Whitman quotes exploration: Heaven and Hell for everyone

For my essay, I think I’d like to explore the idea of how everyone has the same amount heaven and hell in their life, going off of a few Whitman passages. There are a number of quotes from “Song of Myself” that I think work around this idea, and would use them throughout an exploratory essay to get my point across. (Sorry, I don’t have the poem on me to quote him directly right now.) The main thing I would discuss is how it may seem on the surface that some people have a life easier than others, but when it comes down to it, they just have different forms of struggle than others. I want people to see that the world is not full of uneven distributions of good and bad, but that everyone has the same amount of each, just more weight in different areas. This is something everyone needs to see, to both let them know that they aren’t alone in suffering or good fortune, and also to show them that drawing conclusions before knowing all the facts is an awful disease that seems to be taking over our society. I don’t think I’ll stick to Whitman’s ideas too closely, more so formulating my own as I go. Also, I don’t intend on telling a story, but if you have any ideas on how this could work well in a different form than my exploratory essay structure, please share, because I’m not exactly sure how well the format is going to work.

Equality Is A Chain!

Ya so this isnt gonna be my first few paragraphs of my essay but im gonna basically make it on of my crazy rants that is unfair and ridiculous. Imataion is suicide, I fully agree with this statement. I believe that too many people take their lives and or their bodies and try too much to imitate the picture of perfect that has been painted in their mind by the media. Now I think that everybody should strive to be happy and beautiful these days because there is also a mass of people that don't strive for fittness and care little about their image, but the problem lies in the fact that nobody paints there own picture of beauty, happiness, or even freedom. When someone creates their own portrait and makes it a goal to strive for, they usually end up making the portrait because it is self set, yet if the picture perfect is set in your mind by something else there is nothing stopping it from being reset by an other image. Even if u reach your goal of imitaion then u r nothing, a hallow shell, a hallow shell to be jugded, toyed, and played with, much like a doll. (Now somewhere i have to transfer to equality) To many people believe in equality these days. Eqaulity will not set anyone free, Eqaulity is not a natural standard, Equality must be monitered by the people, it cannot be born! It will never be acheived! I feel that eqaulity is not freedom but chains! Chains that wrap both the great and the mediocre and drag them down to the level of the weak and un intelligent. Equality will not bring anyone up, it can not make someone smarter, nor can it make someone stronger in character, no it can only blind the masses to great! seeing everyone as equal is a joke a creul joke that people put blind faith in because they feel it is the right thing to do. You must see my point if everyone is viewed as equal than no one can stand out! No one man can rise to greatness through Equality. Equality is a perversion of natural order! it anchors the Excellent and drags them down into mediocrity. Ya so thats the plan ummm give me comments, critizims, help with the transition, or just yell at me all are welcome.

I doubt I'll use this in my final paper but it's an interesting rant

*So just tell me what you think about this, it's probably too informal and sarcasticy to use but I got going and just couldn't stop. Do you agree... typical American life? Anything I forgot?

The typical “American Dream”, what would Thoreau think of that? It revolves around ideas such as money and possessions, example: respectable job, white picket fence house etc. It seems society has a set path that should be the goal of everyone to follow.

It may go something like this: First you must attend high school. You should get good grades, impress boards and governments with high standardized test scores. You should also be social, have school spirit, make friends, and even have high school lover. You may also engage in after school sports and activities like soccer, theater or various school clubs (just make sure to be well rounded).

Then, it’s off to college. By now you should have gotten good enough test scores and achieved enough well roundedness to get into a prestigious college, possibly even an ivy league. Of course you were smart enough to get plenty of scholarships. In college you will take intellectual classes, be inspired by a professor and learn amazing things. Again, you will also have to be social and you will meet new people, live in close quarters with a dorm mate, go to college parties and have a few too many lovers. At this point you will also have to start thinking about getting a part time job, renting an apartment after few years, oh and figure out your future career path. After about four years you will earn your degree and graduate.

After that, you can step out into the “real world”. This means you will have to get a job. You will probably follow your planned career path and hopefully find some good paying job. You will work 5 hard, long days a week 9am to 5pm. The majority of your time will be behind a computer. At your job you will make friends with your coworkers, hate your boss, get promoted, and maybe even earn a bonus. At this point in the typical American life you will find your future husband or wife. This may include a) reconnecting with past high school lover, b) meeting someone at a party, c) (unethically) falling in love with someone from work, or d) meeting someone over the web on an online singles dating website! After buying your first suburban 3 bedroom, 3 bath house you will continue “settling down” by having a large, white wedding. It will be the best night of your life, besides high school prom. Then you will have two or three kids who are the cutest children in the whole world.

At this point you may go through a mid-life crisis, you might loose your job or get a divorce, or maybe both! This will be a hard time for you, but you will get through it along with your $80 and hour counselor. At the age of around 60 you will retire and live at home for a few more years. Then you will be moved into a retirement home, assisted living or nursing home. Here you will spend the rest of your days until you die.

blogalitious blogage by colten

Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity says Mr. Thoreau. I plan on basing my huge friggin essay on this quote and others like it by the authors we have read about. Thoreau seems to think that life can be lived in the utter simplest, even to “Instead of three meals a day, if it be necessary eat but one.” When stating that one should “let his affairs be as two or three” he is describing a life of malpractice and base which includes all experiences. To attempt something exciting and outrageous is good for the mind and body. As we have all had these experiences it is agreeable to say that to “only do something of this nature once or twice” is very difficult or very frustrating. The quote “Becha can’t eat just one” from the Lays Potato chip company is a good reflection of this because we all know that after you eat that first chip, you eat a second without even noticing, and in the end you take a whole handful for yourself. That handful is habit or daily routine, and due to the fact that humans are creatures of habit, Thoreau’s life at minimum cannot be possible. With today’s society and the “American dream” a life of simple pleasure goes against custom and is not accepted by others. Many “civilized” people own two houses, multiple cars (over two or three), and have lots of extra “crap” lying around that would not kill them to get rid of. Most use the words poor or unfortunate to describe the people who do not have those things and would “hate to have to live like that.” Really what is being said is that they would hate to live that “simpler life” without their idea of an acceptable lifestyle. We as a people do not want “to keep our accounts on a thumbnail” but we do want routine and most want to stay within their known “comfort zone.” Not trying something new means doing something over….. and over and over. I know this might be jumbled but it kinda sorta summarizes what I will write on. CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ONLY.

zero draft

I originally wanted to make this the first few paragraphs of my essay, but i have found myself rereading self-reliance, and completely dissecting it, while putting together in my head how i want this essay to go. So my idea is to basically, incorporate my education, my thoughts, my peers and Emerson all into one. i plan to start off my essay with a debate between Emerson and Mr.carter. this will escalate into a full blown argument. while this is going on i will be taking everything both of them has said into my head, and analysing it with my own life. possibly contemplating on who has the better arguments, and whose theories i would like to fallow. i may throw in a conversation with one of my peers or maybe even Emerson at the end. I basically want my brain to be in full thinking mode the entire time, and i almost want to figure out what my life's been and what it is going to be, while hearing too people who are pretty sure of themselves, duel it out. Any ideas would really help, so go for it give them to me.

Simplicity Simplicity Simplicity

Just to reiterate what Shannon said, please comment! It needs work don't be scared. Also, if you see a phrase/word that I could improve with better vocab, that is deeply appreciated. Thanks guys.


