Talk:Ralph Waldo Emerson

Paragraph removed from Unitarian article

As follows:

Ralph Waldo Emerson graduated in the middle of his class. In speaking with his educators nothing would have ever indicated he was a great thinker, he was an absolutely average student. He taught school for a while then attended Harvard Divinity School. In 1829 he was a Unitarian preacher then resigned in 1832. In 1836 he published his first Transcendentalist treaty and began a Transcendentalist luminary club with Henry Oliver Wood and others. Unitarianism found a strong footing in America after Unitarianism was elected as the educational focus and aim of Harvard Divinity School.

Ref given is Tarango, Angela PhD. "Unitarians." Trinity University. San Antonio. 16 Feb. 2011. But... doesn't seem to be supported by other sources. Someone please check. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"nearly every generation"

the article says "Emerson's work has influenced nearly every generation of thinker, writer and poet since his time."

why "nearly"? do we know of one which hasn't been influenced? ;P beej (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Philosopher vs. Sage

I think it's worth discussing here. I think we can all agree that Emerson is referred to as both sage and philosopher in many sources. A recent edit summary that turned "philosopher" into "sage" explained, "not often described as a 'philosopher' by reliable sources and this is even explicitly negated by some such as Bloom. 'Sage' is not disputed anywhere to my knowledge but it's sage or nothing". This is an unfair ultimatum ("sage or nothing") that seems to attempt a circumvent of the consensus process. A quick Google search for "Emerson philosopher" will draw several results. Google books produced at least three books with titles along the lines of "Emerson as Philosopher", etc. (including one by Bronson Alcott) on the first page alone. Whether he considered it (or we consider it) an occupation or not, it seems that he created philosophy, so the moniker fits. "Sage", on the other hand, is defined as "a wise man" - if we draw that conclusion, we are not following the policy on neutral point of view by making a final judgment on his level of wisdom. If "sage" is how people often refer to him, that is an opinion, not a definition. With that said, if the terms are so difficult, I propose keeping "philosopher" in the lede, and allowing for some discussion in the "beliefs" or perhaps "legacy" section describing modern scholars (Buell, Bloom, et al) who have attempted to revive the "sage" nickname as a definition of the man. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree that "sage" is an appreciation, not a definitive descriptive title. But regarding "philosopher," Emerson never considered himself to be one. While one may, in retrospect, say that he was, this is not borne out by reading his work. There is no overarching plan, and he wrote no long treatises about any subject that could be thought to be philosophical. Emerson considered himself a "poet," and a lecturer, but certainly not a philosopher. (Though he considered himself to be a preacher in his early career.) Nevertheless, I would say that "philosopher" is a much better word than "sage," though I tend to prefer simply calling him a "thinker" and "lecturer." Kirkmc (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Sage" is inappropriate here. As a descriptive word, it has a strong POV tone. The aforementioned editor also imagined Emerson might find the word "philosopher" insulting. I wonder what Aristotle thought of that. - Artoasis (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that "public speaker" is a bad word choice; lecturer or, really, "public lecturer" is my recommendation. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Philosopher" is not used by many and disputed by others, so it is an opinion. Harold Bloom considers "sage" to be an accurate descriptive title, but if we others would dispute it making it too an opinion, then the fair compromise is to use neither. I agree that "sage or nothing" was a poor choice of words on my point; it sounds WP:UNCIVIL. What I mean was that if we think both "philosopher" and "sage" are opinions then we should just leave both out because "Public speaker, essayist and poet" or "Public speaker, essayist and poet" are fine on their own. I prefer "public speaker" because it is more broad and more accurate based on modern day equivalents; "lecturer" implies a very specific subject and only at universities, often at only one university. But that's no big deal. I think "thinker", "philosopher" and "sage" should all be left out if we think "sage" is too complimentary. "Thinker" is fairly facile and redundant. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "thinker" is fairly meaningless. But I still question the assertion that "philosopher" is not used by many in reference to Emerson. The WP:GOOGLETEST alone seems to disprove that. Bloom is not a final authority on this; if there is an attempt to remove "philosopher" as a descriptor of Emerson (which seems to have been used well before Wikipedia), many people have to support it to avoid WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. Could anyone provide a quote with ref that Emerson did not consider himself a philosopher? For now, could we also find a quote from Bloom that says the "philosopher" title is inappropriate? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is there is enough doubt about whether the term "philosopher" is accurate that it is an opinion, in the same way that some believe "sage" is an opinion, so we don't state it as fact. Does anyone have any serious objection to just saying "lecturer, essayist and poet"? and leaving out "philosopher", "sage" and "thinker" altogether? I think that is the best compromise and the best way to achieve consensus on this. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. As I said before, I do not see enough evidence that the term "philosopher" is controversial. So far, only one source has been alluded to and, as I noted, relying on one source which disagrees with scores of others is WP:FRINGE or, perhaps, WP:UNDUE. For now, I support the addition of prose to either the section on legacy or beliefs. For the lede, I'm happy with the use of "philosopher". --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if there is no academic consensus on whether he is a philosopher, it is WP:UNDUE to state is as fact. What problem do you have with just saying "lecturer, essayist and poet"? Gregcaletta (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a lack of academic consensus; I see one person splitting hairs about semantics. I hate asking you to prove a negative, but I've already noted that "Emerson as philosopher" passes the Google test, with references as far back as Bronson Alcott's book shortly after Emerson's death. In other words, I see "philosopher" as more than commonly used. Emerson has a big listing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc. I spent some time doing some Google book searches and found "Emerson was not a philosopher" only in reference to Bloom. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Proving a negative is the problem here, but it should be enough that the number of significant descriptions where the word "philosopher" is absent is higher still than the number where it is present. Simply leaving the word "philosopher" out is not the same as claiming in the article that he is not a philosopher; even if we did mention the claim, it would not be a violation of WP:UNDUE because the dispute is clearly not a "fringe theory". Lewis Leary disputed it directly: "Revelation rather than logic was the instrument used by Emerson to delve toward truth. It was not his intention to create a philosophy or to codify thought. He distrusted logical arguments as man-made, and therefore inadequate because they are imperfect as man is imperfect. Neither philosopher nor conventional moralist, Emerson, it cannot be said too often, was first and last an artist who attempted to create a vision of the world and man's place in it." John Dewey acknowledged that he is not consistently believed a philosopher without taking sides: "It is said that Emerson is not a philosopher. I find this denotation false or true according as it is said in blame or praise". And at least two editors here have said they find the term "philosopher" inaccurate, so I will appreciate it if you make an effort to achieve consensus. What problem do you have with just saying "lecturer, essayist and poet"? Gregcaletta (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have put a request on the talk page of WikiProject Philosophy. Hopefully more editors will participate in this discussion and eventually reach a consensus. Cheers. - Artoasis (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just came here from WT:PHIL. I agree with the consensus about the bias of "sage" and the vacuousness of "thinker". As far as "philosopher", I have no strong objection to its exclusion (remaining silent on an issue is always neutral), but I don't know for certain that it needs to be excluded (i.e. its inclusion may be acceptable). I would not immediately think of him as a "philosopher" in the sense of the kind of people discussed in contemporary philosophy classes. However, the existence of an article on him at SEP might seem to suggest otherwise. (On the other hand, SEP also has an article on Ayn Rand, who is of dubious qualification as a philosopher; though apparently wikipedia currently describes her as such).

