Quoting from Emerson to give an example of argument from a literary perspective is kinda cheating. But here: "Sensible objects conform to the premonitions of Reason and reflect the conscience. All things are moral; and in their boundless changes have an unceasing reference to spiritual nature. Therefore is nature glorious with form, color, and motion; that every globe in the remotest heaven, every chemical change from the rudest crystal up to the laws of life, every change of vegetation from the first principle of growth in the eye of a leaf, to the tropical forest and antediluvian coalmine, every animal function from the sponge up to Hercules, shall hint or thunder to man the laws of right and wrong, and echo the Ten Commandments. Therefore is Nature ever the ally of Religion: lends all her pomp and riches to the religious sentiment" (from "Nature", p. 21). We have a lofty couple of statements that very messily conclude into the two therefore-sentences.
Emerson's logic is very flawed but he also lived during a semi-religious period that accepted theories of religion like this one. Mysticism aside and looking at what Emerson does employ, his use of correspondence theory throughout the whole essay is stellar. It's when he leans over to his private diaphanous world of coherence theory that things get muddled. It's unfortunate for Emerson that he can't really prove that this connection exists apart from using a very old analogy of God manifesting himself in nature. Emerson also depends upon the reader's connectability to nature and then to God (and having a conscience to begin with). We need more compelling evidence from Emerson to believe this but to simplify the argument so it actually looks like one and not semicolon-ridden word-spinning: 1. The world (and its objects) shares connection with reason and conscience; 2. The world's objects are moral even if they change; 3. Therefore nature is wonderful in all aspects and explains laws (i.e. the Decalogue) to humankind; 4. Therefore nature's part and parcel of religion.
He's almost there. I'm going to say that this thesis is epistemologically flawed more than anything else and again, religion aside. This argument needs needs to make its statements valid in order to be logically sound, since Emerson is considered a philosopher if and only if theologians count as philosophers.
I am afraid that I cannot see where Emerson's statements are invalid. Am I missing something in your argument that disproves Nature following a Higher Order than human sensibility?
ReplyDeleteI'm taking more of problem with Emerson's subjective basis of his premises. They are not facts and have no prior knowledge base except what (we assume) is from Emerson's head and what God tells him and the emotional reaction he experiences in the woods. Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Emerson's argument is very persuasive otherwise; Emerson's dealing in big abstractions with what appears to be theological truth (God created earth and then the earth/nature can explain God). My problem with his argument is the abstraction. The conclusion he arrives at doesn't seem to follow by provable facts.
You could simultaneously sharpen your point and shorten your post by giving us what you take to be Emerson's argument in standard form. Then you could evaluate it in a way that would be very simple and clear.
ReplyDelete