Day 0
I decided to try to be more simple with my just to expierence what others before me have. They believe that simplicity is key to enjoy life, and I defenantly need that. Why not give it a try and change? What's the worst that can happen? But what shall I try first?!?
Day 1
I wake up, eager for difference, and decide the first thing I am going to do is go camping with little equipment. Only a sleepingbag and pad for back support that is essential. I will go from 3pm-9am with Nahko.
Day 1 night
I am sitting next to the fire, encompassed by its warmth and I see the pure beauty of the stars. The stars are so simply amazing in every way possible. The fire keeps my body warm, the trees shielded from the bitter breeze, but the stars keeps my mind in awe. There is nothing like being able to look at something that has never been navigated, explored. I imagine myself flying around them, near them, pushing them, together as one. In a way, the stars warm my soul the way the fire licks at my toes. Oh the powerful memories that come along with the stars. I feel the burden of having to remember, having to reprint the pictures I locked in a box deep deep down in the pits of Earth. I tossed them aside unknowing that they are permenantly attached to me, just not as persistant as the present. The past and future have no meaning if one can not understand the present. It is the most important.
Day 2 morning
The smell of 'arboles' wake me up teasing my stomach that knows that there is no food for me unless I use my insticts and fish. I make a makeshift fishing pole from stick and leaves, and it it completely useless. I sit, hungry, staring through my bad breath into the lifeless lake. The lake sits motionless, mocking, daring me to jump in as Thoreau explained. I strip into my bare skin, unembarssed and unprotected and cannonball into the resisting water. My dog jumps on top of me, drowing me under his large paws. I slowly slip out of the water, exausted. It was anything but pleseant. The water was bitter cold, I am now more dirty than before, but boy am I awake! Is this what Thoreau would do to become 'intelectually awake?' I pack up my sleeping bag, call my mom, and insist that she make me breakfast so by the time I get home, Nahko and I can eat 'real' food.
Day 3
Yesterday I became more frustrated as I got hungrier, but I really did love laying under the stars contemplating the events of my astronaut days. Today I went on a hike with out shoes and that was...interesting. Horrible to say the best. Ha. I think I broke my pinky toe on a log, I had to constantly stop to take glass out the soles of my feet, and I ended up tip toeing into the grass and passing out. I slipped into sublime and I could feel a body against mine. His arms were around me, protecting me, rubbing me into comfort. These hands slipped off my bra and slowly caressed my back with his fingertips causing my skin to shoot into goosebumps. He made chills run down every part of my skin. The chills would run down my hips, legs and slowly die out. His hand cupped my face and turned it towards him. His lips came into view, but everything else was in a faded out fog. These perfect lips slowly but passionatly kissed me. But I woke up to my Nahko laying against me waiting for me to wake up. I looked around and new what I must do.
Day 4
I let my last strength of simplicity take over me. Its Sunday, the last day of our three day weekend. ....... surprise!

Begining... Needs Work.. Suggestions?

.....Ok this is just some stuff that we talked about and I tried, but it needs work, so if you have any comments at all please.. Dont hold back..! Thanks...

If I were to tell you that you were being placed on an island, every one you knew would be there and you would just have to live off of the things you could fit in one back pack, what would you say? I asked myself this very question and could not come up with and answer. In today’s world every one has become dependent on almost every thing they carry with them, there cell phones, I-pods, computers, the clothes on there back, the very little miscellaneous items we use every day such as make up. I do not judge these people for I am one of them. There hasn’t been a day that I can remember where I didn’t rely on my cell phone, or I didn’t need to hear my music in the morning getting ready for school and getting ready for bed. Technology has become a part of our lives that it is almost disgusting. Now to ask Thoreau, or Emerson, or Whitman what they thing the distractions of today world are, they would break out into a huge philosophical tangent about how we must forget everything and live by ourselves in nature. But really? Who can just get up and leave there lives and live naked in nature? No one… in these days and times it is just not a reasonable request to live in nature. People do it, and some one could do it, but it would not be the ideal living, for me at least. With all the technology and the distance between people the things that they would consider distractions and what we consider distractions are just completely different. There are many things that distract my every day life. For one I think school itself is a distraction. I think that my time would be much more useful just living life through the experiences that I need. Some schooling of course would be required but only the schooling that interests me, not the schooling that some old guys in a “board of education” think I should be learning. Why should I learn about chemistry and biology if I have not interests later on in science at all? No matter how hard this is to say I don’t think my cell phone is a distraction. Maybe all the actions I do on the thing like texting, emailing, etc. are all distractions but making calls and being able to be reached is a necessity. Another distraction in my life is the media. Thoreau states… “to a philosopher all news, as it is called is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over there tea…” I agree with this 100% Sure knowing what is going on in the world is very important but some of the things that are said just don’t apply to my daily life. Yet when I hear that some one got shot, or I hear the latest gossip on Lindsey Lohan I do stop and let it affect even the littlest time out of what ever I m doing.

What my essay is about!

I was thinking to write about a day in my shoes. But then accidentally run into Emerson, Thoreau and/or Whitman in the park. I discover that they are on acid and they try and get me to do it. I figured out that they both wrote their famous essays while they were on acid because the essays were so brilliant. Each of their writings had great opinion, and word choice. They both stuck on one idea and never changed it through out their whole paper. For example Emerson said that "imitation was suicide." I personally don't know anyone who could come up with that good of a comparison not high on something. Next Thoreau wrote a great essay about one of his life experiences with all of his best buds, how fun! They all voted on election day which is a good thing. Lastly we have Whitman i can really tell that he could have been on acid because he wrote all about nature, and for some reason every time I see anyone high they are just so interested into flowers or mushrooms or even nature in general. Obviously Whitman likes the nature, i mean he describes it in so many different ways. He mentions that he wished he could run naked all around and run to the bank of the river. But anyways more about my essay, so i will probably have all three of them on acid. They want me to take a "hit" or it with them. They then ask me when we are all on acid if i want to write an essay with them. And of course we all pitch in parts for this paper. Yeah that is how far i got!

"Zero-Draft"

For my essay i have chosen to write about a topic in which concerns how society and material possesions have encumbered us, as well as having taken us away from nature and away from oursleves. And while for the most part I agree with these sentiments of Thoureu, Emerson, and Whitman, I will pose some opposing bits that support the modern age. Im absolutely in love with nature, no matter how crappy a day I have been having, surrounding mysellf in nature never ceases to cheer me right back up. The sounds, the smell, and most of all the consistentsy is what draws me in. The fact that no matter what is going on in the world, the outdoors remains the same, it never judges my outfit, or tells me to stand up straight. Nature is the only place in which I feel comfortable to be whatever I feel like being in that particular moment, I am free. On the other hand, we have gotten to a point where I don't think we can all completely give up all of the "privilidges" that technology that society provides us with. As much as i hate to admit it, i love technology, and it really has brought about some amazing things. It has brought about medical, scientific, and social advances as well as mereentertianment that have brought a lot of good and joy to a lot of people. Also, I dont always think that thinking retrospectively or letting others influence you is a bad thing. Being able to bounce ideas off of others can sometimes ease finding your own voice. This is basically what i intend to touch expand on in my essay, please give me suggestions, ideas, crticism, ANYTHING!!!!!!

"We don't need no Education!"

After reading all of the Transcendentalists' works I now had to choose a topic of which to write a "fun" essay on. We had such broad options really, from religion to pop culture, to even telling a fictionial story about an experience with the writers. But none of these choices sounded like fun to me. So I had to begin my favorite pasttime, brainstorming.
After much deliberation I choose to also write on a broad topic, one with which I could use many examples, and also one that I knew ALOT about. So for my essay I will be writing an essay, one more formal than many others, about the corrupted youth of today. From this main topic I will branch into some subtopics consisting of religion in today's society, conformity in today's society, and nature in today's society. This is sort of what stood out to me when I was thinking about some of my favorite parts of the writing of Emerson, whom, like I mentioned in my previous blog, is my favorite between Whitman, Thoreau, and Emerson.
Some other ideas about what I am writing about include how the youth of today are not as in touch with their spirituality. This is present among most Americans I have met and many Europeans, South Americans, and even Asians, so it is not only just us Americans. Also on the topid of conformity, I feel that teenagers and youth in general are material oriented and don't care about bigger things like service before self, etc. We are also easy to conform to music trends, fashion trends, and even trends in ways of thinking. So we need to dive deeper into meanings of things and not just follow an idea or way of life because it seems "cool." And finally, on the topic of nature, many young adults across the world are not intouch with nature as Emerson says we should be. Although this is not true in remote and undeveloped parts of the world like the Himalaya or the Mongolian Plains, just go to any city and take a look at those high schools. Pathetic.
So that is basically my idea for this essay and I would really enjoy hearing your guys' advise, critiques, and thoughts on my zero draft.

Zero Draft...... Not so great

I have some ideas for this essay but I am kind of having a brain block. My idea that I kind of started running with was taking the simplicity perspective of it and comparing one of my busy days and one of my easy days. Then talk about one of me elders and how there life is more complex then mine. Even though I feel like somedays I just can't take anymore, I don't realize that its just going to get even more complex no matter what. It is a part of growing up and we all have to do it sometimes. I think that we as humans can get out of control and take something like time and just waste it doing pointless things. I think that time is a very important thing at that we should really think about. We don't have that much time and we should do what we want to do but make sure we don't waste any of it. Like we all say "Time is precious."

This is kind of how I want go to with this essay and talk about time and simplicity and tie it into MY life. I hope I can go far with this and it sounds good. If anyone has anymore ideas for me PLEASE let me know!!! Thanks :)

'zero draft'

So, I started writing my essay and I started to write about how nature influenced my life a few years ago and how it taught me to simplify it as well as appreciate it. It's kind of similar to a short story format but I'm intertwining Thoreau and Emerson in it. I will explain how my story reflects their ideas of simplicity and the appreciation of nature. The story begins with a blurb about this extravagent river trip that I took a few years ago. It explains how when I took this trip, I erased all communication and stress from my life to focus on nature and the experience of river rafting. It was my first time rafting and I always loved water and the ocean, but it shows how I began to appreciate nature in a more peaceful and less distracting outlook. I have written the first 2 pages or so, so if anyone is interested in reading it, having feedback is always great.

