Nature

Emerson suggests that to truly experience nature, one must have the attitude of innocence. He believes that a true "lover of nature" is one who has matured, but still "[retains] the spirit of infancy." I disagree with this statement. From personal experience, I have learned to appreciate and respect nature more as I grow older and experience more in life. Infants cannot truly grasp the beauty of nature - but then again, are we ever able to fully grasp its awe-someness? I have mixed opinions on his thoughts about how can one fully enjoy and connect with nature.

I commented on Claire's!

Self-Reliance?

Emerson seems to live in a very poetic state of mind. While I appreciate his type of idealistic view of the world, I don’t see how his theory of self-reliance would exactly work well in society. Emerson says, “No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.” All universal ideas of right and wrong are thrown out of the window. Everyone decides for himself what is right and what is wrong. I’m not sure how far Emerson would take this concept to justify his actions, but I would question how we can keep people from harming others if we can’t constitute a right and wrong. How then are we to punish those who do harm or "wrong" if we have no general sense of what wrong is?

I commented on Abbey Griffin's post.

Nature Never Wears a Mean Face

I legitimately enjoyed reading Emerson.  Having read this in junior year of high school, I had to jog my memory a bit as to what we discussed, but I didn't quite get it that year.  However, now that I can understand it a bit more, what mostly caught my attention was when he said, "Nature never wears a mean face."  It's true; everything about nature has some sense of beauty, even through the tragic storms, because they bring out the good in everybody, and nature flourishes around afterwards.

~Commented on Brittany McDade's post~

Self-Reliance

To me, it seems like Emerson puts labels on people. He makes assumptions, yet doesn't necessarily back them up with facts. I agree that every person should be independent and his own self, but some things are not clarified to me. Some things he sees as imitation, I do not see a fine line in between what is and what is not. It sounded like if my opinion is the same as my friends that it may just merely be imitation, when it could actually be my opinion.

I commented on Abby's post.

Self- Reliance

I found this reading quite interesting to say the least. What really stood out to me was when he said, "but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil. No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature". I understand he does not want to be influenced by society.... but wow! I'm really confused here. Is he saying that it's perfectly okay to be purely evil, as long as it is truly who you are? There are certain things accepted in society, and certain things looked down upon; it is all for the benefit of the people as a whole though. 

I commented on Abbey's. 

So...?

Honestly I enjoyed several aspects of Emerson's "Self-Reliance", but then was extremely confused at other times. I understand his need for originality, and his hatred of imitation, but his lack of a need for consistency was a bit concerning to me. It's all good and well to theoretically be misunderstood, but what about practical matters? What if you feel like you husband is your husband one day, and just a random passer-by the next? Does Emerson believe in any kind of universal truth? Any sort of consistency? Or does he merely mean that is we trust our feelings, we are bound to average out to the right thing?

Also, the verse about the heart being deceptive above all things kept flitting through my head. How can we truly trust ourselves? If upon a random day we feel as though the Bible is true and ought to always be obeyed, then if we continue in it against our feelings, are we lacking self-reliance, or only relying on the solidarity of the self on a previous day?

And to end this very thoroughly scattered post, what are Emerson's views on religion? He seems to believe in a God, maybe, some of the time? I'm just very confused as to what he truly believes. Does he truly believe nothing? Would this somehow make him a cynic?

Comments on Briana's :)

Nature

Emerson is amazing. I truly enjoyed reading "Nature". It was beautiful and insightful. My favorite part is Beauty Part 2. "The presence of a higher, namely, of the spiritual element is essential to its perfection." Nature has always pointed back to God for me, and that has only grown as I've dug deeper into nature through my science classes. The planning, thought process, and creativity that is evident in His creation flabbergasts me. Have you ever looked at a plant cell? What about the various metabolic processes? Or how when our RNA attaches to ribosomes for translation, it's 60/40, but a virus is always different so antibiotics can attack it? Those are only a few examples, but every day in science my God is more evident and more amazing. This is one reason I love my major. I actually cannot wait to dig deeper into the human anatomy! 

I also really loved part one of Beauty, "The influence of the forms and actions in nature, is so needful to man..." Nature is such an essential part of our lives, and it's so easy to over look it, to take advantage of the beautiful masterpiece surrounding us. Emerson goes into detail of how the rain helps the seed and the wind carries the seed, and so on. It's a beautiful picture of God's planning. Everything has a purpose, and it just amazes me how He planned everything out to the microscopic level for thousands of years! I struggle to plan my schedule fore the next two years. It's crazy and unfathomable at times, but isn't that what makes our God so awesome? 
P.S. I commented on Claire's!