Freethinker or not?
German-American writer Paul Carus was a prolific author, editor, and publisher of books and journals on religion and philosophy. He was the editor of the philosophical journal The Monist and managing editor of Open Court Publishing, which were both founded by his father-in-law, zinc magnate Edward C. Heleger. Carus, who referred to himself as “an atheist who loved God,” devoted his life to encouraging interfaith dialogue, introducing concepts of Eastern religions to the West, and seeking common ground between Christians and freethinkers. Towards achieving the latter goal, Carus formulated and promoted his concept of The Religion of Science, of which his 1893 book of the same title provides a concise overview.
Monism is an ancient philosophical world view that was clarified for the modern era by 17th-century Dutch philosopher Baruch de Spinoza. Monism asserts that the universe is composed of one substance, matter, as opposed to dualism, which professes that the universe is comprised of both matter and spirit. In The Religion of Science, Carus proposes a monism based on science that modern people can apply to their daily lives. He calls for a rational religion that worships the truth, as revealed by scientific inquiry, rather than one in which reality is obfuscated by ancient myth and superstition. This religion will have an ethics based objectively on duty to mankind rather than on dogma or hedonism. Carus explains his concepts in very straightforward, eloquent, and quotable prose that even philosophically illiterate general readers can easily understand. I loved the first few chapters of this book, which promise an excellent, clearly stated, freethinking “bible” along the lines of Ernst Haeckel’s exemplary monist text The Riddle of the Universe.
As he advances his argument, however, Carus ventures further and further from Spinoza, pushing the envelope of monism, and the book becomes progressively less attractive to materialist freethinkers. While Spinoza’s religious view is generally described as pantheism, Carus calls his religion entheism, which is likely a shortened name for panentheism. Essentially, Spinoza says that God is nature (i.e. matter), while Carus is saying that God is the laws of nature. The difference seems like unnecessary theoretical hair-splitting intended to make Carus’s god more palatable to traditional theists. The most controversial aspect of Carus’s philosophy is his belief in the soul and immortality, though his conceptions of both are nontraditional. To Carus, a man’s soul is the sum total of his ideas, impulses, and will. While acknowledging the materialistic causes of human behavior, Carus then mystifies human consciousness by describing it in spiritual terms. Man achieves immortality, in Carus’s view, by leaving a legacy of ideas and memories, and thus contributing to human evolution and culture. This may be a worthy concept, but Carus deliberately couches it in terms that suggest an afterlife, which seems an attempt to pacify religious readers. In fact, the latter chapters of The Religion and Science are a series of concessions to traditional religion, consciously designed to cast as wide a net as possible to possible converts. In the end, Christians might be more likely to appreciate this book than freethinkers, who may see it as one big cop-out.
Though I certainly don’t agree with everything Carus has to say in The Religion of Science, I still think it’s a valuable text in the history of freethought. It may only be a baby step toward a rational humanity, but it’s certainly an improvement over the prevailing religious dogmas. Neither the faithful nor the freethinking reader is likely to buy wholeheartedly into Carus’s philosophy, but each can draw something useful from it to augment their own personal philosophies.
If you liked this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me a “helpful” vote. Thank you.
https://www.amazon.com/review/R2IZT2I74XFDKU/ref=cm_cr_othr_d_rdp_perm
Plagued by drunk-uncle reasoning
Pantheism is the belief that god exists in all matter and the entire universe is divine. This god is not the anthropomorphic god of the Judeo-Christian tradition but rather something more like a force of nature or an eternal universal intelligence. Pantheism has been around since ancient times, with some traditions taking the form of pagan nature worship and others philosophically approaching atheism. The 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza is considered the father of modern pantheism. With his concept of monism, he asserted that the universe is only made up of one substance (matter), thus denying the dualism of matter and spirt that is fundamental to so many religious traditions since Plato.