Let me know what you guys think of my idea.

MUSICA???!!!!

So, this is whats going down in my brain. I have this feeling about music that is uncontrollable and give me the most amazing high on the planet, and i feel like thats how Emerson and his fellow writters almost feel about nature. SOOOO!!! i was planning on somehow intertwine the idea that the writes have about nature with how i feel about music. Like for example I could compare Whittman's quote: "I am no longer contained between my hat and my boots" and i could say that this is exactly how music makes me feel. BUT!!! I'm not exactly sure how I'm going to do it..... Sould i just have like one paragraph for each quote or what??!!! I NEED SOME IDEAS!!!!! Get that creative stuff flowing in your BRAINS!!!!

yay!!!!

Do do do....ohyea I have AP Lit homework

When I first got this prompt I go had no clue how I was going to start. After a while I developed a couldy idea about what I wanted to do. I didn't even know what I was going to do when I started this blog, but it just came to me! I will go on a road trip, a fantastic road trip! The person in the passenger seat to accompany me will be Emerson, Thoreau and Whitman can sit in the back. Together we will travel across either America or Europe....havn't decided yet, just made this idea up. Throughout our journey well will visit places and my companions will quote themselves from the essays we've read.

Ummm....That's it so far. Give me any ideas or how you think I could improve this story

"Zero Draft"

First of all......I love the essay prompt because it gives you SO much freedom. I think that's why i've had such a hard time coming up with an idea. I want to be creative, but yet also interpret some of the themes these authors are saying. Tricky! Anyhow, my main idea for the essay (at the moment) is around these lines:

 I most relate to the themes regarding simplicity and the human reconnection to  nature. My essay will be a "diary entry" of sorts. When i'm bored i love reading magazines...most often at the library because then I can read them but don't have to waste the money to buy them. The magazines are overall pretty trashy, but in a materialistic sort of a way, completely absorbing. So.....in my "entry" upon reading many of these i will begin to look at the titles and the pictures and realize what our society has come to. Using a magazine as a sort of view into society you see that nothing is plain, or simple. We can't see the beauty in a leaf or a landscape anymore even humans are airbrushed in order to achieve "perfection" .

In the entry I intend to quote the works of authors such as Thoreau and Emerson in order to both analyze them, and then reflect how different modern life has become.... I hope to show in this entry my day-long journey to both realizing and reconnecting with the ideas of simplicity and nature.

Essay plan

For this essay I am planning on using a story/journal layout, similar to what we read early this week. It is also going to follow a similar plot in which I adventure into nature on a backpacking journey to connect with the Earth. I was not able to come to a firm conclusion of which of these fine three authors reflect me personally the best so in my story I am going to skip around a bit, touching back on each of these writers main ideas. Of course I plan to also reflect on the balance of society and nature and how being a conformist is like being a soulless mass of matter. During my trek through nature I will be sure to incorporate quotations from the texts that I feel are both interesting to me and necessary in the situation. Placing what I have said altogether, basically I am writing a journal based upon a fake senario in my life in which I backpack into nature trying to find inner peace, while reflecting upon the lessons that Emerson, Whitman and Thoreau have taught us.

Through the Woods with THAT gnome

SO, My essay will simply be a short story. What's gunna happen is like 20% true and 80% FANTASTIC. So Meghan and I go on a hike for weight training up Bear Creek. We wanted to make it to Little Hawaii, but weren't too determined, and about 35 minutes into it, I get curious about a little trail that plunges down towards the river, so of course, we take the trail, and it leads us to a most beautiful place. It's PERFECT. It's like a little woodland home, which we could TOTALLY live in!!!!! We planned it all out, here's the cooking space, here's where everyone could sleep, etc. etc. Then I get even more curious, because that's just who I am, and cross the creek and wander up the other side. I find a few more "beds" and am then greeted by this SICK tree. Well it's not really a tree, it's like somehow there was a tree and it fell over and all the roots kinda pulled up out of the ground, but they're all just hanging down. Idk, it's wayy difficult to explain, but it's SOO cool. So here's where it gets unreal. So we're gunna sit on that thing for a bit, and a little gnome is gunna come out. It's his home. Right so here's this little gnome chilling there, chatting with us like it's nobody's business. So from what he's saying and what we've been reading in AP Lit and Comp, we start to think his words sound familiar. muahahaha, the gnome is Emerson! Well Emerson re-incarnated. So like we because close, and we figure out who he is

but from there i don't know what should happen...so yeah that's where I need help. What should the conflict be? How do I end the story?

I don't want to settle down and other thoughts

My essay will probably open with the Thoreau quote " As long as possible live free and uncommitted...." etc. In the context of Walden, Thoreau's quote is talking about being held down by material possessions. I can talk about my personal relations to that as well how America deals with materialism. BUT I mostly want to talk about the way this quote can be perceived in another way. For me this means being held down not by objects, but by choices. Especially at this point in our lives, I know we can all relate to the pressure of deciding our future. People ask ALL the time, do you know which college you want to go to?, are you taking the SAT soon?, do you know what you want to do with your life? NO! I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WANT TO DO YET!!! and I think that would make Thoreau happy.

With this same idea in mind, I can also talk about how (mostly American teens) are being pushed by society to grow up too fast. This topic can include ideas such as media and advertising and the goals to strive for perfection. Clothing, makeup blah blah blah.

I'll also talk about the "American Dream" and how it relates to Thoreau's ideals. This includes the typical sequence: High school (with good grades), College (ivy league?) , respectable career (doctor, lawyer, office job??), husband, kids (two, three?), suburbia, little house with the white picket fence, retirement blah blah blah. WHAT AN AWFUL LIFE!!! I think my life's goal is to make sure I never, ever, ever get forced into this typical lifestyle, even though at times it may seem like the whole world is urging me to do so.

I'm ranting...

Ummmm what else did I have to say? umm.......OH! well I will put more on my current status as a high school student, about getting good grades, just to get into college, just to get a good job. I can talk about which classes are actually necessary and which are societies interpretation of important. Standardized testing (SATs and ACTs for sure)

The reason I'm drawn to this essay topic is because I am feeling pressure to start making "big, life choices" when I REALLY don't want to settle down. I want to travel the world, meet new people. I want to be able to learn without the use of a textbook.

So, the main thing I will probably need help with is the order of my essay, should I talk about my personal stuff first or societies stuff first? Ok my post needs to end now.

Zero Draft

For this assignment I was thinking of writing something similar to what Edward Abbey wrote in that i intend to do a journal entry of a day or two when I was in touch with nature. I think that I will talk about my thoughts during the experience as well as talk about what Emerson, Whitman, or Thoreau would have thought. I also intend to include views on society and consumerism. I also will include quotes from the writings of these authors and how they relate to my experiences as well as interpret and explain them as well as their significance to my story.

My favorite Transcendentalist

Out of the three transcendentalists whose writing we have read, I must say that my favorite of the three was Walt Whitman. Whitman was my favorite because his writing to me was somewhat of a combination of Emerson and Thoreau in that he expressed the strong condensed messages of Emerson as well as the legibility, simplicity and causality of Thoreau. Whitman also felt the need to connect with nature just as Emerson and Thoreau did, however, Whitman had more extreme views than Emerson and Thoreau when it came to the faults of consumerism and the importance of solitude in nature. A good example of this is in "Song of Myself " when he talks about the feeling to take off al of his clothes and jump in the river alone, another part of this piece of writing is when Whitman describes his contempt for consumer society when he is talking about the uselessness of perfume.

My Favorite Essay

Personally my favorite essay was Emerson over Thoreau, and Whitman. I just loved how he described things. For example i thought it was so impressive of him to go in front of the whole Harvard School and expressed his thoughts through a speech. His words of wisdom inspired many people the believe his thoughts. In his speech he pretty much stated that God is not everything , and any person who is kind can be a god just like him. I am just all around inspired how he spoke to the completely wrong crowd about God.

