King 1 Kevin King Dr. Fulton ENG 4380 15 Nov 2010 The Influence and Impact of the Transcendental Movement The Transcendental movement was complicated. There is no doubt about it. At first glance, some of its core values boarder hypocrisy. Yet, there is purpose behind the near contradictions. The aim of this paper will be to show that some of these attributed contradictions come about only after exaggerations and omissions of terms. Then the importance of Transcendentalist influence will be explored. This will come from an examination of some influences on the most important writers from the Transcendental era, Emerson, Hawthorne, Fuller and Thoreau, and will take examples from their works. This will lead the discussion towards the effect that Transcendentalism had on later generations. This examination is intended to lead to an illumination of the Transcendental idea of influence, and the vast range of influence that the movement experienced.
45
Embed
The Influence and Impact of the Transcendental Movement
This paper is an exploration of the various influences within Emerson, Thoreau, and Fuller, while also looking at an acquaintance of the three, Hawthorne. Hawthorne is included based primarily because of his impact on the perception of Fuller, and because his classical influences give insight to other influences on Transcendentalism. This is far from being a final product. Any comments, good or bad, would be appreciated.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
King 1
Kevin King
Dr. Fulton
ENG 4380
15 Nov 2010
The Influence and Impact of the Transcendental Movement
The Transcendental movement was complicated. There is no doubt about it. At first
glance, some of its core values boarder hypocrisy. Yet, there is purpose behind the near
contradictions. The aim of this paper will be to show that some of these attributed contradictions
come about only after exaggerations and omissions of terms. Then the importance of
Transcendentalist influence will be explored. This will come from an examination of some
influences on the most important writers from the Transcendental era, Emerson, Hawthorne,
Fuller and Thoreau, and will take examples from their works. This will lead the discussion
towards the effect that Transcendentalism had on later generations. This examination is intended
to lead to an illumination of the Transcendental idea of influence, and the vast range of influence
that the movement experienced.
Transcendentalism could easily be described as a failed movement. For all intensive
purposes, the movement was not far behind in following the original participants to the grave.
The very nature of the movement, which emphatically stressed individualism, to the point of
separatism, foreshadowed a nearly unavoidable outcome. For obvious reasons, the transcendental
movement, with its inherent fear of the dangers of society and groups, was destined from the
beginning to walk a precarious line in drawing new members to the group, while allowing
members to their independence. Furthermore, there is a strong possibility that Transcendentalism
simply would not have worked for the common man, who did not have the luxury to avoid
society while remaining fed. The Brook Farm failure does not necessarily prove this theory,
since it was run so poorly that it would have failed regardless of social and religious beliefs. Yet,
the Brook Farm certainly would have had an effect on those considering the merit of
Transcendentalism. However unfairly, Brook Farm may have been seen as proof of the
impracticality of Transcendentalism. Thus, it may symbolize the beginning of the end for the
movement, since it created blight on a movement that would have already had trouble connecting
people.
Transcendentalism seemed like a movement of a group that was vehemently against
group movements. Emerson’s claim that “whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist,” lies
at its very core (Myerson 321). This would appear to create an unsolvable logical paradox for a
movement or group; in any collection of people, there must be some degree of conformity.
Nonetheless, the transcendental movement existed. Again, this very nature of the movement
would have called criticism on the movement as being hypocritical and frivolous. That may have
been its downfall from the onset. But, did the movement violate its own ideals solely by
existing? To answer, another near hypocrisy must be explored.
Emerson is attributed as being the originator of the American Transcendentalists. As
such, it is beneficial that to look at him for clarification of interpretations. Yet, even in his
essays, non-conformity may create still another irony, besides having a group based on it.
Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” called out conformity, as previously noted, and went so far as to say
“that imitation is suicide” (Myerson 319). But, in the same work, isn’t Emerson explaining what
a person should be, or how they should behave? Is he not calling for people to conform to his
beliefs, then? The answer is: yes and no. Emerson is explaining his beliefs on what a person
should be, and his opinion on what is best to do. But, he is not calling for people to conform.
King 3
This is a great example of the dangers of reading a quote out of context. This may be the reason
why Emerson once wrote in his journal “I hate quotation. Tell me what you know” (Garber 669).
In a since, a quote cannot be anything but “out of context” (Garber 669). And Emerson’s quotes
about conformity have the same problem. While it is true, he does not believe people should
conform, Emerson does not believe that conformity is necessary for agreement. Emerson is
simply arguing against blind agreement and submission to others. When Emerson says, “a
foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” he is making it clear that having a strong
character is the key to not being a conformist (Myerson 324). Non-conformity is the ability to
weigh an idea against foundational beliefs, and judging it separately from some majority’s
opinion, or the herd. This allows a person to be in agreement with others, without becoming part
of an unthinking herd.
