I absolutely love Emerson’s view of Nature (most likely because he so rightly states what I have come to believe). Effectively, what he has done in this argument is place Nature in a spot commonly thought of as solely attributable to God. The elusive and ethereal concept of Creator becomes the more tangible and immanent presence of the natural world which surrounds humanity. He speaks of having to trust that Nature will answer any, and all questions which may be aroused in the mind—a premise that sounds surprisingly like a description of faith. Furthermore, he credits Nature as self-revealing, since by its very design it describes itself. Of course, this is another one of the major beliefs associated with God, a being who reveals himself to man through his own gift of grace. Yet, perhaps the best feature of his entire statement would have to be the accessibility Nature offers to the individual who desires to discover life’s answers or solve its mysteries. The essence of the natural world is everywhere, and all one has to do is stop and observe her evident beauty if he wishes to know her better. No longer does someone need to be the divinely chosen (“the elect”), or have others provide their interpretations as the key to salvation. Instead, the individual can be his own guide on the path to achieving complete unity with the universe. Essentially, the life of happiness in heaven religion seeks is likewise attainable by those who would look more to Nature, seeing God, creator, and universe wonderfully manifested in this entity that envelopes humanity, revealing new splendors daily.
Now I must come to a point inevitably raised by the first selected quote: Does Emerson’s argument advocate non-belief in an actual God by replacing it with Nature? My short answer would be “not really,” but more clarification is probably for the best.
Standing on the bare ground,—my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space,—all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball. I am nothing. I see all. The currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God.The description of the “transparent eye-ball” is this notion of existing totally and completely in harmony with Nature. It is a state of being where “you” no longer exist, but alternatively are a part of a much larger notion (Nature and the universe). It is the reason that everything is visible even though the person is no longer there. In this state, Emerson speaks of being a “part or particle of God.” This condition of being in complete unity with everything is responsible for making him feel as though he is sharing in the experience of God. For that reason, I would assert that Emerson sees God and Nature as intrinsic parts of each other. Both are equal sides of the same coin. Nature seems to be the perceivable part of what God is, and it is through her that humanity can come to know God best. I do not feel as though he promotes non-belief in a deity, but rather looks more to Nature as the visible aspect of that power in the universe which is commonly thought of as God. Nature is not God’s replacement, but instead is his reflection.
Of course, all these thoughts raise more questions. If satisfying life’s puzzles is possible by merely observing Nature, does humanity need organized religion? Is believing in the power of Nature the same as believing in the power of God? Can Nature actually provide answers to universal mysteries, or has Emerson simply over idealized the natural world? Realistically, can the average person ever hope to be so connected to the world that they become the “transparent eye”? How can a person even begin to understand the vast wealth of knowledge present in Nature?
Whatever the answers may be, for certain, Nature is a complicated part of existence, and therefore, deserves all the consideration humanity has to offer.Emerson, Ralph Waldo. "Nature." The Norton Anthology of American Literature Vol. B. 7th ed. Ed. Nina Baym. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2007. 1110-1138.
6 comments:
Emerson, along with many Transcendentalists, typically held Nature (with a capital 'N') as something that was quite unexplainable, yet ultimately magistic in its ambiguity. It is unfortuante that Nature is typically taken for granted in our days, especially when comparing the amount of luxuries and diversions we have in comparison to Emerson's time (Where pretty much all he had was Nature). But, interestingly enough, Nature in Emerson's account is timeless; it applies to Nature in present day as well.
I enjoyed thinking about the series of questions, which Emerson's Nature, evoked in you. I especially liked your last question, "How can a person even begin to understand the vast wealth of knowledge present in Nature?" While Emerson believes that studying nature allows one to know oneself (stated in "The American Scholar"), I don't think we are able to understand it completely. Parts of nature and its vastness are meant to be perplexing and unexplainable.
I really liked this entry and what I"m about to say is debateable. I guess I would say that even Nature points to something beyond itself, and I think that Emerson would agree. What I mean by God as a person of faith, I think Emerson calls God but means the Transendent. Transendent is less personal, more abstract than God. The Transendent doesn't act, just inspires awe. I think the "being" (as Emerson puts it) that is pointed to is the source of things like "Beauty," or "Truth," or the like. If some one can say "Nature is beautiful," or "That tree is ugly," there must be some measure by which to judge these things. How does one know what is beautiful and what is not if there is not some anchor, some source of beauty by which to judge. I say that source is God. Emerson says it's Nature.
“Does Emerson’s argument advocate non-belief in an actual God by replacing it with Nature?” You make a very interesting observation. I was confused as well, but as I read a few pages from Nature, I felt that he was embracing God though Nature. He seemed to be having a spiritual experience. He makes me want to have this encounter with Nature. I love this quote from him, “But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars.”
I do like Emerson's approach to a naturalistic religion, but for me, personally at least, I fear that there is something lost in the lack of religious institutions. I like the tradition of Catholic mass, and the regularity of coming together with a congregation once a week. Not that I'm making an argument for Catholicism or Christianity, but I wonder sometimes if in practicality, Emerson's ideal would turn into a hippie free-ness.
"Nature is not God’s replacement, but instead is his reflection."
I think that is such a wonderful statement and really gets to the heart of the argument that Emerson was trying to make. Nature was never meant to be a substitute for God; rather, it is to enhance our ability to see God in the world around us, as Emerson so eloquently vocalizes. Such a beautiful concept.
Post a Comment