Emerson is my homeboy

I mean, the first thing we read by him is called Nature. We all know I'm a hippie, I guess, so it would make sense that I'm attracted to this. But more than that...he's just right. I definitely didn't mind Whitman or Thoreau, but Emerson was just simply more original and more creative with his prose. It was more interesting to read, I think, because you could read one sentence, not understand it, keep going, read the whole paragraph and STILL have no idea what's going on. Then you take a deep breath, reread it, and your life changes. So yeah, it takes a while to wade through all his complicated thoughts and his clusterf*ck of words, but once you do, you find that the meaning is so profound and complex and absolutely TRUE that it's so worth it. For me Whitman and Thoreau were shallow compared to Emerson. Their meaning was right there on the surface. Superficial writing that borrowed his ideas. Borrowing's fine, but then you have to interpret it, you have to twist and contort it into your own perspective. Mr. Lavendar disagress with me on this, but everything must be and is internalized and filtered and warped by every individual. For example, Emerson's writing meant something eons and ages different to me than it meant to, say, Chancee, who has had a completely different life from me, who has different biases and opinions and experiences, which effect the way in which she views the world and the way in which she reads writing. If she were to write that Emerson was her favorite, it would have been for different reasons that me. If she were to debate Emerson's main ideas, or profoundness, her argument would provide different justifications than mine. If I were to regurgitate some interpretation of Emerson, it would not boil down to the same essentials as Mr. Lavender's analyis. It would be original, it would be specifically and soley mine. Because Emerson created his own ideas and presented them so beautifully, I respect him, and he is fa sho my fav. out of the three.

A great writer

As we have ventured through the compositions of great writers such as Emerson, Whitman, and Thoreau I have come to appreciate and enjoy the excitement and complexity of these great writers creations. They have made me think outside the box, and broaden my way of thinking in terms of literature and the rest of the world. Although they are all great writers in there own way, there was one out of the three that I immensely enjoyed; Ralph Waldo Emerson. His complexity and opinion in his writings made me not only stretch my mind, but think of the world from a completely different perspective. The "Divinity School Address" was one of the best readings I have ever read. The way he so strongly stated his opinion about religion, and kept me interested and thinking throughout the whole address, was incredible. He made sure to keep, his opinion loud and clear, but always kept me wondering about what he was really trying to say. I have thoroughly enjoyed experiencing such an incredible writer. And I hope in the future I can read more by Emerson, as well as Whitman and Thoreau.

Whitman

The works of literature that we have read over during this first section of school have been everything from very complicated to very simple, all of which I was very interested in. But out of these writers my favorite ended up the free going poet Whitman. The way Whitman wrote his poety was very enthralling, it was concise yet powerful. Every line of his poems from Leaves of Grass painted an imagine in your mind unlike any of the other authors we have read. Whitman did a great job at grasping the full basis of what he was trying to say in a way that made it enjoyable to read and even more so to imagine. When Whitman says in his poem "I will go to the bank by the wood and become undisguised and naked, I am mad for it to be in contact with me." you can really imagine (although you wish not to) this senario. Walt Whitman seemed to be the most down to earth and natural guy out of all these fine writers, which allowed me to really connect with his poetry. You can feel through the way he placed his words that Whitman had a real love of nature and love of life. Whitman's writing incourages you to live in the moment and let the full beauty of life embrace you which is why I thought Whitman was the easiest writer to connect to.

Thoreau...For Sure

Out of all the writers we have read this year, by far my favorite was Thoreau. Although Emerson had many intelligent ideas and a plethora of good points, his writing was just too difficult. It was hard for me to enjoy reading when it took me half an hour to understand a paragraph. Also, Whitman’s “Song of Myself” was fascinating and I loved it, but it was almost too formal. That is the main reason I loved Thoreau, the way he can ramble on, taking thoughts from wherever his mind wandered, while keeping them organized and logical at the same time. His ideas seemed to me the most “fresh”. The passages on owning the land in every sense besides paying for it was a new way to look at things that I really enjoyed. Although I have never liked the whole idea of owning land and blocking it with fences, after reading Thoreau I found a whole new sense of that ideology. I realized that you don’t have to pay money to say that land is yours; you only have to become a poet and enjoy the landscape to the fullest. My favorite quote of Thoreau’s was “As long as possible live free and uncommitted.” This really spoke to me and I will be sure to remind myself of this when the time comes for me to start making larger life choices. When I buy my first house or apartment, this passage is going to be taped on the door! YES! I’m really excited for that.
I also really liked the passage of Thoreau’s where he talks about the morning. Not being a morning person on ANY level, this left me with a fascination and a new way to look at those dreaded early hours. I can definitely relate to the feeling of being someone else in the morning, especially when I’m out in nature. He describes it as “ [at least some part of us awakes which slumbers all the rest of the day and night” It makes me thing of when I go camping and wake up just as the sun’s about to rise. I get just the most magical feeling of being so alive. However, waking up for school is a different story.
Anyway, the point is Thoreau’s writing was my favorite because of its “readability” and true points. I could relate it to my life without having to sit and think about it for five hours. Thoreau just seems like the kind of guy I would want to hang out with.

Whitman

All three men, Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman, were great writers, filled with many splendid ideas, but personally I prefer Whitman the most out of the three. Whitman brings a certain hope to his writings I didn’t feel with in the works of the other two. His poetry is full of life and happiness, a very optimistic edge in nearly all of his words. Whitman was someone simply happy to be alive, not denying that there are bad parts of our world, but trying to focus on the things that could make him happy. Furthermore, enjoyed how Whitman was much straighter forward in his language. Emerson’s work sounds beautiful, but it takes quite a bit of intelligence to understand what he is speaking about. Whitman also used some more difficult vocabulary, but I feel that a larger majority could understand and enjoy the messages he was trying to convey.

Thoureu, Whitman, or Emerson???

s

THIS ONE'S ACTUALLY FROM ALI...

Out of the three great writers we have analyzed these past few weeks, I admired Thoreau in particular. After reading "Where I Lived, And What I Lived For", I got a better sense of his style. Although, he didn't personally experience most of the events he wrote about, I liked that he lived through vicariously through his writing. I enjoyed reading his writing, because his ideas were so sporadic and informal. I loathe reading articles that have format and such formality to them, like Emerson or Whitman. Thoreau, just let his ideas flow, but they were still intelligent. I admire that his life was so simple and basic. I feel that people spend way too much time worrying and stressing about the plethora of things they have to take care of all at once. I personally haven't quite learned how to manage my stress, and i feel that Thoreau has inspired me to try. Life should be simple and easy, but it never is. I want to try and simplify mine, like he had. He says "Let affairs be two or three, not a hundred or a thousand". He is right in every aspect, no one should be worried about thousands of things at once, or at all. He is all about finding ways to improve his life or simplify it. I admire him, because he seems like he lived a life of such pure happiness, just through simplicity and intelligence. Overall, i think Emerson and Whitman were complex and more arrogant, their stories frequently mentioned themselves, opposed to talking about how to improve everybody's life or society.

My Favorite

We have read many very talented inserts from famous authors. I have enjoyed reading many of them. They are some what confusing and hard to follow, but I like how I can some how relate to them. I enjoy how there is nature tied in with each piece of writing. My favorite piece of writing that we have read was Song of Myself by Walt Whitman. I really enjoyed this poem, it talks about loving yourself and celebrating the surroundings. This made me realize that some people don't give them self enough credit while others have their head to far in the clouds. This poem also confused me on how it jumped around from topic to topic, but I really thought that this poem was full of inspiration and really good thoughts.

Thoreau

I most deffinatly like Thoreau more then Emmerson or Whitman. The first reason is because i like the way he jumps around in his writing. For me, it is easier to follow because he doesnt drag on one subject for too long and bore me to death. I like the way he just flows with how he thinks now what makes sense. I also like that reading we did we like a journal entry rather then a speech or a letter. To me this kind of writing is more real to the reader and connects with people on a personal level not a formal level. I also like Thoreau because I like what he has to say. I completly agree with the statment..." To a philosopher all news, as it is called is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea." I really like this because especially now a days, news is just all yellow journalism. There isnt much about things that actually matter, such as the state of the Planet in this global warming crisis, or about the soldiers over in Iraq. Instead it just talks about celebritys and the most recent puke siting from Linsey Lohan. I also really like Throeau because he is easier for me to read and get a grasp on what he is saying. He just all around appeals to me more, and is better for me to comprehend.

Emerson

Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman, were all similar writers, but when asked which author is my prefered author, a have to say hands down Emerson. The first piece of Ralph Waldo Emerson we looked at was the Divinity School Address. Emerson wrote an address for the graduating class at the Harvard Divinity school that caused quite an uproar, which is why in my opinion he attracted so many peoples attention. Some things that caused people to turn a cold shoulder to him are some of the lines spoken to the graduating class at the divinity school. "Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets.... 'I am divine. Through me God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee."-Emerson. 