The recognition that agreement is possible without conformity is crucial. Emerson was by
no means a hypocrite; he did not contradict himself. Emerson hoped for people to recognize an
influence, and be capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to accept it as influential to
them. Emerson was not trying to cause people to conform to his ideas. He put his ideas out there,
and allowed people to choose whether they would be influenced by them. Further, it could be
argued that Emerson believed, in a perfect world, people would be of a similar mind without
conforming to others. “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string” (Myerson 320).
Emerson believed that deep down, in every person’s heart, there something like a kind of tuning
fork. When the person touched upon that part of themselves, it would lead the person to what is
harmonious, with God, society, and his or her self. Emerson believed that if people were able to
decide for themselves, they would decide for mostly the same things. Interestingly, it was
through an influence by Kant that Emerson’s ideas came about. And, fittingly, he tried to use his
words to bring out this idea in others, without forcing them to conform.
Emerson discusses a variety of influences such as Shakespeare, Van Goethe, and Plato
(Brewton). But Emerson was probably most greatly influenced by Immanuel Kant, “who was
Emerson’s Philosophical preceptor” (Hudson 206). Kant was the pioneer of philosophical
Transcendentalism, or going beyond man (Shaw 72-73). Kant’s primary means of going beyond
man a priori knowledge, or knowledge not gained through experience. Kant believed that the
ability to reason would open up this a priori knowledge; such knowledge was necessary because
it was incorruptible, as opposed to knowledge gained through experience, which he felt was
unreliable (Gregor 1-3). “Emerson immediately called these a priori forms or functions
‘intuitions of the mind itself’ and interprets the term ‘transcendental’ as equivalent to ‘intuitive,’
though he realizes that this is a non-technical extension of Kant’s usage” (Wellek 46-47).
Primarily working off of Kant’s moral philosophy, Emerson expanded on Kant’s moral theories
to create the way of life for the Transcendentalists (Wellek 47).
Emerson “agreed with… Kant that ‘He is moral whose aim or motive may become a
universal rule, binding on all intelligent beings…’ He believes that all virtues are perfectly
natural to all souls, when once awakened; that the government of God is not through hierarchies
and religious tyrannies, but simply and grandly does the ‘Divine Nature carry on its
administration by good men,’” (Hudson 207) This is also the reason that Emerson takes a
negative view towards societal groups. Both Kant and Emerson are keenly aware of the dangers
of the outside world, and how easily they can corrupt the individual. Both take the view that,
without prior knowledge, the individual knows right from wrong. They each express that the
danger comes when outside sources impose and corrupt the individual. However, Emerson
King 5
attributes most of this corruption to other people, while Kant attributes it to any experience
outside one’s self. “Emerson assumes this anti-social attitude because he feels that society is
incapable of that development which by divine right belongs to the individual” (Shaw 71). Yet,
this small difference is still just Emerson’s expression of another Kantian ideal, self-governance.
Kant advised people to use his method, called the Categorical Imperative, to guide moral
decisions. In short this method called upon a person to objectively create their own laws to
follow, almost completely based on how he or she would like to be treated, and what would be
best for the humanity in creating a “Kingdom of Ends,” or a kind of utopia (Gregor 24-27).
“Emerson is often characterized as an idealist philosopher and indeed used the term even in
that very simplified explanation of Kant, the effect on Emerson can be seen. Like Kant, Emerson
trusts and puts the responsibility on the individual to be his own moral guide; the knowledge that
the individual needs is already available, and outside sources can corrupt the ability to guide
one’s self. These ideas led Emerson to believe that “’every actual State is corrupt” and that
“good men must not obey the laws too well.’ But, “if all were Emersons, if all men could realize
the beyond, the transcendental within them, there were no need for those interesting institutions
which express themselves in the forms of law and property.” (Shaw 73). In a sense, if all became
perfect Transcendentalists, they would achieve something like Kant’s Kingdome of Ends.
Emerson must have been directly referencing Kant when he said, “’the world is governed too
much,’” nearly saying, “let the State keep its hands off this ‘Kingdom of the me’" (Shaw 81).
Both of them set up this kind of ideal, and while it was probably impossible, both believed that
people should at least strive for that perfection of self.
The most important point for this paper comes through reverting back to Emerson’s idea
that a person must trust himself because “every heart vibrates to that iron string.” This is also a
reference to Kant. Kant speaks repeatedly of harmony in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of
Morals. Kant believed that harmony was not just avoiding doing wrong, but it was a person’s
duty to be active in staying harmonious with nature and with humanity, doing good and being
moral, not just staying neutral. “It is not enough that the action does not conflict with humanity
in our person as an end in itself; it must also harmonize with it (Gregor 39). When Emerson notes
that every heart vibrates to that iron string, it probably means that, within each person, they have
the same capabilities for good. As Kant believes that all objective self-lawgivers will choose
similar laws, Emerson believes that every person has a similar necessary tune to follow to
achieve harmony.