The scientific advances of the 19th century brought a resurgence in Spinozan pantheism, led by scientific-minded writers rebelling against the superstitious dogma of organized religions. One such writer of this “Golden Age of Freethought” was the historian and journalist John Shertzer Hittell. His book A Plea for Pantheism was published in 1857. In its first printing, the book only ran about 64 printed pages, but the prose and the typesetting are both dense enough to amount to a fairly substantial read. The contents consist of a brief preface and four chapters in which Hittell refutes the existence of the following: an afterlife, an anthropomorphic god, any ideal ethical basis for right and wrong, and the ability of man to ever discern any absolute truth about the universe.
For the most part Hittell’s reasoning is sound, but he occasionally lapses into antiquated prejudicial statements that resemble the kind of cringeworthy bigoted statements someone’s embarrassingly drunk uncle might spout after a few too many beers. In the first essay on the afterlife, Hittell uses physiological evidence to support his argument that the human mind is a function of the brain and therefore ceases to exist when the body dies. In doing so, he manages to offend just about everybody. For starters, he refers to non-Caucasian races as “the lowest tribes of savages” and emphasizes the similarity of these “brutes” to apes. There is also a stunning mention of human-animal hybrids which seems like a bizarrely out-of-place bit of science fiction until you realize what he’s talking about are interracial relationships. Hittell also points out that the average woman’s brain is ten percent smaller than the average man’s, and suggests that “their mental faculties may be that much weaker.” It’s a shame to find such repellent views in an otherwise well-reasoned philosophical argument. To some extent, such remarks are typical of European and American writers of this time period. The evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel, for example, lets one slip from time to time in his pantheistic writings, but never so blatantly or egregiously as Hittell does here.
The book is further hampered by an overall tone that is more antagonistic than inviting. Hittell writes the book as if he’s preaching to the converted. Though the text reinforces the arguments in favor of a pantheistic worldview, this tract is unlikely to win any new recruits to the cause. While Spinoza and Haeckel manage to work some optimism into their pantheistic proselytizing, Hittell is blunt and bleak throughout. He asserts that there is no right or wrong in the universe, only the indifference of natural forces, but never bothers to propose an alternate code of ethics by which mankind might live. Likewise, his essay on epistemology so strongly emphasizes the fallibility of human thought it makes one wonder why anyone would ever bother to write or read a book. I admire Hittell for tearing into age-old superstitions, but he doesn’t offer any alternative wisdom in place of the beliefs he debunks. For much better texts on pantheism, read Spinoza’s Ethics or Haeckel’s The Riddle of the Universe.
If you liked this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me a “helpful” vote. Thank you.
https://www.amazon.com/review/RMP4D4AEZXHS3/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm
The toughest book you’ll ever love
Ethics by Baruch Spinoza (a.k.a. Benedict de Spinoza) was originally published in 1677 under the Latin title of Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata. Though the title highlights Spinoza’s ethical philosophy, the scope of the book is much broader. Before he ever gets around to discussing how people should conduct themselves, he first examines in great detail the nature of God, the substance of matter, and the processes of human thought and emotion. One thing that separates Ethics from just about any other philosophical text you’re likely to come across is that Spinoza makes his argument in the form of a mathematical proof, similar to the style of Euclid’s The Elements. He begins each of the book’s five parts by defining terms. He then postulates several fundamental axioms. From these axioms, he proceeds to make a series of propositions, each of which builds upon the material that came before. He supports each proposition with explanatory commentary, corollaries, and notes.
The result of this approach is a very comprehensive and coherent one-volume philosophical system of how the universe works. By coherent I mean that its pieces cohere firmly and logically together; I definitely don’t mean easy to read. Never has a book been so orderly structured yet so confusing. Each sentence Spinoza writes is crafted in a circuitous syntax that is quite frustrating to decipher. He pens each statement with such precision that at times its like reading computer code. Yet when kernels of wisdom do emerge from this fog of verbiage the reader reaps the rewards of pure genius. It’s not always a fun read, but it is a work that deserves deep concentration and contemplation. Though the Euclidean structure of the book makes for labor intensive reading, you’ll end up wishing more philosophers would have adopted this logical structure and stated their ideas so systematically.