This is stating that God isn't everything, and that you if you are a truly good person than you are going to heaven, "He who does a good deed is instantly ennobled himself. He who does a mean deed is by the action itself contradicted." You could say that Emerson preached to the wrong crowd of people while delivering this speech, but this is why I'm fond of him.  He caused an up roar whenever he wrote something and this caused me to respect him more than if he were to just be a coward (how do you spell that word?) and a follower. I have respect for Emerson because he suggests intelligent thoughts in his writing. 

Emerson, Whitman, or Thoreau?

It is a very difficult task to choose a favorite writer between Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, and Henry David Thoreau. All three are very commendable Transcendentalists and have published a number of mind-tickling works that offer new thoughts and ideas and a good, challenging read. But throughout my high school career, all the way back to my freshman year, Emerson's writing has always stood out to me and pulled me in. I would not like to put Whitman or Thoreau down, as I also enjoy their works of art thoroughly, but Emerson can write so elegantly and smoothly through his prose.

As I read through Emerson's compositions, from Nature to Self Reliance, I am many times in awe and confusion at the sentence structure, the word choice, and the metaphors that Emerson uses in his writing. If you look at my copy of Nature, and more specifically the first two paragraphs, you might think a mad man was annotating this text. But Emerson's talent stimulates a challenge in reading and understanding the literature. To state an example, Emerson writes, "Let us inquire, to what end is nature?" This simple sentence gets you thinking, shoves you right into a debate about what is nature? What isn't nature? What is its purpose? This is my favorite kind of writing and Emerson has proved to be a master of it; this kind of writing that gets you thinking and gets you engaged.

Another component of Emerson's techniques that draw me to him are his deep and sometimes crazy metaphors. One example of this is when Emerson write that he "becomes a transparent eyeball." He says "[he is] nothing. [He] see[s] all." When I first read this I probably thought he was crazy. It is an intense line to read and think about. But it is also so beautiful. He is describing how it is when "all mean egotism vanishes" and he becomes one with God, enlightened if I may. This type of creativity and provoking statements is exactly what draws my attention towards this writer and is why I could chose Emerson over the other transcendentalists we have covered. I see Emerson as simply spectacular.

Thoreau

My favorite author out of the three would have to be Thoreau. This may be due to the controversy his writings caused in the class! I also liked his theories, how he "bought" the land, backing out last minute. "I have frequently seen a poet withdraw, having enjoyed the most vulnerable part of the farm, while the crusty farmer supposed that he had got a few wild apples only." Thoreau really believed they eyes of the "poet" see the true beauty. "I went into the woods because i wished to live deliberatly.." Thoreau lived with no distractions. The outer world could not touch him. These few lines sparked much discussion. The question on whether or not he was actually in the woods left some students annoyed.
In Emerson's writing he tended to drag one topic on the the last possible point. This is the polar opposite when it comes to Thoreau, he states his thought or theory and then moves on. I like this because my mind thinks in the same way. Emerson lost me in no time; Thoreau said what he needed to say, i took it in, and then it was a new topic. The perfect writing for a short time spand mind, which is what i have.

Favorite Author

Emerson, Whitman, and Thoreau were three very brilliant writers. They all inspired many people to look at life and everything this universe has offered us a little differently. The writter had the biggest impact on me was Whitman. Even though I didn't understand his vocab very well, his ideas hit me the hardest. I almost felt a connection in how he celebrated himself. I think we all should celebrate ourselves and just ourselves. This quote,
"Trippers and askers surround me,
People I meet, the effect upon me of my early life or the ward and
city I live in, or the nation,
The lastest dates, discoveries, inventions, societies, authors old and new
My dinner, dress, associates, looks, compliments, dues,
The real or fancied indifference of some man or woman I love,
The sickness of one of my folks or myself, of ill-doing or loss or lock of money, or
depressions or exaltations,
Battles, the horrors of fratiricidal war, the fever of doubtful news, the fitful events;

These come to me days and night and go from me again,
But they are not the Me myself,"

made a lot of sense to me. I think it's saying that all of the realities and material things in life are not what makes you, you. I agree with him on this 100%. We need to stop worrying about all those "things" and start noticing ourselves and how great we are without them.

The Best Article

My favorite article was "Where I lived, and what I lived for" because I agreed with most of his points on life. Although he does not actually do his adventures that he writes about, he lives through his work. Many writers don't live through what their article says to. He does not have an introduction and conclusion like Emerson, he jumps right into his story. The way the whole article is written is completely different from Emerson's writing and easier to follow. In class students commented that he was an "ADD writer" and that he goes off on tangents, he simply gives reason to his arguments. Thoreau starts off with him seen as a real-estate broker. He looks at houses, almost buys them, then skips out on it because really he doesn't have the money. He writes that he takes the most important part with him though. He walked all over the land, imagined his future with it, and enjoyed it. That is the most you can get from land. Then he writes that he goes out into the wilderness and lives in a cabin. He enjoys the simplicity and the nature of it. "I got up early and bathed in the pond... Renew thyself completely each day; do it again and again and forever again...Morning brings back the heroic ages...The morning, which is the most memorable season of the day, is the awakening hour." Then Thoreau states that most people are not awake and they should be. "The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred millions to a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive." Recently I have been having this gnawing thought that I am not living to my fullest potential, no one in my life is. I don't want to grow up, go to college, have a family, then die. I want to do something with my life that helps society. This thought almost makes me stressed out; I am wasting precious time everyday. The first thing I need to do is to wake up, daily. This excerpt from this article is my favorite section that I have ever read. I completely agree with it. Most people are awake enough to live, but to live and be alive are different. I urge all of us to be awakened. The last disposition that Thoreau has is against news. All news is gossip. "We never need read of another. One is enough." Humans should only need to read of a murder once, and we should learn from it. However, we don't, the constant news helps keeps us in check. It enlightens us with what is happening around the world. But all news is the same. If one was to live like a hermit, news would not change the persons life unless directly effected. All news is gossip.

Re: Monday's Post—An Open Apology to Doug (sort of), and My Rant About The Need for Intellectual Rigor…

I'm sorry, Doug, if you felt I was a little hard on you in class today; however, I want you (and everyone in the class) to understand that the sort of intellectual lassitude that served you well enough in your sophomore year will not stand now that you are juniors in an Advanced Placement course.

To say that (and I'm paraphrasing here), "This guy isn't worth reading because he's not saying anything that others haven't said before" is simply not a legitimate response until: 1) You let me know that you understand what he is actually saying, and 2) You reference (specifically) who these others are who have preceded him, and how their opinions are exactly the same. Moreover, prefacing this sort of statement with the observation that the author 'lived in Kansas in the 17th century' cuts your credibility off at the knees—and would get you laughed out of a college seminar (forget the fact that, whether you agree with him or not, Thoreau's seminal influence on activist such as Martin Luther King and Gandhi would seem to make him 'worth reading'—if for no other reason than to try and figure out just what he was saying).

Again, my intent here is not to stifle discussion. Far from it. But I want our discussions to be informed by the readings. As Kelsey tried to argue the other day, you are entitled to your own opinion; but along with that liberty comes the possibility that your opinion may be wrong—"wrong" in this case simply meaning that that opinion is unsupportable by the text under review (or, worse, no attempt is even made to support said opinion with reference to the text). Gone are the days when a vague generalization ("Emerson likes Nature" or "Whitman was a crazy guy")—an observation too often prompted not by a close reading of the text, but by passing attention paid to our discussion of it—will suffice.

I've already seen ample evidence (in your blog posts and in your responses to the "Divinity School Address") that each and every one of you is capable of the intellectual rigor of which I speak. So, in your posts for Monday, please make an effort to ground your responses in language lifted from the authors you are discussing.

Have a great weekend!

P.S. While your post is worth (up to) a standard 20 points, those who comment on this post will receive 5 points of extra credit!

Response To the "Divinity School Address"

Choice B
"The divinity School Address" by Ralph Waldo Emmerson was appalled by the audience of the Harvard Divinity School because of his harsh standings. He was even banned from the School's premises in the future. He believes that the church is a mockery and only a "thoughtless clamor." Why would Emmerson write a speech for future clergymen? Did Emmerson believe that they will react grateful for his insight? NO! He wrote this speech to get a furious response. Emmerson believes that Jesus Christ was only part of the other prophets. "Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets.. Alone in all history he estimated the greatness of man. One man was true to what is in you and me." "But the very word, Miracle, as pronounced by Christian Churches, gives a false impression; it is Monster. It is not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain." "Thus is he, as I think, the only soul in history who has appreciated the worth of man." Emmerson thinks that Jesus Christ was only a man who went to a man's fullest potential. He ends his speech with "I look for the new Teacher, that shall follow so fart those shining laws, that he shall see them come full circle; shall see their rounding complete grace; shall see the world to be the mirror of the soul; shall see the world to be the mirror of the soul; shall see the identity of the law of gravitation with purity of hear; and shall show that the Ought, that Duty, is one thing with Science, with Beauty, and with Joy." What in the world does he mean?

