1) Recall what you learnt in your Philosophy classes in Secondary School about Immanuel Kant's Criticism of Pure Reason and his concept of Transcendental Knowledge (the post below may refresh your memory, http://euliteratura.blogspot.pt/2016/10/the-copernican-revolution-in-knowledge.html) and explain how his ideas illuminate certain passages of Emerson's text.
2) Remember the affective reading strategies we used in our first class (using emoticons:
:) happy; :( blue; ~ weird; ! stunning; * true) and apply them to corresponding passages in "Nature". Then select one or two of those passages to analyse the rhetorical devices and other linguistic devices (text analysis) that helped build those emotions in you.
12 comments:
"Parts of speech are metaphors, because the whole of nature is a metaphor of the human mind."
Upon reading this passage of Emerson's "Nature" for the first time, one might be lead to simply think that the whole of Nature exists as it does to mirror the "crooks and crannies" of the human mind, and that this has some mystical and or religious explanation. However, when taking into account the idea of transcendental knowledge in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", one interprets it very differently: the clause "the whole of nature is a metaphor of the human mind" emphasizes the idea that human concepts such as space and time, and other conceptual principles, pre-structure experience. Nature, or Objects, exist "in themselves", outside of our limited perception, and are eternally out of our perception's reach. Our understanding of Nature or Objects is heavily influenced by the afore mentioned concepts, and that is why we naturally establish comparisons such as the following:
"An enraged man is a lion, a cunning man is a fox, a firm man is a rock, a learned man is a torch."
The learned man/torch collocation is a particularly relevant example: we only associate torches with knowledge because torches hold flames, flames project light, and light illuminates things, allowing our human eyes to see more of what surrounds the source of light, and this knowledge is then processed by our human brain. Therefore light = knowledge, and torch = learned man. However, sight, though being a very important sense for humans, is not the only form of perception.
Therefore, our human bodies and the notions that we hold a priori not only shape our perception of Nature but also lead us to entertwine it our human lives and relations.
In the introduction: “Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. (…) The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship.” Emerson shows that he is determined to follow the path that Kant has opened and he uses Nature to do so. Nature explains all human levels, provides all that human need or want and by the observation of Nature, reason can achieve knowledge: “ By degrees we may come to know the primitive sense of the permanent objects of nature, so that the world shall be to us an open book, and every form significant of its hidden life and final cause.”
Emerson refers to the pure knowledge that is possible to grasp when in the solitude of Nature: “I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or particle of God.” The idea that Nature holds absolute knowledge is present throughout the whole text. In the chapter Commodity, for example: “(…) I rank all those advantages which our senses owe to nature. This, of course, is a benefit which is temporary and mediate, not ultimate, like its service to the soul.” In chapter Language: “Nature is the symbol of spirit.” In chapter Discipline: “The moral law lies at the centre of nature and radiates to the circumference.”
Emerson uses the method that Kant mentions in the Preface of “Criticim of Pure Reason” in chapters Beauty and Commodity when he suddenly shifts the center of the analysis to something that the reader is not expecting. In Beauty, he starts to talk about the power of the human eye and in Commodity when he talks about “The private poor man…”.
Emerson’s methods of analysis are original and surprising. In chapter Language, he proves how “Words are signs of natural facts”, in chapter Discipline he explains human activities with physics and how thought learns with that and in Idealism he talks about how changes in perspective generate the sensation of sublime.
Because Emerson looked at Nature with the eyes of a child, he was able to understand that pure knowledge is achievable without the necessity of experience: he felt it. And because he felt it, it was possible for him to disregard the usual conventions and premises, to explore other ways of analysis and to create a “true theory of nature and of man”.
2) 1-"I am not in solitute whilst I read and write"*(pg48)
2-"In the woods (...)There I feel nothing can befall me in life,-no disgrace, no calamity..." ! (pg 48)
3- "...how much tranquility has been reflected to man from the azur sky,over whose unspotted deeps the winds forevermore drive flocks of stormy clouds, and leave no wrinkle or stain?" :) (pg 55)
4- "...is but a half-man, and whilest his arms are strong and his digestion is good, his mind is imbruted, and he is a selfish savage." :((pg61)
5- "...your domination is as great as theirs (...)Build, therefore, your own world."