Spinoza begins by discussing the substance of which the universe is comprised. While dualists like Plato and Descartes posited that the universe consists of two substances, matter and spirit, Spinoza proposes a monism by which matter and mind are one and the same substance. Since only one substance exists, God is also comprised of it, and since God is infinite, the universe (or Nature) is God. Thus, from the philosophy of monism springs the religion of pantheism. In Spinoza’s view, everything is divine. His deity is not an anthropomorphic god, nor does he believe in ideal definitions of good and evil. Spinoza maintains a strictly deterministic view of the universe in which every action leads back to the ultimate cause, the eternal God. Fate is predetermined and free will is an illusion. Spinoza goes to great lengths to explain how human thoughts and emotions are the result of natural processes, even so far as to define a tedious laundry list of human emotions and their causes. His ethics are very similar to those of the ancient Stoics. Man has no control over what befalls him, but he can manage his emotions with rational thought and cultivate happiness by contemplating God and resigning himself to his natural destiny. Despite his continual use of the G-word, Spinoza’s pantheism is about as near as you can get to atheism without calling it as such. The Ethics may be the closest thing to a bible for freethinkers that has ever been produced. Thanks to its Euclidean structure, you can even quote it chapter and verse.
The Wordsworth Classics series has a beautifully typeset paperback edition of the Ethics, with a revised version of the 1883 translation by W. H. White. However, the translation by R. H. M. Elwes (also 1883), found in the free ebook edition from Project Gutenberg, is a little easier to understand. For difficult passages, I found myself going back and forth between the two.
If you like this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me a “helpful” vote. Thank you.
https://www.amazon.com/review/R1CO8EFGXFKWIU/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_rdp_perm
Style over substance
 |
| Giordano Bruno |
When you download these free public domain e-book files from Amazon or Project Gutenberg you never know what you’re going to get. This one turned out to be a ten-page essay. It was originally published in an 1889 edition of the English magazine The Fortnightly Review. Author Walter Pater was a household name among 19th century literati, but he has sense faded into obscurity, at least in the minds of American readers. He was a polymath man of letters who wrote fiction, literary criticism, and essays on a variety of topics. Here he offers a brief sketch of Giordano Bruno, the 16th century Italian philosopher and Dominican monk who was burnt at the stake for heresy against the Catholic church. Among the offenses for which Bruno was executed were his pantheistic conception of God and his belief that the Earth was just one of many inhabited worlds in the universe.
Among freethinkers, Bruno is considered a hero for his intellectual integrity in the face of persecution. Although this essay is written about a man I admire, I found little to enjoy in it. Pater seems less interested in praising Bruno’s defiance of superstition or illuminating his philosophical accomplishments than he is in simply the self-aggrandizement of Walter Pater and his literary style. The whole piece is an overindulgent exercise in pretentious prose. Pater writes in grammatically challenging paragraph-long sentences consisting of strings of comma-separated phrases, the purpose of which seems to be to impress the reader with flowery language while imparting as little information as possible. Almost no facts are given about Bruno’s life and work, just Pater’s speculation of what Bruno’s intellectual development might have been like or what he was thinking at a given time in his life. There is some discussion of the scope of Bruno’s pantheism, but Pater’s way of writing about it obscures more than it reveals.
If you don’t know anything about Bruno, this work is not for you. In order to understand what Pater is saying here, you have to come to this essay with prior knowledge of who Bruno was and why he was important. If you already know that, however, you’re not going to learn anything new here. With this piece of writing, Pater demonstrates the annoying side of those 19th century Renaissance men of letters who just really loved to hear themselves talk. The essay’s one saving grace is its brevity.
If you liked this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me a “helpful” vote. Thank you.