The Divinity School Address

The first thing that I don't understand is why he says "in this refulgent summer it has been a luxury to draw the breath of life." He is a graduation speaker...therefore before summer?! I like the sentence "How wide; how rich; what invitation from every property it gives to every faulty of man! In its fruitful soils; in its navigable sea; in its mountains of metal and stone; in it forests of all woods; in its animals; in its chemical ingredients; in the powers and path of light, heat, attraction, and life, is it well worth the pith and heart of great men to subdue and enjoy it" This sentence is saying that we don't take advantage of the nature around us like it was made to do. How would Emmerson react to how we use it now?! I think Emmerson tries to hard to seem really smart or isn't explaining himself very well. "Every step so downward, is a step upward." I understand that he means that there is an upside to every closed door, but I can't agree with that. Not everything gives me a good lesson or is a character building. I love that he is religious but he knows the difference between religion and the corrupted church-goers. "It seemed strange that the people should come to church. It seemed as if their houses were very unentertaining, that they should prefer this thoughtless clamor." HA! His standings on the church is what got him kicked out from the Divinity School's property.

Divinity School Address response

I didn't specifically like Emerson's writing style in this speech. He danced around the main idea too much by trying to throw in as many complicated words as he could. Although the writing style is overwhelming at times I believe the main point that Emerson was trying to get across was his belief in religion through means outside of the church. His intentions ment well but when you stand in front of a very religious Harvard class and point out the weak spots and faults of their beliefs you can only expect the Dean to react the way he did to the situation. Emerson believes very proudly that the only true religion is a religion true to yourself. You don't have to got to a building and preach every Sunday, all it takes is for individuals to look inside themselves and realize what they think is right or wrong. Emerson also states in his speech that Christianity and church somewhat oppresses ones soul. They tell you how to live your life and what is acceptable in society or not, but what Emerson is saying is that your personality decides these things for you and through your actions you can become a better person. I doesn't require a man with ridiculous robes and a mangy beard to find what is true to yourself. Emerson's way of writing as I said early was difficult, but the messages he is putting across to these students is one of great significance.

Divinity School Response

I believe that through this speech, the strongest message that Emerson was sending to all of these students of the Harvard Divinity School was that there was better way of appreciating god and practicing religion than through the church and organized religion in general. He did go a little a further though, in lengthily explaining the faults of the church and explaining how it as oppressed many in the past as well as taught religion through fear. Through his speech, it is evident that Emerson does not believe that the church is not the right way to practice religion and that these students should follow a different path. This different path of religion that Emerson suggests is also evident through his speech. This Path of Christianity that Emerson suggests is found in the individual and throughout nature, suggesting that god is found within man, and that the simple blowing clover and the falling rain are miracles of god. Overall, it is obvious that through his words, Emerson is speaking out against the church as well as talking about a different way to appreciate god and have faith, this method has a great deal to do with his appreciation and awe towards nature.

Mama says FOOSEBALL is from the DEVIL!

The first thing i think about when i read this speech, is "what a ballsy dude!". You have to give it to the man, he got up in front of all of these Christians and basically told them they all might have a few screws loose ( as if we all haven't been waiting to do that, right?) And just as you start to say, but doug, that isnt the right thing to do... KABLAM! Emerson comes in for a touchdown, in fact, he finishes it in style! Not only does he manage to subliminally rag on Christianity, he ALSO manages to do it in a way that doesnt seem so direct that it is an attack oin their church, he tells his point, gives a few pointers on how to live a more constructive life, and one that provokes less controversey, and then... gets banned from Harvard Divinity School for thirty years?!? HARSH!!! This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes "Son, if i want your advice, I'll give it to you." And that wraps it up, tie game, Emerson:1 Christians:1. However, weve gone into sudden death, and i do believe that he who angers you, controls you. Emerson manages to anger hundreds of listeners, all sending in their report of how much of a psycho he is, so to break the tie, the final point goes to Mr. Psycho, representing the better half of America for almost 200 years. I salute you.

Divinity School

Emerson’s, The Divinity School Address, although completely inappropriate for the circumstances, was completely compelling. In all the complicatedness that it was, the view point of Emerson gave me a totally different perspective on what Christianity was, and what it has become. Emerson pointed out that although Jesus is considered the one, the divine, the holiest of them all, our savior, he is just another person in “the true race of prophets” that came before him and came after. He shows that Jesus was just a person who was powerful enough saying that he was God in a man, that everyone fallowed him and believed him. But in truth you yourself could be that if you truly knew how. Another amazing point Emerson had was that these days “the tradition characterizes the preaching of this country: that it comes out of the memory, and not out of the soul.” Christianity is so different than what is used to be, it has no soul. Preachers aren’t preaching from within but from what they are told to preach, which in turn gives what they are preaching very little meaning. To conclude, Emerson points out that we need to try something new, we need to “let the breath of new life be breathed by you through the forms already existing. We need to “ look for the new teacher, that shall follow so far those shining laws, that he shall see them come full circle; shall see their rounding complete grace; shall see the world to be the mirror of the soul; shall see the identity of the law of gravitation with purity of heart; and shall show that the Ought, that Duty, is one thing with Science; with Beauty, and with Joy.” All this will bring us love and joy. And most importantly we will find out soul, and listen to this Teacher preaching from his soul.

Divinity school

Somewhere within Emmerson's address to the divinity school there is a statement that manages to infuriate the dean of Harvard to the point where Emmerson is actually banned from the school grounds. In the beginning of his speach Emmerson describes the wonders of nature which is not offensive in the least bit. However as the speech wears on Emmerson begins to describe god and his place in our lives in such a way as to make us "equally divine." He also states that anybody can become the "next" Christ if they become aware of their full potential. in the minds of the students and dean this was blasphemous. It more than hinted at the fact that the divinity school had been teaching the wrong religious ways since its founding. in short the people at harvard were not ready to accept emmersons ideas, so they became enraged.

"Divinity School Address"

Given the circumstance in which Emerson's address was performed I understand the negative remarks it received. This does not mean I disagree with the main points of his address, but i question his intention. The graduates of Harvard Divinity School had immersed themselves in the study of Unitarian theology for many hardworking years. Upon graduation, one probably wanted to feel proud of their accomplishment through praise. Having their hard work questioned couldn't have been the most positive emotion.

Emerson argues that sticking to your morals is more important than sticking to a religious doctrine. He implies that Jesus Christ (though in his words a "prophet") is among others of the same ability; he discounts his historical "miracles." 

Why did Emerson deem this a necessary situation to bring up such questions? We know from Emerson's past that he was once a scholar at a divinity school, but dropped out before graduation. Is this a sort of strange revenge? Perhaps Emerson merely wanted to enlighten his audience on his personal views. I agree with his main points..... the setting in which he brought them up seems almost inappropriate.

The Divinity School Address

This address was given to the graduating class of the Harvard Divinity School in 1838 by Ralph Waldo Emerson. The reason in which I believe the dean and staff of the school became so enraged and decided to ban Emerson from speaking at the college for 30 years is he, in a sense, undid all the students had been taught about religion and God, he undermined them. Emerson believed that if one was a truly good person, with a just heart and moral integrity one was good with God. One's physical actions were not as important as one's character and could do as one pleased if he was such a character. He also made a big point in the fact that he believes that religion and Christianity has been somewhat lost in translation and has succumbed to corruption and misinterpretation as many things do. It lost the original sense of the foundations on which it was built. "The idioms of his language, and the figures of his rhetoric, have usurped the place of his truth; and churches are not built on his principles, but on his tropes." The God that is built up in our heads in merely a fantasy, he does not see and necessarily believe in all of the divine miracles that are being told to us, and that the figure of God should not be the dominant, driving force of religion. The act of surrendering yourself entirely is also an unattractive element in religion, completely forgetting who you are and adopting God and his ways and his teachings as your own seems like a horrible ideal. It is the way in which the church captures individuals into blindly following and accepting everything they have been told and by doing this they become a man of God. Of course all of this is not what the head of a school educating future priests and clergymen want their pupils to be taught. They want them move forward and on from the school and begin to spread the words of God and the speech that Emerson gave threatened that. The possibility that the students’ entire education and time at the school had been compromised was too much of a liability and therefore they banned him for a time from speaking at the school. They couldn't afford one man dissuading any of the students from doing the only thing they had been taught and trained to do while at the Harvard Divinity School.

