The first thing I definitely agree with Transcendentalists about is that man has an inherent goodness; he just may choose to ignore it. Emerson says that “good and bad are names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.” This statement agrees with my belief that everyone is naturally good, but whenever something bad is done, it is almost unnatural because it is wrong. I also believe that pleasing God and feeling closer to him is not only about going to church and reading the Bible; it is about finding the God within oneself and helping others. This second part seems more important to me: I feel that God would rather that I help others than simply read the Bible and not act on it.
One idea that I undeniably disagree with is the Transcendentalist view that people should think for themselves without worrying about the consequences rather than conforming to make things easier and/or better. This concept seems very selfish to me, and I think that certain occasions call for a bit of conformity to keep the peace. Speaking one’s mind just to hurt others or as Emerson says “I do not wish to please him; I wish that he should wish to please me” appear to only cause unnecessary problems that could have been easily avoided.
On the spectrum of Transcendentalism, I would say that I am somewhat of a Transcendentalist, but not so much of one as people like Emerson, Thoreau, and Fuller.
Hey Alanna! Nice post. I definitely agree with your "spectrum" idea. It's hard to agree with all of their points.
ReplyDeleteIt's so hard to tell whether or not man is inherently good. I think it's impossible to say whether all men are good or bad. I feel like I can only really determine whether or not I am a good or bad person (I think so!). It's an interesting idea, but there are so many examples of inherent good and bad that it's impossible for me to say "Yes, all men are good," or "No, all men are bad."