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3E8TOMNJ8DBX8/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Neither comprehensive nor accessible
Pantheism is a philosophical and/or religious world view that sees the entire universe as a single, eternal, divine unity. It usually goes hand in hand with monism—the idea that the universe is made up of a single substance (matter) in a multitude of changing forms. Since nothing exists outside of this all-encompassing whole, the universe itself must be God. The Pantheistic God is not an anthropomorphic god, and individual believers differ on the level of divinity to ascribe to the deity. This ambiguity allows Pantheism to be compatible with the beliefs of various religions or even with the personal philosophies of secular freethinkers.
Pantheism: Its Story and Significance is an essay by J. Allanson Picton that was originally published in 1905 as a 94-page book. Picton defines Pantheism and offers a brief overview of its history. The whole book centers, not surprisingly, around the writings of the philosopher Baruch Spinoza. The title of the work and its brevity might lead you to believe that it’s an elementary overview, but it really requires a good deal of prior philosophical knowledge on the part of the reader. Spinoza’s Ethics is one of the most challenging books I’ve ever read, but somehow Picton manages to make Spinozan Pantheism sound even more complicated than Spinoza himself did.
Picton opens with a discussion of Pantheistic beliefs among the ancient cultures of India, Egypt, and Greece. He explains that Chinese Buddhism is not a form of Pantheism, but he doesn’t even mention Daoism, which is. When Picton discusses whether various philosophies or religions were Pantheistic, he expects the reader to know their doctrines beforehand. When he brings up the Neo-Platonists or Hegel, for example, he assumes that the reader is already familiar with their works. Picton explains clearly how Pantheism differs from Atheism, and tends to emphasize how much Pantheism agrees with mainstream religions rather than how it differs from them. At one point he even goes so far as to compare Spinoza with Jesus. Throughout the book Picton seems to be leery of offending Christians. He doesn’t even mention prominent Pantheists Giordano Bruno, who was burned as a heretic, or John Toland, who published radical anti-Church tracts. Only in the concluding paragraphs does Picton indicate some sympathy towards a freethought viewpoint within the broad assertion that Pantheism can unite believers of all creeds or beliefs.
In the original printed volume, each paragraph had a subtitle printed along its margin. In the Kindle file that’s available for free on Amazon, these subtitles were converted into separate lines in the text that begin with “[Sidenote:”. Unfortunately the sidenotes don’t always appear next to the paragraph they refer to. Eventually the reader learns to ignore these annoyances and just read the text. There are also footnotes at the end of every chapter, but not necessarily footnote numbers within the text to indicate what passages they refer to.
Though this book isn’t badly written, it may have lost much of its relevance over the past century. Today’s reader would probably learn more from the Wikipedia entries for Pantheism and Spinoza. For serious philosophical scholars, there must be more recent, more in-depth studies of the subject. If you haven’t read Spinoza, read Spinoza. For the general reader who’s curious about Pantheism and its history, Elements of Pantheism by Paul Harrison offers a concise overview that will prove much more accessible and useful to you than Picton’s take on the subject.
If you liked this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me a “helpful” vote. Thank you.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1V8F227VCQZ6X/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
The Riddle in a nutshell
This Kindle file consists of the text of a lecture delivered by German biologist Ernst Haeckel on October 9, 1892. In this speech, Haeckel asserts that the monumental scientific advances of the 19th century, in particular Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, prove that the most rationally accurate philosophical and religious view of the creation, composition, and fundamental workings of the universe is the monism and pantheism of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza. Haeckel would go on to develop the ideas of this lecture further in his excellent 1901 book The Riddle of the Universe, in which he outlines a monistic world view that can serve as a viable cosmology for modern freethinkers, skeptics, pantheists, and atheists.
