation), it is more extravagant to imitate the atmosphere of which we look everyday. This is similar to Emerson's statement of imitation being suicide. Why paint something belonging to someone else when we can paint our own picture of life? Although in the beginning Thoreau's description of his house and ownership of land and such casualties distracted me from making a connection between the two writers (due to the fact that Emerson's main standpoint is that we need to separate ourselves from the conformist ideas and our possessions and make a new beginning in nature, though learning to be one-on-one with god) Thoreau's main ideas are similar to those of Emerson, in that we need to slow down life, and learn to look at the little things as extravagance, such as a child does upon seeing something for the first time. "The sun illuminates only the eye of man, yet shines into the eye and the heart of the child."- Emerson. "Children, who play life, discern its true law and relations more clearly then men, who fail to live it worthily, but who think that they are wiser by experience, that is, by failure."- Thoreau. After going though the reading a second time, the similarities seemed to become more and more obvious. Both authors are saying that we need to find our own sense of life, rather then looking at the past and searching for the answers to our future. To those who are reading this post, you probably think I am a lunatic, but i needed to write down my thoughts in order to understand what I was thinking. :)

Thoreau's Walden

This is my favorite essay we have read so far this year. I liked how Thoreau described the farm house. He made me want to move there. I also liked his outlook on life. "We are determined to be starved before we are hungry." I liked this quote because it showed how we should slow down and enjoy life. We shouldn't waste it worrying about our problems. We should live life to the fullest. I also agree that news is just a bunch of gossip, and once you have read about " one man robbed or murdered" that is enough. There is no need to read about more. This is why Thoreau thinks that there isn't any memorable news in the newspaper. Also todays papers are just as filled with sad stories and gossip of the rich and famous as the news in Thoreau's time. They might even got worse over time. How is this news suppose to help keep us updated with the important events that are occurring in the world, if all it is, in fact, is "gossip."

Divinity School Address

In the Divinity School Address Emerson talks of teaching religion as almost a sin, and that God is something to be learnt by one's self. Second hand knowledge a complete knowledge. Everybody gets to the same answer, but everybody needs to take a different path to get there. Obviously this address was given at the wrong school and to the wrong audience. He blatantly attacks the Christian Church and its teachings. It is very easy to tell why he was banned for thirty years. He was attempting to open the minds of the Christian Church, and to them that is blasphemy. Emerson's ideas are revolutionary and new, and the Harvard Divinity School was the wrong place for this lecture. I think rightfully he was kicked out of Harvard, but his ideas are correct and were very ahead of his time.

Divinity School

Old language is always a ton of fun to read, but because it's full of allusions, and seemingly round-about language, it makes it harder, by far, to understand. The ideas behind the words, however, are teeming with truth. Main points are difficult for me to exactly pinpoint, and it's a lot easier to talk about specific parts or sentences. I strongly agree with Emerson when he says that you can't just trust what other people say, no matter who they are, you must find that what they say is true for you, or you must "wholly reject it." During the very first paragraph on page 108, where Emerson talks about how the titles that we have given Christ "kills all generous sympathy and liking." He's got a point. It's hard to feel like your with a friend, if you have to call them by their titles. Emerson touches upon something else a couple of pages later, where he wonders why people go to church anymore. He says that "it seemed strange that the people should come to church," he called preaching "thoughtless clamor." My only experience of being in a church for sermons was when I was little, so everything the pastor said was boring; until, of course, he said that us kids could go downstairs for Sunday school (chuckle at my silly din antics). So even though the fact that I was a kid may have changed my perception a wee bit, sermons were just "thoughtless clamor" to me as well, though I know, not for the same reasons.

divinity school address

As I was reading this speech I wasn't sure exactly what I was going to find. I was more interested in seeing if Emerson understood anything about what his audience believed. And surprisingly enough I began seeing certain phrases that are undercover Christian rhetoric. Or references about things that you would have no idea what they were unless you read the Bible. And not just any audience would understand these references.

For example he mentions the Balm of Gilead. The balm of Gilead is used for healing and one of the verses mentioning a balm from Gilead is Jeremiah 8:22:

"Is there no balm in Gilead?

Is there no physician there?

Why then is there no healing

for the wound of my people?"

I'm not sure if he is trying to make a reference to this specific verse. But the verses before this is:

(20)"The harvest is past,

the summer has ended,

and we are not saved."

(21)Since my people are crushed, I am crushed;

I mourn, and horror grips me.

It has the natural imaging that Emerson is so fond of. But through out his speech he makes references to himself as being like God and that we can be just as Christ was. Is it possible to say that verse 21 is actually revealing Emerson's anguish that the people that he is surrounded have theoretically been "crushed" because of their lack of knowledge regarding nature and the universe?

To be honest I have no clue.

Emerson...

While reading the Divinity School Address I couldn't stop thinking to myself what a bold man Emerson was. Personally, I love the fact that Emerson so self assuredly spoke in front of Harvard's entire student body, challenging them against their own ideals and "rituals". As well, I also commend Emerson for proclaiming that Jesus was in fact a prophet, or simply a man who had attained a seemingly unreachable level of divinity. Not many in our History proclaim that Jesus is a prophet (an incredibly risky move that any one at the time would be shunned for). Therefore Emerson did not only challenge the trite and ritualistic ways of Harvard, but also to a degree insulted Christianity. What an inspiration! I mean...even if his ideas were crazy or abstract at the time, now it is looked back upon as a major turning event in our history that has shaped many ideals to the present day. The traditional ways of attaining God though ritualistic dull gatherings and petty prayers came to light through Emerson's Divinity School Address. No wonder Harvard banded him from the school, he was instilling new concepts completely unacceptable and off the wall at that time in history.