A citação 4 provocou em mim um sentimento de tristeza, tal aconteceu não só graças aos adjectivos duros, de certa maneira insultuosos, que Emerson usa para descrever o homem, por exemplo, "imbruted", mas também graças a dicotomia que estabelece entre o estado físico (são) e mental do Homem ("doente"), esta diferenciação enfatiza a gravidade do último e faz com que o leitor se entristeça ao aperceber-se de que apesar de o Homem ter todas as suas faculdades físicas estas de pouco lhe servem, quando a sua mente está degradada.
A citação 3 provocou em mim um sentimento de felicidade e tal aconteceu porque, através da pergunta retórica, Emerson obriga o leitor a pensar na serenidade que já sentiu ao ver o céu, remete-o, portanto, para uma situação de felicidade. Também o uso da palavra "forevermore" contribuiu para esta sensação, uma vez que é criada no leitor a certeza de uma continuidade, de algo que foi, é e será, ou seja, dá a impressão de constância.
2) This analysis based on my affective reading aims to identify some rhetorical and linguistic devices as well as the meaning they construct.
Happy: “Nature never wears a mean appearance.” (p.48).
This sentence is, to me, a summary of many other affirmations Emerson writes, such as “We must trust the perfection of creation so far (…)” (p.48); “(…) no calamity (…) which nature cannot repair.” (p.48). Here he evokes a common sentiment we all have at times, a notion of returning to our origins. This personification (Nature “wearing” something) helps us understand Emerson’s recurrent idea that nature has the answers to everything and that a wise man is the one who is in touch with it.
Weird and stunning: “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.” (p.48 and 49).
In my affective reading, this excerpt has fallen into the category of “weirdly stunning”. Emerson uses the transparent eye-ball as a metaphor to our absorbent nature, which can be related to Kant’s idea of mind, that does not passively receive information in an empirical way, but makes an effort to fathom it, rationally, as an active agent. In the same excerpt a metonymy can also be seen:
The eye is, simultaneously, the sense of sight; a meronym to the mind and body, which are its holonyms, and also a connector between nature and the spirit, as Emerson concludes by saying he is a part or particle of God.
It is stunning, for its instantaneously enigmatic structure and transcendental meaning, but it can also be related to the “strangeness” or to Roman Jakobson’s Poetic Function, which argues that the use of a specific language, which is at first hard to understand, is a decisive factor to classify a text as literary. Many have contested this theory, namely functionalists, who argue that there are no decisive factors and that we should study texts in context. However, this excerpt was, to me, a self-evident example of a “weird” semantic unit.
True: “Miller owns this field, Locke that, and Manning the woodland behind. But none of them owns the landscape.” (p.48).
With the use of spatial deixis, both of proximity and of distance: (this), (that) and “the woodland behind”, Emerson creates a metaphorical image to explain that no one really owns “the landscape”. In Primal roots of American Philosophy: Pragmatism, Phenomenology, and Native American Thought (2000) Bruce Wilshire says that “This (the horizon, the cosmos, that to which the warranty deeds give them no title) belongs to anyone who can be caught up ecstatically in it, who can see with their hearts as well as their eyes the sun and the stars and the wild places.” (p.24)
Therefore, according to Emerson, no one owns the landscape, rather is owned by it. He then defines the true lover of nature and this definition makes me blue:
“The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and heart of the child. The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood.” (p.48).
Children are innocent. As we grow up, we begin to see the world in a more pragmatic manner and we even become detached from nature. I sometimes find it hard to reverse this process. Here Emerson is in aid of a more relaxed, idealistic maybe even creationist way of looking at the world and of being in touch with nature, an idea he further develops: “Nature says,-he is my creature, and maugre all his impertinent griefs, he shall be glad with me.” (p.48).