Like many scientists of his day, Darwin included, Haeckel didn’t get everything right, as one would expect from a work written prior to a thorough understanding of DNA, relativity, or quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, his fundamental philosophical arguments remain valid. One antiquated idea that’s examined in-depth in both works is the concept of “ether”, a term used to describe the medium which exists between the particles of matter in the universe. In the post-Einstein world, this ether could be seen as the very fabric of space-time itself. Nowadays, ether might even be analogous to dark matter. The point is, even though all of Haeckel’s scientific conclusions may not have survived the scrutiny of the past century, it doesn’t change the fact that his application of empirical science to the philosophical questions of the nature of the universe, God, human consciousness, and free will still provides thought-provoking inspiration for rational thinkers looking for answers to such universal riddles.
While The Riddle of the Universe was directed at a general audience, Monism as Connecting Religion and Science is a lecture that was delivered to an organization of scientists. For that reason, the text of this speech is neither as accessible nor as engaging as that of the longer and better book it inspired. If you’ve already read The Riddle of the Universe, you will find little new here. The best purpose this 25-page speech can serve is as an outline or “cheat sheet” of that larger work. If you haven’t read The Riddle, this brief abstract might give you enough idea of the contents of that larger work to help you decide if it’s worth reading. On the other hand, I’d hate to think that the somewhat dry, scholarly prose of this lecture might dissuade readers from endeavoring to tackle the more elegant and eloquent book which followed. My recommendation, therefore, is that unless you’re just really a huge fan of Haeckel, this short work is skippable. By all means, read The Riddle of the Universe instead.
If you liked this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me a “helpful” vote. Thank you.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2DANT46XXYEK0/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
An essential read for freethinkers
It’s a shame Ernst Haeckel was a racist, because this is an excellent book. Haeckel was a biologist, naturalist, artist, and a vigorous proponent of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution who, like many European and American men of the 19th century, thought that the white race was more highly evolved than the other, “primitive” races. Thankfully, with the exception of two or three questionable sentences, that racial view is entirely absent from this book. In The Riddle of the Universe, published in 1901, this Renaissance man sums up his life’s work for the general reader. He provides an overview of the state of scientific knowledge at the close of the 19th century and applies that knowledge to such philosophical mysteries as the creation of the universe, the existence of God, the nature of human consciousness, and the question of free will.
Haeckel uses the “Law of Substance” (now called the law of conservation of matter and energy) as the foundation for a monistic conception of the universe. The idea of monism was best developed by the 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza. It is opposed to dualism, the prevailing world view of most religions, which envisions the universe as being constructed of two substances—matter and spirit. In monism, the universe is only composed of one substance—matter—and any intelligence or “soul” must be an inherent property of that sole substance. Only by combining into more and more complex structures does this property accumulate into what we recognize as intelligence, from the basic stimulus and response of protozoa to rational human consciousness. The mechanism that accomplishes this is Darwinian evolution. In fact, the entire universe, organic and inorganic alike, can be seen as being in a perpetual state of evolution, and the sharp categorical distinctions we make between living and inanimate things, intelligent and non-intelligent life, matter and space, etc., should be abandoned in favor of more fluid spectra. The religious view that coincides with this monistic cosmology is pantheism, another contribution of Spinoza. Pantheism sees the entire universe itself, the monistic substance, as God. Haeckel acknowledges that pantheism is essentially the same as atheism—the absence of belief in an anthropomorphic God—only looked at from a different perspective. By combining the thought of Spinoza and Darwin into a unified theory of the universe, with help from Schopenhauer and Goethe, Haeckel elucidates a secular cosmology for rational thinkers of the modern world.
Although the text is crammed with scientific and philosophical terminology, the translation by Joseph McCabe is surprisingly easy to read. 21st-century readers will find much of the science elementary. The history of science, on the other hand, is an area most of us could use an education in, and Haeckel provides a good overview, although a German-centric one. Like Darwin, Haeckel didn’t get everything right, but the book’s philosophical value redeems its scientific inaccuracies. The book gradually progresses from scientific matters to religious and ethical issues. There is some anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, and anti-Vatican rhetoric that’s probably unnecessary for today’s audience. Needless to say, readers of a religious persuasion will not like this book, but for freethinkers it’s a must-read. You won’t agree with everything Haeckel says, but you will find many of your own ideas confirmed and gain an understanding of how these ideas can be combined into a cohesive philosophy. After all, what could be more important than establishing your own personal belief system (or lack of belief system, as the case may be)? It is incredibly invigorating to encounter a book that takes on a subject no less than everything in existence and the very nature of existence itself. Perhaps the real riddle of the universe is, why aren’t there more books like this?