Wrong Audience....

The ideas that Emerson puts forth in his speech "The Divinity School Address" are very radical yet intriguing at the same time. In my personal opinion his thoughts are very correct. The way that we as a society think sometimes is almost scary. We live by a set of rules. I am not saying that there should be no laws at all, i am just saying that there needs to be the opportunity for people to think their own thoughts and create their own ideas. As Emerson explains to the graduating class there are infinite possibles in this world and so we need to use them. Growth is always a good thing and you always learn from everything, including your mistakes. Everything in life is a growing opportunity. Emerson also states that Jesus realized that every human being on the planet has the potential to go great lengths. Also, it was said that Christ was just like any other person just with a higher level of divinity.

When Emerson first made this speech in front of an audience of Harvard Divinity School Students he was banned from ever speaking again to the school for thirty years. Now when we look back at the speech he made, it is hard for us in modern day times to see why this had such a large impact. From what I can get from this piece of writing is that Emerson was a brilliant man with many great ideas, but that he just began his career with the wrong audience. I am sure that although all views of people in that time were different from what they are now, there would still be a group that would be interested in Emerson's blunt way of speech and outright ideas. The most probable reason that the speech made such a negative impact on these students and that school was because his thoughts went directly against what they had just sat in school and learned for four or more years. I mean think about it. If someone came to our school and was like everything we are doing is wrong, all these years were useless, then I bet we would all react in a similar way. Also Emerson was not very famous yet when he delivered this address so the students had not much respect when it came to listening to some guy who was supposed to inspire them and instead totally said all of his views which fully contradicted all of their past teachings.

Divinity School Address

This was an interestingly blatant speech to be given to a class of Harvard Divinity School Graduates. Emerson delivers numerous strong points that he must have known were going to be taken offensively to his audience, in that I believe that he was not only speaking to the students though this dialogue, but to the general public as well. Emerson's logic is astounding. In this speech I don't believe that Emerson was meaning to be so offensive to his audience, yet his ideologies are so strong that the students were dumbfounded thus enabling them to search for deeper meanings. As Neve stated in his post, Emerson was delivering a good speech, however, it was given during the wrong time, and to the wrong group of people. If Emerson had postponed his delivery of such a speech to a time when he was more widely known and appreciated, then his audience would most likely have been familiar with the ways in which he delivers his points of logic, and would possibly have been equipped with more open-mindedness. Props to Emerson for stepping up to the plate when it was imminent that he was to be shot down. 

Divinity Scuola

I am not to excited about doing this blog right now. Emerson would not want me to be here. However, this blog is a good way for us to express ourselves and read our classmates work. I don't think Emerson would be against us sharing our ideas through a "21st century" portal.
Emerson would have us, through personal experience, gain knowledge of the all-permeating energy. He would want us to gain this for ourselves and no one else; and once we have the knowledge we can preach to others...through this blog (which has very little color, gray and white).
Emerson tried to impart this upon the young Harvard Divinity School graduates in 1838, but was rebuked. Emerson is very individualistic and his words solidify that. One thing I found especially interesting was Emerson's advice on interpretation. (We had this discussion last year in history I think.) Emerson believes that each individual should have his own interpretation, that ideas may cross over, but only if you accept them yourself. He says, "What he announces, I must find true in me, or wholly reject." I think that it is important that we have our own view of the world. The different views and interpretations of the world make it an interesting place. The different views go further than solely interest, contrasting ideas make way for progression and changes. The influx of youth and their new views clashing with the old and their wisdom fuels the flexibility of the human race.
Emerson goes on to say that that imitation is not flattery, but that "the Imitator dooms himself to hopeless mediocrity". If a person is focused more on someone else than themselves, they lose their own selves. An emulator no longer is an individual but becomes desolate and flat. But not only does the imitator lose themselves, but society as a whole loses what that person could have offered or added for the betterment of society. Obsessions with people, books, or non-personal things are very unhealthy. It is hard not to become too ensnared by a great idea or book, but it is important that the sense of self is continued. These things can help shape us or give us our own ideas, but it is a great loss when we let these things overcome and become us. There is more to life than the celebrities or one opinion, it is a crime to let ourselves become lost in these empty holes. "Imitation cannot go above its model." Emerson does not want us to disregard everyone else, he does not want the young preachers to disregard the church. He does want the preachers to use the church to fuel something greater, something that comes from within the self and can help others find there selves. In some cases, that is god or Jesus and others not. Emerson wants personal interpretations. He wanted the graduates to release the idea that "you must accept our interpretations". But unfortunately that was not the case in in 1838. After all the ruckus his speech caused I feel it made little change. Even today it seems we are continuing to hear the same "thoughtless clamor", with little room for the advancement of society.

Amazing speech, wrong time

Emerson's Ideas are so radical, but at the same time I am pretty much addicted to what he has to say. Christianity has been so backwards for me and I have never understood it, But Emerson just straight up says what needs to be said. Every thing that he had to say in "The Divinity School Address," was so spot on, although I will admit that the graduating class at the Harvard Divinity school probably was not the best audience. Those Harvard students were not ready to hear that speech for two reasons. 1. I do not think that Emerson was quite famous enough yet for the students to give him a chance. They probably just shut him out right when he started to tell them how they have been in divinity school for four years and were taught nothing important. 2. I do not think that the graduates quite understood every thing he was saying. Im sure that most of the ideas that Emerson said were very blatant, but there was a deeper meaning to most of them. like when he is talking about how you do not need some one else to go to to reach god (like a preacher) but rather every person can find god within himself. Over all I wish that I could send a high five in a time machine to him. It must have taken extreme guts and smarts to walk into a crowd like that and tell them exactly what they do not want to hear.