Against Divinity at a Divinity School address?

Chosen to give an address at the graduation of a Divinity School, Emerson gave a thought provoking speech. He spoke about what was wrong with religion and how the corruptness of the Church needed to be fixed, things I agree with. The problem with his speech was where and to whom he decided to present it.
A Divinity School is all about religion, students studying there only to learn about, and serve the church they love. They are spending money on something close to their hearts, and would do anything in the name of God. When Emerson states that “Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of profits,” he would give his audience something they could relate to and feel proud of, but within the next few paragraphs, I could see the mood in the room changing completely. With statements like “Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts and attempts to communicate religion,” Everyone in the room would obviously have a sour feeling to the speaker.
The dean banning Emerson from ever speaking at the school is justified in his eyes because of how hard Emerson was on the Church and Christianity. Emerson has an incredibly good speech, but aimed it at a very wrong audience.

How did he think it would go over?

After I read Emmersons speech i wonder what he expected the schools response to be. Religion has never exlactly responded well to people who spoke out against their beliefs through out history, so why, i ask myself, did Emmerson feel that it would be a good idea to bash religion at a divinity school. Maybe he did it knowing that he would banned from school grounds or maybe he did it to open the minds of the graduates, to show them that all they were taught might not be true. Maybe he had no idea what he was doing or maybe he ,like all of us, is just a bit crazy. I also felt that he dragged this speech out to the best of his abillities through an excdessive use of big, fancy, and unessicary grammar.

Oh Emerson, wrong speech at the wrong time.

Just as a first thought, how long was this speech when it was preformed? It seemed exceptionally long for a graduation speech, but maybe Emerson speaks very quickly.

Anyway, Emerson's speech was well written and had many intelligent, thought provoking ideas. Personally I could relate and understand where Emerson was coming from when he talked about religion in terms of, in shorter words, "going the wrong direction".

Yes, there were some rebellious words spoken, but the real problem with Emerson's speech, and the reason he was banned, was due largely to his audience. If he had written this speech and said it anywhere else, it may have raised some buzz, but he decided to preform it for the graduation of the HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL! First of all, Divinity school is ALL about religion, it is not only expected of people, but it is the entire basis of the school. Students of this school eat, breath and sleep religion in order for them to be able to become preachers or whatnot.

After a student spends two, four, eight or however many years learning all about how religion is everything and how important God is, for some crazy guy to barge in and, in one speech, discredit everything they have been taught, and were planning to teach to the public, seems ridiculous.

Emerson says of Christianity and Jesus "...we become very sensible of the first defect of historical Christianity. Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion." He goes on to list more problems with today's Christianity and why its teachings are false. He even has the nerve to state that the preachers talk as if "God were dead." and that preachers profane the souls who listen to their vulgar words. He says the the Sabbath has lost its greatness and even sitting in the pews is not as it should be. He tells the students that the Miracles that they had learned about are really monsters. Again and again Emerson bashes the exact ideals that the new graduates were moments away from sharing with others for the rest of their lives.

He also takes this time to insert his favorite idea of Nature into the speech. You find it imbedded into the speech with words such as ..."lost the splendor of nature." and other sayings that show his view of nature is more important than any church sermon.

Personally, if I just completed divinity school and then had to listen to this random (well sort of) guy ramble on about how everything I just learned is false and wrong, I would be very pissed off. I can understand why the headmaster banished Emerson. Yet more than this, I wonder how Emerson could not have had any inkling that this venue was not the appropriate place for this speech. Or maybe he did and went for it anyway, who knows.

The Divinity School Address

Wow that was a lot to take in. I was very confused by the selection of big words. I got a little bored with this passage but at the same time I just didn't get why someone would do this. I thought it was really rude and not very smart to talk bad about God to a Religious school. I can understand where Harvard is coming from because I have gone to Religious schools all my life and if we had a speaker who came and talked to us like he did there would be an uproar and many people would be upset.

The Divinity School Address

When i read this i was stunned. How could this man write this not knowing he is going to confuse many people with all his explanations and big words. To me, after a lot of big words it just kind of bores me. I can also see why he wasn't allowed to speak at Harvard anymore. Mainly i think it was because he spoke badly about god. To a religious school that is not a very smart thing to so obviously. I am sure the dean of the school was not very happy when he said all this bad things about god.

The Divinity School Address

I don't think I've ever gotten more pissed off at a couple pieces of paper in my life. I can see why the Dean of Harvard didn’t want to see this troubled man for a very long time. It seems like even if I could understand Emerson’s ridiculous vocabulary, this speech still would not make sense. Each time I read a paragraph I asked myself, “What the hell just happened?” So I’d re-read it and get even more lost. The small parts of this speech that actually made it into my consciousness still left me a little worried about Emerson’s mental health. Emerson tried to convert all of these Harvard students and whatnot to look at life how he does. That’s not what you should plan to do during a graduation speech unless you don’t want to see that school for a good while.

The Divinity School Address

Ralph Waldo Emerson and many of his contemporaries were uncommonly progressive and this is shown in both works by Emerson that we have so far covered: Nature and The Divinity School Address. Emerson's address to the senior class of the Harvard Divinity School is especially advanced thinking and this is what lead to his "expulsion" from this institution.

Emerson begins by stating that when man follows "the sentiment of virtue" he is therefore following the true meaning of religion. Virtue, according to Emerson, is the essence of all religion. I was startled by all of this talk about virtue and looked deeper into its meaning. I found meanings from "manliness" to "active quality of power" to "the chastity of a woman" and finally settled on a relevant definition: integrity of character, purity of soul, performance of duty. Once ones duty is fulfilled and they purify their own soul the one can please God and continue to fulfill the essence of religion.

Continuing on through the address, Emerson recognizes that the institution is what has corrupted religion as it is today, and more specifically, the Christian church has corrupt religion. He recognizes two distinct errors in the institution of the church. One being that the church raises Jesus above everyone else with "noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus," although the soul knows no persons. Instead religion should praise the "doctrine of the soul" use the "vulgar tone of preaching." The second "defect" that Emerson points out that "the Moral Nature" is not the teaching tool of religion in today's society. The priest preaches as if God is dead, and that the revelation was long ago "given and done." Emerson says that only the spirit can teach, "not any liar, not any slave can teach" only he who can give and create can be the true teacher.

All of this that Emerson is so boldly telling these young graduates is exactly what got him ousted from speaking again. The professors and deans and such were not please with such revolutionary ideas being put into the heads of these new preachers as it goes against ideas of the "church." Emerson goes on with his address telling the audience, the Harvard graduates, that they should go into the world and preach the truth and more importantly about the soul, which is what is lacking in today's religion. He encourages the young students to revive the "decaying church and wasting unbelief" which are making the "hearts of good men sad." Emerson uses his powerful prose and strong opinions to give a nice heartful address to the Harvard Divinity School and because of many people's ignorance is admonished for it. Emerson ends the address by looking to the future when "supreme beauty... shall speak in the West also" and that the students being the new teaches will follow the "shining Laws" and will makea full circle. Emerson hits the nail when he says that the teacher's will see the world to be the mirror of the soul.

the divinity school address

I dont think i have ever been so confused by a  writing. His style of writing is elaborate but he just does not know where to stop. I found myself one totally confused by his big words but also questioning his sanity. I am pretty sure i got why he was banned from speaking at Harvard. One he decided to talk for entirely too long and secondly he sort of talked bad about god and religion. This is a time when christianity and religion was a very important part of every americans day to day life. I am sure the audience was not happy that the god they believed in was being talked down on during their graduation. I am not sure if i got the right idea but that is what i was able to take from that very confusing speech. 

Divinity School Address

Harvard has and still is one of the most prestigious schools, but asking Emerson to speak to fresh graduates of the Divinity School was one of their biggest mistakes. As Emerson begins, he goes right into how religion has formed and molded our society. However, he very quickly turns his train of thought towards a different view. A view of nature and how religion is just something that is not real, can't be real, and never will be. Instead, all of what governs us, humans, is the laws of nature and the laws of the soul. A true life is one not affected by the rigors of religion; it is one that takes nature, everything around you, into account. The influences that coincide with religion change man into something that isn't real. Once someone has an understanding of what is truly there, only then can he be considered a real person. As you can probably tell, this was controversial for most of the graduates, having just been in school to become preachers. Hence why Emerson was banned from Harvard for over thirty years. However, there were the select few to agreed with his views and changed their lives to accommodate this new way of examining life. Emerson took risks in what he said, but still affected the lives of many. Eventually, this led him to become one of the most renown poets, writers, and speakers in history.