If you liked this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me a “helpful” vote. Thank you.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2OQVMGB78C0ZF/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
A concise introduction to the Irish Voltaire
This brief book amounts to little more than an extensive article, read in about a half hour’s time, but the price of the Kindle file is appropriate for the content. It is not a complete biography of John Toland, but a concise summary of his philosophical career. The text is well written and the author gives a good sense of the personality of the man. Toland was notorious for his championing of reason over religion. He was the first person ever to be referred to as a “freethinker,” and Toland himself coined the term “pantheism” to describe the philosophy of Spinoza, of whom he was a disciple. A contemporary of such philosophical luminaries as Berkeley, Leibniz, and Locke, Toland never enjoyed the renown or respect they received, largely because his works were too controversial for his time. The picture Duggan paints here is of a man who not only welcomed such controversy but enthusiastically pursued it.
Toland was Irish, the author is Irish, and the purpose of this book is largely to bring attention to Toland’s Irishness. As such, some of the material may seem a bit unnecessary to the American reader, such as minute details about the history of Catholicism in Ireland. Overall, however, it’s an enlightening piece of writing and worth the time spent. Its value is increased by a comprehensive bibliography of Toland’s works. Anyone looking to learn more about this lesser-known figure of the Enlightenment should consider this a useful addition to their Kindle library.
If you liked this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me a “helpful” vote. Thank you.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R10MKUMVDFDZE7/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
“All Things are from the Whole, and the Whole is from all Things.”
Pantheism is a metaphysical view that asserts that God is inseparable from the physical universe. This God, however, bears little resemblance to the Christian, Moslem, or Judaic God. In fact, among Pantheists the word “God” is often interchangeable with words like “Nature”, “Soul”, or “Mind”. Most religions of the world are dualistic philosophies which view the world as being comprised of two substances, matter and spirit. Most Pantheists, on the other hand, are monists who believe the universe is composed of only one substance (matter), and that any divinity, intelligence, or spirit must be an inherent quality of that matter. Thus this divinity permeates the entire universe and inhabits all things. Everything is a part of and subject to the governing order of the natural universe, and nothing, not even God nor human consciousness, resides outside of physical reality. Many of the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers were Pantheists, as were the early Hindus and the Chinese Taoists. The most prominent Pantheist in the Western philosophical canon is Baruch de Spinoza, in whose work John Toland, the author of Pantheisticon, was certainly well-versed.
Toland was an Irish philosopher and outspoken freethinker who often published writings attacking conventional religious views. Pantheisticon was first published in Latin in 1720; the first English translation appeared in 1751. It is a brief booklet, little more than 100 small pages. Toland devotes about half the book to an explanation of the basic concepts of Pantheism. What he has to say on the subject is in many ways a rehash of Spinoza, but less mathematically logical in its construction and harder to understand. At times it’s even difficult to determine whether Toland is proposing a monistic or dualistic form of Pantheism. He makes digressions into physics and astronomy that do little to clarify his position, especially when penned in the prose stylings of three centuries past.
In the second half of the book Toland presents something far more original and unique. He asserts that throughout the Europe of his time there existed Socratic Societies, brotherhoods of Pantheists who, in the tradition of the ancient Greeks and Romans, gathered for banquets and engaged in philosophical discourse. Toland transcribes the “Form” of these meetings, a sort of liturgy that’s to be recited at these secret dinners, which include many quotes from their patron saint Cicero and call-and-response hymns devoted to the triumph of reason over superstition. Whether or not societies of this sort actually existed, the sort of pan-European network that Toland proposes here seems unlikely. It’s more probable that Toland’s intention is to inspire such brotherhoods, and create for the disciples of reason something resembling an organized religion.
