Talk:Ralph Waldo Emerson

Emerson in favor of expelling blacks from America?

I have heard quite a few people mention that Emerson, while in favor of abolition of slavery, wished that after being set free all blacks would be sent back to Africa. Now while this will not change much my opinion of him if it happens to be true I still wish to know if this is simply slander or not (those comments that I have heard were uttered by Southerners who still hate Yankees). --The Individual 20:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this was opinion not uncommon. But rather than "expelling", the idea would be to resettle blacks in their homeland. That's actually how the country of Liberia was founded:

Liberia, which means "Land of the Free", was founded by freed slaves from the United States under the supervision of the American Colonization Society in 1820. These Americo-Liberians established a settlement in Christopolis, soon renamed Monrovia, after U.S. president James Monroe, president of the Society, on 6 February, 1820. This group of 86 immigrants formed the nucleus of the settler population of what became known as the "Republic of Liberia". Lt. Robert F. Stockton of the U.S. Navy helped negotiate a treaty with the natives that led to the founding of new country.

The idea of resettling free slaves in Africa was nurtured by the American Colonization Society (ACS), an organization that governed the Commonwealth of Liberia until independence. Between 1817 and 1867, 13,000 freed slaves arrived with the help of the Society, leading to the formation of more settlements and culminating on 26 July 1847 in a declaration of independence of the Republic of Liberia. The style of government and constitution was said to be fashioned on that of the United States. The new Republic of Liberia adopted other American styles of life, including southern plantation-style houses with deep verandahs, and established thriving trade links with other West Africans. The Americo-Liberians distinguished themselves from the local people, characterized as 'natives,' by the universal appelation of "Mr."

--from History of Liberia --goethean ॐ 15:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Some abolitionists argued that slaves should return to Africa as free men, but Emerson never expressed that view.

His 1844 address, "Emancipation in the British West Indies," calls for a similar act of emacipation in the USA, with full citizenship: "...no race can be perfect whilst another race is degraded." See http://www.walden.org/Institute/thoreau/about2/E/Emerson_Ralph_Waldo/Writings/1844_Address/Emancipation.htm.

Considering Emerson's high intelligence, it is surprising that he would support such a mass deportation. I'm sure that if he could tour today's Detroit, Chicago, or Newark, he would surely change his mind.Lestrade 18:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Emerson's beliefs were of mass popularity; the time in which he lived structured his beliefs. It is in no way "surprising." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.157.230 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The wiki article leaves out Emersons birthdate. It was 1803. And it wrongly states that he was 8 in 1810, because he was actually seven. He would have to have been born in 1802 to be 8 then. - Abhorsen123 15:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Emerson's Ties to the East and his Nondual Philosophy

I added a portion about Emerson's ties to eastern Vedas and it has been removed. I put it back with more referernces, hoping this would solve the problem. My information is accurate. One source I have is: In 1845, Emerson's Journal records that he was reading the Bhagavad Gita and Colebrooke's Essays on the Vedas. (Sachin N. Pradhan, India in the United States: Contribution of India and Indians in the United States of America , (Bethesda, MD: SP Press International, Inc., 1996), p. 12. If someone has a problem with the way I wrote this, please fix it, but I think it is fair to include this fact. Why exclude it? I hope there is a way everyone can be happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cott12 (talk • contribs) .

The problem is that your labelling of Emerson is an interpretation. Wikipedia doesn't publish original interpretations of literary figures, although it can report on the interpretation of literary figures by scholars. Your text needs to be in the form of "According to x in y, Emerson was a nondualist..." — goethean ॐ 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That said, User:Hydriotaphia, what's wrong with the quotation from "The Oversoul"? — goethean ॐ 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry--I shouldn't have erased that. I don't want to get into an edit war with anybody. I'll replace the quote. Will that please everybody? Hydriotaphia 19:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry to have erased the quote, and it's now back in. I've replaced "finest" with "clearest," since "finest" is a necessarily controversial value judgment. I hope we'll be able to avoid mediation now. Hydriotaphia 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting kind of absurd. It is a FACT that Emerson read and was influenced by the Vedas. I gave references where this can be looked up in historical scholarship. It is not an "interpretation" that Emerson's saying that parts and particles are fused in the "Over Soul" (his invention) was a reference to the Vedantic Paramatma. I can also give references to this as well. It seems you have an agenda to omit this fact, and I can't see why. Many people are interested in this cultural cross-over. None of this is interepretation of fact. This site leaves Emerson appearing intractably diaphanous, when in fact he can be understood in the context of his influences in his time. To conceal this information I think is extremely poor scholarship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cott12 (talk • contribs) .