There is no doubt that Kant was a great influence on Emerson, but Emerson still displays
his strong consistency. As much as Emerson borrows of Kant, Emerson still differs in many
substantial ways. The greatest difference between them is the difference in religion. Kant was a
Christian, and although much of his moral philosophy omits the mention of the Religion, many
of his other works set out to prove points on the subject, such as the existence of God and the
nature of an afterlife. Even Kant’s neglect of religion in his groundwork of Morals may have
been used as a way to guide non-Christians toward similar moral views. Through the use of logic
and reason, rather than biblical commands, Kant was likely attempting to bridge the
philosophical world with the religious.
Obviously, Emerson is not a Christian. Instead, Emerson takes a profound interest in
nature, and believes it to be the key to a relationship with God. As noted earlier, Emerson
focuses his fear of corruption away from empirical experience in nature, and towards empirical
experience with people. “Emerson's "Experience" even contains a little argument, a little more
King 7
explicitly with Kant, about the nature of experience in its relation to, or revelation of, the natural
world” (Cavell 169).
It is through these differences with Kant that Emerson shows what he expects from his
own audience, the capability to allow an influence, without allowing it to take over completely.
There is a fine line between being a being influenced and still being a trail blazer, or being a
conformist, who is has committed a kind of suicide. Emerson’s expectation was at least partially
carried out by another great philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, who was influenced by Emerson,
but who definitely did not conform to him.
Although Emerson has influenced other great philosophers, it is his influence on
Nietzsche that best expresses the Transcendentalist ideal of influence (Brewton). “In the works
that Nietzsche edited himself-or intended for publication when he was still in health -there are
only two explicit references to Emerson” (Hummel 63). In publications coming after his death,
more references were made. One of which, comes from “passages in the octavo Nachlass of
1917-1919: ‘Emerson. I have never felt so much at home in a book, so much in my own house
as,-I ought not to praise it; it is too close to me’” (Hummel 65). Further mention comes in “three
letters from Nietzsche to Franz Overbeck: ‘Tell your dear wife that I feel in Emerson a brother
soul (but the mind is badly formed)’" (Hummel 67).
It is easy to see some of the imprint that Emerson left on Nietzsche’s work as well..
“Emerson, and Nietzsche agreed that the good is the strong, the bad the weak; in such ethical
dynamism lies their only justification; we of the age of social weakness need this tonic, this iron
in our anemic veins” (Shaw 69). “Like Nietzsche, Emerson did not believe that great men were
ends in themselves but served particular functions, notably for Emerson their capacity to ‘clear
our eyes of egotism, and enable us to see other people in their works.’ Emerson’s representative
men are ‘great,’ but ‘exist that there may be greater men’” (Brewton ).
Nietzsche takes Emerson’s view of nature as a way to get closer to God, and he
emphasizes the value of nature on morality. However, Nietzsche removes the attempt to get
nearer to God, saying that man must escape the religion/God and its effect of taming humanity
(Ansell-Pearson). Nietzsche believed that mankind must be closer to nature for the purposes of
evolution, the strong would survive. Moreover, he felt that Christianity was evil, because it
reinforced meekness, and weakness in humanity. He even goes so far as to say that Jesus has
become a symbol of this evil and Priests are worst kind of humanity (Ansell-Pearson 18).
Obviously, this is leaving out many points of discussion within the philosophy. But the purpose
of pointing out Nietzsche’s opinions is not to prove them right or wrong, or to show the
reasoning behind it. The meaningful idea here is that Kant influenced Emerson, who influenced
Nietzsche, who strongly disagreed with almost anything of Kant.
In this small chain of influence, there is a swing from the Christian Kant, to respectful
non-Christian Emerson, who called Jesus Christ “a ‘minister of the Pure Reason,’ and speaks
even of prayer as the ‘forcible subjugation of the Understanding to the Reason’” (Wellek 47).
Then, from Emerson’s supportive view of Jesus, comes Nietzsche who believes in the
importance of nature in guiding morality, but has complete disdain of priests, Jesus, Christianity,
and Judaism. Nietzsche even specifically names Kant, and his Catigorical Imperitive, before
dismissing them with contempt. It may not be possible for two philosophers to be in further from
agreement than Nietzsche and Kant. Yet, Kant indirectly, through Emerson, influenced
Nietzsche. There are few similarities left between all three, but there are some that can still be