If you really want to get a thorough understanding of Pantheism, this is not the book to read. For that I would suggest The Ethics by Spinoza. Nevertheless, if you are a freethinker, you’ll get a big kick out of the Pantheisticon. It gives one the feeling that you’re not alone in the world, that somewhere out there exists a brotherhood of like-minded heathens who value reason over superstition and scientific investigation over dogma. The book is also well stocked with quotable gems, for example, “The Sun is my Father, the Earth is my Mother, the World’s my Country, and all Men are my Relations.” Words to live by for the human race, to be sure.
If you liked this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me a “helpful” vote. Thank you.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R33IJ1W56V8ZFV/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Mankind’s metaphysical, ethical, and aesthetic relationship to the universe
Originally published in 1836, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay Nature had a profound impact on American literature and philosophy. Prior to this work, the arts of the Western world had been built upon centuries of cultural history, and American culture was little more than a redundant reflection of past civilizations. Emerson argued that, with the abundance of raw, untouched wilderness in the New World, American writers, artists, and scholars possessed a rare opportunity to build a uniquely American aesthetic, based not on the achievements of the past but drawn directly from nature itself. At the time, the concept of nature was little developed in the public psyche. Most people thought of nature simply as the provider of meat, produce, and timber. Emerson championed the appreciation of nature not only for the value of its commodities but also for the sake of its moral and spiritual benefits.
The philosophy that Emerson espouses in Nature reads like a mixture of the dualistic idealism of Plato and the monistic pantheism of Spinoza. Like Plato, Emerson believed that there is a higher reality, a divinity, that exists outside of the physical universe we perceive with our senses. Emerson refutes the assertion by many idealists, however, that sensual nature is simply a deceptive illusion which conceals true reality from us. Instead, Emerson insists that nature is the medium through which the divine speaks to us, that it is only by observing and loving nature that we can truly experience God. By accumulating empirical data of the natural world around us, we are able to ascertain the laws which govern the universe. It is through this exercise of reason that mankind is truly able to glimpse the divine. Thus, religions that emphasize an unseen kingdom of heaven over the perceptual world of nature do a disservice to man. Though Emerson was a Unitarian minister, the God of which he speaks does not resemble the Judeo-Christian deity, but rather a pantheistic universal soul which is synonymous with reason. Divinity is present throughout the universe, in all things, including humanity. Mankind must accept the fact that they themselves are a part of God, and having done so must live up to their own godliness. Emerson talks much of Spirit, which would lead one to believe he held a dualistic view of the universe, but since he provides a pantheistic conception of Spirit as an all-embracing unity that permeates the entire universe, it would seem, arguably, that he considers Spirit an inherent property of matter, and that the two substances of matter/spirit exist within one entity, rather than in separate realities.
Nature serves as the de facto manifesto of the Transcendentalist movement, as it is the most concise and comprehensive encapsulation of that movement’s ideals. To contemporary readers, the most familiar expression of Transcendentalism is Henry David Thoreau’s Walden. The appeal of Emerson’s work has not held up as well over the years as that of his protégé Thoreau, primarily because the language Emerson uses is far less accessible. Emerson liked to couch his philosophical concepts in poetic metaphor, and in Nature he even goes so far as to confess that he finds ambiguity more inspiring than clarity. Hence, Nature makes for a difficult read. To some extent it’s too poetic to be good philosophy, and too philosophical to be good poetry. Nevertheless, this brief book is loaded with passages of extreme beauty, eloquence, and wisdom. The time spent deciphering this complex work will be handsomely compensated by a rich yield of inspiration and enlightenment.
If you liked this review, please follow the link below to Amazon.com and give me “helpful” vote. Thank you.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1O4IR6UZH915Q/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
