I was incredibly grateful to have an opportunity to revisit Emerson after class on Friday. I sat on a bench near the grand looking door on the side of the library and cherished the delightfully warm spring breeze. Although I've read, and reread Emerson's "Nature", I would be lying if I claimed to understand all of what he said. Emerson's prose is beautiful, so much so that it like a spring breeze it lulls me into a daze. Sentences meander off and I can't quite pin down the thought behind his arguement.
From what I understand, Emerson believes that nature reflects the intentional plan of a creator. Emerson seeks to solve the "big" or "unanswerable" questions through his observations on nature. In the process, he defines nature, as "essences unchanged by man; space, the air, the river, the leaf" (2). The beauty he observed he also attributed it to the presence of God and his plan.
If Emerson and I were to have a conversation, we would surely disagree. For one, I could not follow the circular notion of God, perfect order in nature, nature as an interpreter of the notion of a soul/spirit. While we may not agree, I appreciated the exercise of working through "Nature".
Hurrah! LDL
ReplyDelete