KANSU EKİN TANCA
2)In his first chapter “Nature”, he describes the concepts with relation to nature and thus his examples largely depends on nature itself. How we see the nature and also what we understand from it are defined with the surrounding.
His following quotation creates both pleasing and also thought-provoking reactions. "To speak truly, few adult persons can see nature. Most persons do not see the sun. At least they have a very superficial seeing. The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and the heart of the child."(p.48)
He first starts with "nature" and then focuses on "the sun" which is generally associated with the bright side of nature. Therefore when he says few people can only see sun, it creates “blue.” In addition to this, he tries to build on what he is trying to tell and thus mentions the children. The beauty of the sun and also the importance of it are no longer perceived by adults whereas the children can feel and at the same time enjoy the sun. With this reading, he makes us think and observe the children and try to look at our environment from their perspectives. Therefore, I think, this quotation, because of the way it is formed, creates more than one emotion.
When we imagine children enjoying and feeling the sun, we feel ‘pleased’, but suddenly, at the same time, we also feel ‘sad’ as we are no longer able to realise its beauty. After we consider what it really means, we become aware that it is also a “true” statement. By using visual sensations throughout the text, and by taking examples from everyday life, he clarifies his own ideas and makes us apprehend his view.
In the same chapter he says, “If the starts should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore, and preserve for many generations of the city of the God which had been shown!” (p.48) In this quotation, his use of rhetorical question which ends not with a question mark but with exclamation mark creates a ‘stunning’ view in our mind. As the sentence ends with an exclamation mark, it makes readers realise how beautiful those stars are; and also with “!” we can feel the enthusiasm behind the sentence and thus we react with the same manner.
In addition to his use of linguistic devices in his descriptions, he also uses sentences which directly tell the idea. In his Chapter IV “Language”, for example, he says, “It is not words only that are emblematic; it is things which are emblematic.” Since the sentence clearly identifies the meaning, it provokes our thoughts and thus creates “true” in our minds. It suddenly expands our perspective on this particular idea and thus guides our thinking process with a new direction on the subject that we may not yet consider.
One of Kant’s major themes is intuition. The ability to know something a priori, without establishing a proper relation. Kant dismisses the existence of a priori obtainable knowledge, but regards intuition as one of Mankind’s greatest intellectual weapons, one which helped Copernicus develop his heliocentric theory. Ralph Waldo Emerson describes a feeling similar to intuition: “It takes me by surprise, and yet is not unknown”. This feeling of an expected first impression, of observing something new with the vague idea that it is already known.
These two great personalities agree upon one more subject. The purpose of objects. Both Kant and Emerson describe objects as things to serve, build and strengthen Man and his intellect. Kant argues that objects should conform to one’s knowledge, in order we can perceive concepts and form a rational, mature knowledge. Emerson argues that everything that exists is to serve men, in order to make him work, make him happy. “What angels invented… Beasts, fire, water, stones, and corn serve him”. Kant uses the example of Copernicus, who defined the History of Man with his discovery, in order to show every reader that if knowledge is applied the same way, humanity will advance faster and better. Emerson gives a similar warning: “A man is fed, not that he may be fed, but that he may work”, if one does not use what was given to him, it is a waste, and the purpose of everything fades.
Furthermore, Emerson describes, in the last paragraph of chapter IV, Language, how objects conceal an unconscious truth, that "every object rightly seen, unlock a new faculty of the soul". Likewise Kant, objects allow Mankind to perceive the world, but they must be understood so that the intution that resides in every human is allowed to grow and provide real and concrete knowledge.
Finally, Kant and Emerson are adepts of a Transcedental kind of knowledge, one that surpasses nature but resides in it, that is found beyond the world but it is only achievable when we understand our surroundings.
1) Nature by Emerson is an excellent literary work, and one with various aspects that one should have particular attention to be able to grasp them. One of this aspects is without a doubt, the Transcendentalism largely related with Kant's studies regarding The Copernican Revolution.