Also I do not pretend to "interpret" the quote by Emerson. The allusion to monism is glaring. Anyone is free to interpret it as they wish. Here is a smaller exerpt from what I had on: "Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal ONE. (his own capitalization)" Emerson is one of the most prominent writers influenced by the Bhavadvagita. My source was again: In 1845, Emerson's Journal records that he was reading the Bhagavad Gita and Henry Thomas Colebrooke's Essays on the Vedas (Sachin N. Pradhan, India in the United States: Contribution of India and Indians in the United States of America, (Bethesda, MD: SP Press International, Inc., 1996), p 12. There is your scholarship. What is missing? It is not my POV that Emerson was drastically eastern influenced. To make a mere side-note of it is simply scholastic dishonesty -- not objective scholarship. 19:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "mak[ing] a mere side-note of it." Can you clarify? Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is.

I have a question as to this quote: "A common joke heard from his audiences was that they had no idea what he was saying, but that it was beautiful." What is the reference source for this statement? Certainly the wikipedian didn't interview Emerson's audience. Was wanting to know the source. If there is no source, then it is speculative. I have never heard this or read it. Emerson, it seems to me, spoke in the 'romantic era' tone of of time, in step with the other poets/ essayists of his time. This kind of flowery, nearly religious, rhetoric can even be found in the speeches and letters of Abraham Lincoln. I have never heard that Emerson stuck out as especially obstruse in his time. There is no understanding in this essay of the backdrop of his day and that German Idealism had peaked at that time. This was common oratory speech for his era. Who wrote the bulk of this essay anyway? We need a scholar badly. As is it is merely his life, with no understanding of the context other than naming names, dates, places, and siting publications. 21:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The monism evident in Emerson's later writings and works, which (though herein contended) is easily attributed to his Eastern influences, indeed puts the truth to Thoreau's private contention that he had drifted from original principles. In contrast to his assertion of the oneness of the soul in "Over Soul", note his original assertion in "Nature": "Therefore is Space, and therefore Time, that man may know that things are not huddled and lumped, but sundered and individual. ... A wise man shows his wisdom in separation, in gradation, and his scale of creatures and of merits is as wide as nature. The foolish have no range in their scale, but suppose that every man is as every other man." 209.214.230.142 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Eastern influences are important, together with Plotinus, etc. The current text:

Emerson was strongly influenced by his early reading of the French essayist Montaigne. From those compositions he took the conversational, subjective style and the loss of belief in a personal God. He never read Kant's works, but, instead, relied on Coleridge's interpretation of the German Transcendental Idealist. This led to Emerson's non-traditional ideas of soul and God.

is certainly a woefully inadequate statement of where Emerson's monist, "Oversoul," and other ideas took their inspiration from... Wareh 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

• probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I looked at this site and it is badly written, has unclosed quotations (totally confusing), diffuse interpretations, and lacks citations.chris 21:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

The sentence-paragraph "Just how many children he had, is not easy to find, but he had at least one son and at least one daughter; with her, when he was already old, he traveled to Europe" is horribly formed, incoherent, and in need of revision.

Lydia Jackson

I was trying to view a page for the 1978 Miss Black America winner Lydia Jackson, but Emerson's wife also shares that name, so the link for Lydia Jackson redirects to here. Could we possibly have a disambiguation page?

Zendik 14:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Greatest?

