Emerson's essay Nature pretty much defeated me. I read Self-Reliance years ago and was incredibly impressed and inspired, but although I think Nature was included in the little volume I still have up in Arizona, I don't remember reading it at the time. So when I had the opportunity to include this in a challenge, I was looking forward to reading what Emerson had to say.But although at times I thought I was just about to grasp his ideas so that I could say "Eureka, I see what you are saying!" it

This is probably the best thing I have read in my life. I will review it later this week.The third reading renders it much much more magical. In two consecutive years, it has not lost one spark of intensity and brilliance.

"The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common." Emerson's cadence and poetic influences add a pleasing finish to the tone of this essay. Despite the name of the piece, the author seems every bit as preoccupied with the supernatural as he is the natural. (I'd maintain that, from certain perspectives, the interchangeability and additional layer of wonderment does make sense.) Emerson isn't shy about his spiritual perspective. And that perspective clearly influences his abi

Emerson was an ADD/ADHD nightmare in his writing style. I found myself having to reread sentences/paragraphs a lot. This was read directly after reading Thoreau’s Walden so perhaps I am not being fair to him. Thoreau’s direct and clear writing contrasted Emerson’s and I felt I needed Emerson to define his capitalized words like Mind, Nature etc to make sure we were on the same page so to speak. Emerson’s style reminded me a lot of Mary Baker Eddy. There were some interesting ideas but I had to r...

This actually had some really nice quotes and thoughts but it just didn't really grab my interest.

Its poetry, pure unadulterated poetry of nature.

Emerson opens this treatise on life with powerful, captivating words, "Our age is retrospective." From here he launches into assaults on all of the assembled histories and beliefs of man and asking 'why not WE' should have advantages that our ancestors had; such as discovering philosophy, religion or the secrets of the universe - and then he goes exactly against such sentiments.The introduction to Nature is marvelous. The opening paragraph is an argumentative essays dream and the supporting para...

A charming essay (as is usually the case with Emerson -- I much prefer his essays to his poetry actually). This essay is split into eight sections, and each of which provides a new way of looking at nature. Emerson illustrates his points with natural images, and his sentence structure is lyrical which makes it an enjoyable read. I picked this up because this essay is known for its construction of the Romantic Child as a point of innocence.

Fascinating! This essay by Emerson takes up about 56 of this little book's pages, and I feel like I could write about 100 pages on it. Written in 1836, it's interesting that Emerson starts off with how the current generation never got to face nature at its most pure, that was a task their forefathers got to experience. You know, they had it easy in 1836! Sometimes he has a thought merging Nature, Man and Spirit that is simple, in sentence structure anyway, and I have to read it several times to

My favorite quotes: "These enchantments are medicinal, they sober and heal us." "Cities give not the human senses room enough.""Nature is loved by what is best in us."

This was an uneven book. The beginning and the end are easy to read and thought provoking, while the middle is dense and obtuse. These essays are Emerson's attempts to understand why nature is valuable and what our relationship to nature should be. This is a lofty and noble goal, but I think he ultimately fell short. He starts off by stating his premise: that being in nature gives humans unparallelled peace and happiness. He then grapples with to the reasons behind this truth in subsequent chapt...

I had it for a school assignment. This is far from something I would personally choose to read on a foggy Monday on Nov.Basically, it all comes down to the "man" and how he can change whatever if he puts his mind too it. (while other themes were sprinkled over the frosting, that were related to nature as a system and man as projection of a god like being).Instagram\\my Blog\\

i would like to meet one (1) person who understands any of this. there’s some good one liners that i agree with, but most of this book just sounded like a crackhead conspiracy theorist standing on a street corner and yelling WE ARE ALL A TRANSLUCENT EYE THAT CONNECTS US TO THE SPIRIT OF THE UNIVERSE like wut......far too philosophical and spiritual for me. i much prefer works about the sublime.

Another reread for me and though I joke with my students about the kumbaya-esque nature here, there's something within this piece that reminds us all we are too rushed to notice. Maybe because I grew up somewhere I could see the stars, where I fell asleep to the sound of the crickets and peepers (sooo loud sometimes) rather than the sounds of sirens and broken bottles I hear now that I connected with this so deeply. Maybe it was just the current need for serenity and to rethink what it means to

This is my first Emerson and it was great. The basic idea is that unlike modern dualistic view of the universe, for Emerson matter and spirit are one, so admiring nature is like admiring Jesus Christ, they both give a spiritual feeling.Emerson loves nature and he expresses this love in such a beautiful peotic way. Nature for Emerson is a manifestation of God (or God himself, it really depends on your interpretation of the book).I loved the chapter on nature and language, it was a beautiful (re)d...

Pantheistic twaddle. Stentorian proclamations are neither evidence nor argument.

This is an important work for Emerson, it defined him and how he viewed his fellow man and the world around him, especially the natural world. But it was difficult to read for me because of the style and of the time and place it was written. This intellectual and philosophical language from the early 19th century was just outside my ability to fully appreciate it's message. Memorable quote: "Infancy is the perpetual Messiah, which comes into the arms of fallen men, and pleads with them to return...

“In wildness is the preservation of the world.” ~ThoreauNATURE: After listening to Professor Arnold Weinstein’s 3 lectures on Emerson from Classics of American Literature (The Great Courses) I listened to this essay on LibriVox, a free resource which has many audio recordings of books in the public domain. I was very grateful for Weinstein’s preliminary explanation although I still found myself ‘at sea’ so-to-speak when it came to many of the classical and contemporary references and metaphors.

Transcendentalism has never been my cup of tea. Here, there are some good ideas, but there are also a lot of ideas I disliked. I didn't find myself particularly fascinated by anything, although there are multiple quotes that are pretty. I definitely found some flaws. My main reason of distaste was from how Emerson relies on religion. Christianity, of course. I want to be clear that being Christian and religious in general is by no means bad. I'm just looking at Emerson's lack of variety in his r...

Like the stanforths, RWE is a unitarian king. He struggles to blend enlightenment rationalism with his theology and his romanticism. These three key aspects separate him from puritan environmental thinkers and the later secular romantics (emerson fanboy John Muir is understood better after reading Nature. This was dense and hard to follow but I am glad I read it and its work putting three gruelling hours into. You might see nature differently, theres a chance I will.