As was Kant's belief, one's mind was supposedly similar to a black sheet of paper, and therefore one should have no problem learning new things about the world, and that way our image of the world and nature, as Emerson stresses in Nature, would be built upon one's own experience, meaning that depending on each one's life experience, the view each one had would also change, given the thought that virtual everyone would have a different life experience.
With this principle in mind, the author starts by mentioning that: " Our age is retrospective(...). The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face;we, through their eyes. Why should not we enjoy an original relation to the universe?"(pg 47), in other words, Emerson was trying to bring awareness to the fact that one must learn about the world on their own, and see it with their own eyes instead of only reading books or, for instance, listening other people's knowledge, which to the author it was not a problem since Men learn somethings while communicating with others.
Throughout the text, the author constantly refers to the "eye" as an extremely important part of the Men, and that one should make its best use of to perceive the nature that "The inhabitants of cities suppose(...) [it] is pleasant only half the year".(pg 50) not appreciating it as they should. As the autor refers, " To the attentive eye, each moment of hte year has its own beauty, wind in the same filed, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which shall never be seen again." (pg 50).
I marked the sentence “Nature always wears the colors of the spirit” with three emoticons: !, * and ; but I think that “stunning” is the one that stood out for me, because the point of this paragraph, which Emerson had already laid out in the beginning of it, is presented to us in this sentence in a succinct yet powerful manner.
With the personification “Nature always wears…” Nature is presented to us as a character who is capable of “tricking” us- which almost tempts me to add the “weird” emoticon into my list, since the point being made is that “the power (…) does not reside in nature, but in man…”.
By saying that nature “wears the colors of the spirit”, Emerson uses a metaphor (to wear colors) and imagery (“colors of the spirit”). The imagery helps us create a more palpable picture of the spirit, tuning into something that we can more easily be in touch with; and the two devices serve as a reminder of the volatile quality of the spirit- this plays well with a sentence used earlier in the paragraph: “It is necessary to use this pleasures with great temperance.”
“ 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” .
With this passage Emerson reaches the top of emotions and sensations in the first chapter Nature, the maximum moment of integration, union, transfiguration into Nature. It’s a sort of irrational fusion between the man, the nature and the God. The individual reifies himself, the nature anthropomorphizes itself – the result of this power resides “in a harmony of both”.
In the role of affective reader I would classify this passage as stunning.
The adjective “transparent” is linked to an initial passage, so it explain the meaning :” the atmosphere was made transparent with this design, to give man, in the heavenly bodies, the perpetual presence of the sublime”.
Eye-ball is linked to eye of the poet who can integrate all the parts of the horizon.
He continues with a paradox, an antithesis: “ I am nothing; I see all”.
Then the visual image is really strong, could seem abstract but he gives us the capacity to picture in our mind “ the current of Universal being”, like falls.
He concludes his rebirth saying splendidly :” I am the lover of uncontained and immortal beauty”.
Stunning: "In the woods, we return to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can befall me in life, - no disgrace, no calamity, (leaving my eyes) which nature cannot repair. 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 of particle of God."
In my affective reading I marked this passage as "stunning". It is the culmination of all the thoughts he presented us in the first chapter. His way with words is poignant and exhilarating: Emerson builds up his thoughts with the use of punctuation and anaphora (I become...I am... I see) as well as imagery. His description of how he feels when he is in the woods and his surroundings (the bare ground, the blithe air...) transports us to the same place, or to our own version of that place. Our own woods. We emerge ourselves in Emerson's reality, the currents of the Universal Being now circulate through us, and we feel part of a whole as well. To be nothing is a rather luxurious but comforting idea.
True: "The whole character and fortune of the individual are affected by the least inequalities in the culture of the understanding; for example, in the perception of differences. Therefore is Space, and therefore Time, that man may know that things are not huddled and lumped, but sundered and individual"
I marked this passage as "true" and also as "important". To me it serves as a reminder of something that we tend to struggle to understand. But Emerson puts it simply and his words are final, true and reassuring: nothing is like the other, no one is like someone else.
Post a Comment