The final words of the article claim that the collection of Emerson's essays is considered to be one of the 100 greatest books of all time. What is the authority behind this judgment?Lestrade 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

vandalised, plz check

As a book collector, to my knowledge this is true in 2 of such collections of the "100 Greatest Books of All Time Collections" done by 2 publishing companies, both the Franklin Library and the Easton Press. Hope this helps.

inconsistent age references

it says 1805 he was 10 years old but the birth date is 1803. it also says 1811 he was 18 but once again based on his birthday is said to be 1803. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.100.73 (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Grammar suggestions/Section regarding his death

This is my first posting.
The following sentences have parts that are unclear or confusing:
"Emerson toured Europe in Dreni 1832 and later wrote of his travels in English Traits (1856)."
"Carlyle and Emerson maintained contact a correspondence with Carlyle until the latter's death in 1881."

Dreni - not sure what that is. Could not find a reference on Wiki or Google. it appears to be unnecessary in the sentence.

Carlyle and Emerson... - Carlyle's name is mentioned twice - I am suggessting using "Carlyle and Emerson corresponded until the latter's death in 1881."

Also, a section regarding details regarding his death would be appropriate. What illness, where he died, who was present, etc...
Thanks.

---

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Handyman69 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Could I ask a question?

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask a question, but I am curious: is there any relation between Dewey and the Emerson's Metaphysical Club? I ask it because in my schoolbook of philosophy there is a vague allusion about the influence of the Club in Dewey's thought. But my book is not apparent. Sorry if my English isn't perfect. Thank for your consideration, --79.8.122.170 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Named after Emerson

Ralph Waldo Ellison, the author of Invisible Man was apparently named after Emerson. This may be a good thing to add to the named after section24.40.140.38 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Emerson's father, who called his son "a rather dull, gay, scholar",

is this true? i think it may be more vandalizm though. Probably some school kids with some report on Emerson... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.205.118 (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this correct?

Emerson's father, who called his son "a rather dull, gay, scholar",

is that statement correct? seems like some vandalizm to me, if anyone could confirm this that would be nice. If its vandalizm its probably some 13 year old kid doing a project on emerson or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.205.118 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

don't see how that's vandalism exactly. and emerson's father could easily not have meant "gay" to mean homosexual.. 66.32.189.249 (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two Questions

I am new to editing of Wiki but I am not new to Emerson. I am a grad student at Boston College and one of my areas of specialization is American philosophy. More specifically I focus on the complex and two way relationship between 19th century continental philosophy and American philosophy.

I am suggesting two changes one very minor.

The first (minor) is that there is evidence in both Emerson's journals and in the text: Harding, Walter, Emerson's Library, Univ. Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1967, that the following passage from the Emerson wiki:

He never read Kant's works, but, instead, relied on Coleridge's interpretation of the German

is not entirely factual. He did indeed get much of his influence from Coleridge (and others) but he also read Kant himself in German and in translation. According to the journal article: Wellek, Rene. "Emerson and German Philosophy." New England Quarterly 16.1 (1943): 41-62. Emerson owned his own copy of the Critique of Pure Reason.

The second change I am suggesting is more of an addition than a change in the current page. I would like to add--after hearing any suggestions or critique of the idea--a substantive section on the philosophy of Emerson. I am aware that there is another section devoted to transcendentalism but I believe this does not begin to encompass the diversity much less the progression of Emerson's philosophy. From his early essays such as Nature to his later works such The Conduct of Life-- which is clearly proto-pragmatism Emerson's philosophy changes quite dramatically. I am not putting forth only my own ideas. In fact most of what I would add would be a synthesis of other author's ideas (which I will duly note when used) such as Stanley Cavell, Louis Menand, Robert Richardson, Stanley Vogel, David Van Leer, and several others.

I am proposing four sub-sections.

1. Overview
2. Influences on his philosophy: Cousin, Coleridge, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, etc.
3. progression over time of his philosophy
4. His legacy: Nietzsche, James, Holmes, etc.