Emerson's speech

First off, Emerson is a very elaborate writer, everything he composes is so descriptive and thick. It makes it difficult to read through, but nonetheless i enjoyed his writing. In the beginning of the article he keeps coming up with comparisons of man to god or man to emotion or actions and etc. I thought the quote "Man fallen into superstition, into sensuality, is never wholly without the visions of the moral sentiment" was very intriguing and I'm curious as what the deeper meaning of that is. Also, further on in the article, Emerson continues to fall back on the idea that man must be ruled by religion. Almost every other line, involves God, or almighty, or some other relation to God. I think that his opinions are very strong, and he sticks to them. His speech is almost demanding for the audience to pray and go to church immediately. I feel that he got kicked out, because he was attempting to convince the crowd to accept religion in the way that he did, and evidently the school was not okay with that.

The Divinity School Adress

I like the way this is written first of all. Second I think i understand why Emerson was banned from speaking at Harvard after this speech. Emerson the whole time pretty much just dissed on why we need a religon. he talked often of how the word of God is preached. he said that the way it is done is not from the word of God but from the person who is preaching it. He says..."I believe, with numbers or the universal decay and now almost death of faith in society. The soul is not preached. The Church seems to totter to its fall, almost all life extinct..." This is an example of how Emerson felt. Emerson also states..." And thus by his holy thoughts, Jesus serves us, and thus only..." the one problem with this is that the whole christain community strives to serve Jesus. I think the way he talks about God and the relationship between God and man is why he got kicked out. I could be wrong though. There were a couple of sentences that i really liked in this speech. One..." is seemed as if their houses were very unentertaining that they should prefer this thoughtless clamor. It Shows that there is a commanding attraction in the moral sentiment, that can lend a faint tint of light to dulness and ignorance, coming in its name and place..." i like the way he words this and it flows together. One quote i also really like is "By trusting your own soul you shall gain a greater confidence in other men." I like this because it is so true about humanity and how self confidence coinsides with confidence in others.

nature

Nature is such an in depth and complicated idea. To me nature defines everything that is us, surrounds us and encompasses us. It is what we breath, see, smell, hear and touch. Nature is the sun peaking over the massive peaks and vast forests that we look at every morning when you drive to school. Birds singing a sweet melody and a fox scavenging for food all are contributing to there part to nature. It is the ocean blue, and the fishes too. It is what sculpted us as humans; our personalities, our appearances, our feelings, all human nature. Without it there would be nothing. No mountains, streams, flowers or trees. No fish, mammels, or me and you. There would be no beautiful planet, with its valleys for living, lakes for swimming, and volcanos spewing lava. Nature is everything.

"To What End Is Nature?"

 Children, in Telluride, spend countless summer days playing in the surrounding outdoors. Nature becomes the headquarters for our most imaginative games and fantasies.  A pine forest transforms into a kings fortress, the nearby stream the surrounding moat. Nature: an easy haven, and most importantly, an escape from chores and nagging parents. Through the eyes of an adolescent, nature turns from a simple friend into a complicated puzzle. Why do the intricacies of the outdoors function in the way they do? What can we learn from them? Nature then allows us to be in a mystifying state of both wonder and confusion. Though we are always welcome, we will never be "in touch" with nature as we once were as children. There will always be questions. Adults, perhaps weary and tired from the demands of reality, may be reminded (through nature) that the world is much larger than just an individual; that they are part of an incredible phenomena. Though humanity may be proud of the latest technological advance, it will never be naturally incredible like the seamless way an ecosystem functions.  Not everything can ( or should) be controlled by humanity, nature especially. Nature will always serve as a useful tool experienced, used, and most importantly, admired by all age groups.

As i walk down the main street of Telluride, CO, I glance around me. I'm surrounded by gygantic mountains, towering over me like sky scrappers. I notice the apple-green trees that I paraded around when i was young, and now they watch over me as long-time friends. Then i take into account the houses, the cars, the roads, and the friendly humans that inhabit my town. This is when the wheels in my brain start to spin. What was here before these houses? Before these roads and cars that stroll down main street? Before the ski-hill, and before the gondola?

Nature, Nature is what was here before the human mind and the human ways poisoned the box canyon that we all call home. We use and abuse the natural resources that our place of residence produces. The natural disasters are, in my opinion, the Earth telling us to back off, because she can only take so much use and abuse. She has the power to rip everything right out from under us, and most people can't grasp this concept, in this case, what you don't know does hurt you, in the long run. We need to take a step back and realize the beauty of our surroundings.

nature?????

In my life nature is a source of unbias information which i can recieve through my six senses and interperate to my desire. Yes, nature is open to interperation by individuals. Otherwise it would just be a mindless jumble of information that I would not even detect. As soon as nature has been put into thought in my life, it technically has been interperated to fit my mind function. Also referring to the "appirition" of nature as "unbiassed" is acurate. I recieve said information from a fair and neutral source that is, undeniably, itself. This is important because the simplicity of its neutrality allows me to easily understand nature, resulting in a calming effect. This calming effect is in light of my sense of correct interpretation, or opinion, which no person can rightly dissprove. My interpretation is "dissprove proof" because another person whould just use their opinion to "put me down." This would not make sense because no matter what, no two people can completely agree on what they interperate in the vastness of nature.

Nature

Nature is the essence of life, it is a awesome phenomena that nature can support and provide for every living thing on this earth. Nature is the comforting home to all species of all types, it beauty captivates all people of every mind set. Its beauty is one thing that can unite all things, not only humans but animals as well. Nature can take grasp your attention and continue to amaze you to an unlimated extent. Nature to me is life of all species and the complete summary of what are Earth should be.

Nature a true society

Austin Koenig
1/9/09
Mr. Lavender
AP Literature


Nature

What is nature? Most men would say that it is all of the wild living creatures of the world; others search out deeper meanings and philosophies about nature. To me Nature is the rawest and perfect form of society. Nature is a just society, for no creature can escape her one rule that all living things must die. It gives no advantages to anyone being nor does it deny any species the right to evolve. Nature has no bias as it lets the smallest of communities survive; as it lets the largest of beasts roam free. It wages neither senseless genocides nor unnecessary wars, only an ever constant battle to survive. It is a battle with no restrictions, rules, or treaties to any being; and so the winner of the battle is denied nothing as the loser can blame only itself. Nature is a brutal yet just, fair yet grueling, and unbiased yet merciless society in which only the strongest survive and prosper.

Nature

Nature is everything and anything. It is the reason we exist and the reason behind our individual existence. Nature is not here for a reason, it does not have a task to fulfill or a goal to be met. Nature simply is.
It is the beauty that comes when an array of colors are splashed wildly, yet meticulously across an evening sky. Nature in the way mountains climb momentously out of the rocky earth or the way each single grain of sand lines the ocean’s shore. Nature is the way caves and canyons and crevasses stretch openly consuming the ground in their wake. It is the way water can trickle, wind, flow, rush, drip or rage.
Nature in it’s entirety is PERFECT. The even balance between night and day. The way each moon cycle completes in the same rhythm again and again and again and again. Nature is the way plants and animals, and bias aside, humans too, can live harmoniously together in a fragile balance of the miracle of LIFE.
Is it a miracle though? The improbable situation that made conditions for life to exist. Or is it simply a coincidence? The unlikely way in which nature can be so huge, expanding across the highest peaks, the continents, galaxies or even the universe; and yet at the same time produce the most intricate, miniscule organisms, such as the flickering heartbeat of a mouse, bacteria on fruit or even the atoms and molecules that structure life, is simply remarkable.
Nature is neither here to be feared or conquered. It is not put here for humans to use for our benefit. Yet neither are we for it’s. Nature should be enjoyed, marveled and awed, but never more. Although scientist may disagree, Nature is not to be “figured out” or solved like a complex math equation. And again, nature, unbeknown to many explorers, is not to be conquered, mapped or owned. Nature simply is.
In this century the meaning is changing. Nature becomes a more distant idea placed in your head by the mindless media controlling today’s people. Nature to many is “organic cotton sheets” or even a beautiful play a tour guide describes on a vacation, adventure. It may be the food on your plate or the flowers in your garden, but yet people need to realize nature is much larger that that.
Nature is what ties the human race together, without it, there would be nothing. To take a step back and notice, no, to FEEL nature in its whole is to start to understand. Nature is the feeling you get when you hear the wind sigh through the golden grass or the moon illuminate sparkling snow in a dense, pine forest. Nature is the feeling of looking face to face with a tornado, or hurricane or the feeling of looking across thousands and thousands of miles of plains.
To try to describe in words the purpose, meaning or reason behind nature is to miss the point entirely; for nature has no specific purpose, meaning or reason. Nature just IS.