I would welcome any comment or critique prior to posting the edit

--Mbradyx (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for dropping a line. This page could definitely use some help. If you've got references, let's start building this up. I hope you'll stick around and make some of these changes yourself, and definitely use in-line citations (that's what this article strongly needs the most). I'm leaving you a "welcome" message on your talk page that should give you some useful links on how to get started. I can help too - just drop me a line on my talk page! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality?

Needs to be looked into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That Quote about his sex driven poetry is from a book about Walt Whitman. Not Ralph Waldo Emerson Quote needs deleting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.89.241 (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the info regarding poetry he wrote for a male student. It could have come from a book on anyone, so long as it is a reliable source. Do you think Kaplan's book does not qualify? If so, did you notice there are actually two sources that support it? Sorry, this is a difficult spot to challenge. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite his marriage

I'm afraid my English is not good enough to correct this without ruining the flow of the paragraph, but saying some body is bisexual "despite" being married is rather non-sensical, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. Really, though, the section could use further discussion and, if possible, sources that refute his alleged bisexuality (it seems to me that it has been more controversial than the article makes it out to be). --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Improvement drive?

Anyone who watches Emerson's page willing to collaborate on a sustained improvement drive on this article to bring it to Good Article status? This is a big undertaking so I'd love some help. I recently brought Margaret Fuller up to Featured status and think this one deserves to get there (eventually) as well. Let me know here or on my talk page. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is keeping an eye on this page, I've been slowly but steadily making improvements, mostly making sure there are footnotes for all the facts, dates, and quotes. Help on organizing the article is welcome. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have this on my watchlist but don't check in much, and I literally just noticed the good work you've been doing to improve Emerson (and in perusing what you've been up to I saw the Poe Toaster...) It's a topic that interests me, but I'm afraid I can't be of much help as I don't have any decent books on Emerson. I can help glancing over your shoulder here and there... I'll think about structure too... --JayHenry (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how I literally watchlisted this article yesterday, I'm willing to help out. :) I have access to my library's 175+ works that mention Emerson, not to mention databases, etc, so let me know if something in particular is needed. Great work so far! María (habla conmigo) 14:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining into the fray, folks. I have tagged the section on Lifestyle and beliefs as well as the one on Criticism and legacy as needing expansion. As I've been expanding the info on his role as an abolitionist, I already see a potential problem with the organization in that his abolitionism will, inevitably, be mentioned twice. My suggestion is we make sure the biography portion of the article focuses solely on the chronology of his burgeoning abolitionism while the beliefs portion gets to the nitty-gritty details. Of course, his religious views should be expanded like crazy here too (I'm not going to be the best for that). We may even want an influences discussion in its own section. If anyone also wants to peruse through the biography and let me know if there are any wide gaps that need to be filled (when I got here, it went from 1860s to his death without any mention of what happened in between!). Many thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to only skim abolitionism, causes, etc. in the bio and then expand them in their own separate sections. I'm sure entire articles can be dedicated to Emerson's complex philosophies. What I'm most curious about is how to compose a literary legacy section, in which is many varied and complex works are described and somehow connected via theme, style or subject matter. Should it be split into poems and essays? Should important essays like "Self-Reliance" get their own subsection? My head hurts just thinking about it! María (habla conmigo) 16:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

His literary influence is one thing and his rhetorical/oratory influence is another entirely. I would argue that his literature (i.e. poems in particular) are not quite as important. I think the philosophies probably should even have heftier weight than the influence stuff. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific help requests

For those willing to help, I'm having a hard time trying to solidify his influence and lifestyle sections. In particular, if anyone can write up a thorough, well-cited section on his religious beliefs and reforms, that would be essential to the success of this article. I'm also inclined to remove any references from the book by Susan Cheever; if you're not familiar with it, it does not seem to pass the mustard as a reliable source and has been unanimously denounced by the Concord, Massachusetts community (they call it outright "fiction" in certain gift shops). --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Other things: I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the list of links under "See also" provide no context and are relatively useless to the article. If anyone can find a way to mention these links within the prose, that's probably a better way (and at least we can explain why each link is relevant). I think the "Further reading" section is equally unhelpful; there are so many books on Emerson, why are these represented here? If there is no opposition, I might just yank both of those sections. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lydia/Lidian

This article has had occasional back-and-forth editing regarding Emerson's second wife. For the purpose of this article, should she be referred to as "Lydia" or as "Lidian"? Her grave marker refers to her as Lidian but, as far as a I know, that was never a legal name change (if such a thing existed in those days). If anyone has any thoughts on this, jump in with your reasoning. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I would side with however she is referred to by a majority of the biographers/critics/etc. If she's widely accepted by the academic community as either "Lydia" or "Lidian", I would go with that one. Just my gut feeling, though, and not based in guideline or what-have-you. :) María (habla conmigo) 00:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Lydia had been a traditional name in the Jackson family of Plymouth (Lydia Emerson's family) for generations. Have always seen it written as "Lydia." [1] Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the family history only explains how she got the name, not how she is traditionally referred in scholarship. Unfortunately, just about all the books on Emerson that I was using to clean up this article came from the library and have long since been returned. A couple books I do have on hand though: Brook Farm: The Dark Side of Utopia by Sterling F. Delano (2004) lists her solely as "Lidian Emerson"; The Transcendentalists by Barbara Packer (2007) refers to her in the index as "Emerson, Lydia Jackson (Lidian)" - not sure if that's helpful. I'll continue consulting published sources, as I think that's a good way to go (especially using the index at the back as a test). --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding, including from an interview by Brian Lamb several years ago on C-SPAN Booknotes with a Harvard scholar and Emerson expert, is that her name was Lydia, and that Emerson called her (as a nickname) Lydian. I called into the show and asked Lamb's guest specifically about Emerson's wife. I will look for a transcript online from the show. (Sadly, C-SPAN has since dropped the excellent booknotes show.)Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously, Lidian wasn't her real name - the article makes that very clear. The question we have to answer is how should she be referred to for the purpose of this article? In order to tell her story, we have to use both names at some point. So, once we explain the name situation, which do we stick with? Or should we just go with "Mrs. Emerson" (which I've seen before on Wikipedia)? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New External Link

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like someone to add the new scholarly resource http://www.ralphwaldoemersonethos.pbwiki.com/ "Ralph Waldo Emerson: Self-presentation in Works" to the External Links section of this Wikipedia page.

Clemenje (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)clemenje

Not sure it's useful; it looks like that link requires a log-in. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Leujohn ^(talk) 12:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

comments

I recently added a short sentence referring to Emerson's views on mysticism via his essay on Emanuel Swedenborg in Representative Men. It has since been deleted and I wonder why. Perhaps the phrasing was wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedecus (talk • contribs) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for asking rather than taking it personally. Second, in the future, new comments on talk pages should go at the very bottom so that we can find them easily. Third, here's what you added:

His interest in mysticism, in fact, is best summarized in his essay on Emanuel Swedenborg in Representative Men. <ref>''Emerson on Swedenborg: introducing the Mystic'', Ed. [[Stephen McNeilly]], London: Swedenborg Society, 2003. ISBN: 978-0-85448-139-2</ref>

Here are the problems. The term "best summarized" is a violation of NPOV and OR policies. In other words, what you did was make a personal judgment, which we don't do here. The source you gave appears to be an anthology, rather than a scholar making the comment you provided. Really, you should never source directly to primary texts unless you are just quoting the author's words (and even then I usually don't, it's always better to use third-party sources). I hope that helps! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentally Retarded?

The first paragraph says Emerson was mentally retarded. This is clearly wrong. It may be in wrong reference to Robert Buckley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.188.1 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was just vandalism. Check page history if you ever see something suspicious like that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect from "Emerson"

I recently made it so that "Emerson" redirected to this article (with a disambiguation link), as I believe this is clearly the main use of the word, however it now seems to have changed. What are other editor’s views on such a redirect? Midnightdreary, I am particularly interested in you view on this as I hold your opinion in high regard.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Red! I thought about it for a bit, and it does seem to make sense that "Emerson" lead to disambiguation of "Emerson." I recently was in Boston Common where a woman was calling for her puppy "Emerson." I asked if she named it after Ralph Waldo, and she said no - the college. So, that makes me realize that not everyone thinks the way I do! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead needs expansion

It doesn't summarize the article, and fails to make mention of key aspects of his life, such as the Divinity School Address speech. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't quite finished yet; I'd say the lead is less important than, say, completing the article, including incorporating appropriate referencing throughout. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your position, but ideally, the lead should grow along with the article in an organic, complementary way. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

gnostic-tinged religions -> removed Seventh-Day Adventism from list

While I've seen gnosticism-oriented quotes by Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, regarding the possibility of humans to become gods as he thought Christ did become one instead of always being one, these kinds of doctrines where denounced by the founders of the Seventh-Day Adventist church. For this reason I removed Seventh-Day Adventism from the list of gnostic-tinged religions.

I'll be giving a few quotes to show that official Seventh-Day Adventism believed since it's beginnings in Christ's divinity and the impossibility for humanity to become gods. On the other hand they believed that Satan wanted humans to believe they could become as gods.

One of the founders and most read among Seventh-Day Adventists is Ellen White who quoted from the Bible "and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil" as a lie that Satan gave to humanity in Eden. The context can be seen in the book at the page referenced here: Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts Vol.3 (1864), p.40-41.

More quotes: "All men, women, and youth are appointed to do a certain work. But some stumble at the word of truth. It does not harmonize with their inclinations, and therefore they refuse to be doers of the word. They will not wear Christ's yoke of perfect obedience to the law of God. They look upon this yoke as a burden, and Satan tells them that if they will break away from it, they will become as gods. No one shall rule them or dictate to them; they will be able to do as they please, and have all the liberty they desire. True, they have been oppressed and cramped in every way in their religious life, but that religious life was a farce. They were appointed to be co-laborers with Jesus Christ, and yoking up with Christ was their only chance for perfect rest and freedom. Had they done this, they would never have been confounded." (Ellen White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p.462)

"There is too little confidence in the power which God stands ready to give. "We are laborers together with God." 1 Cor. 3:9. Immeasurably inferior is the part which the human agent sustains; but if he is linked with the divinity of Christ, he can do all things through the strength that Christ imparts." (Ellen White, Christ's Object Lessons, p.82)

"Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life." (Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, p.530) Crizztian (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, is all this necessary? You are providing original research when all you had to do was remove the questionable material, note that it was questionable, and remind everyone that it was unsourced anyway. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I like doing things once and for all. Besides this was my first edit and I wanted to be sure I had done it properly and giving proof of my actions. By the way, thank you for your reply. I took it into consideration for my next edits. Crizztian (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Named after Emerson

I think this is worth discussing and, hopefully, reaching consensus on. Do we need a massive list of schools and other organizations named after Emerson here? I understand fully that it's part of his legacy, but I don't feel it adds much to understanding why he's an important figure - and I feel that's more important than an laundry list which will never conceivably be complete. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, before I added this section back I first consulted with a very experienced Wikipedia contributor and reviewer and asked his opinion about Emerson in particular. His thoughts were "It is customary, I think, to list places, institutions, etc. which have been named in a person's honor in a "legacy" section. I see nothing wrong with this, and disagree that such a list would not be "encyclopedic"... particularly if the subjects listed had Wikipedia articles of their own." Of course, consensus should be reached. If the section is really not wanted then it should not remain.--Rschwalb —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

I'm not using the term "encyclopedic" here but I do think we should talk about the value added with a section like this. Personally I find it as useful as an "Emerson in popular culture" section - trivial. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory allegation

"There is evidence suggesting that Emerson may have been bisexual." It just wouldn't be a Wikipedia biographical article without the usual attribution of inversion. In the world of Wikipedia, every notable or famous person is said to have exhibited, as an adult, such juvenile and adolescent behavior.Lestrade (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

The material is cited. I am sorry that you have issues accepting variation in human sexual behavior. — goethean ॐ 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)