I notice the SEP article refers to him as a "popular philosopher"; while that may simply mean that he is a philosopher who is well-known and well-liked, I get the feeling that they mean that more along the lines of "pop music", or "folk etymology": He is a "philosopher" in the sense that he did something laypeople would call philosophical, but without being a part of the greater (though perhaps narrower?) academic endeavor now named by the word "philosophy". Consider if I today published a book on philosophy in a private press but not in any academic journals (like Ayn Rand again), and that book became a best-seller; would that qualify me uncontroversially as a "philosopher"? Anyway, my point here is: maybe calling him a "popular philosopher" or the like might be a good compromise on this issue? --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence of the intro reads:

Emerson gradually moved away from the religious and social beliefs of his contemporaries, formulating and expressing the philosophy of Transcendentalism in his 1836 essay, Nature.

The article is listed under the catrgories 19th century philosophers and American philosophers. The (philosopher) infobox reads:

Era: 19th century philosophy

Region: Western Philosophy

School: Transcendentalism

It appears that those who want to exclude Emerson from philosophy have some work to do. — goethean ॐ 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that the word "philosophy" is used elsewhere in the article already is another good reason to remove the assertion that he is a philosopher. To simply describe him as a "lecturer, essayist and poet" is to not deny that he is a philosopher and it certainly is not to remove him from philosophy; it is simply to avoid unnecessary controversy or wordiness. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Emerson never considered himself a philosopher, but a poet and lecturer. Better to under-describe than over-describe. (And while I agree with Bloom that he was a "sage," I also feel that a neutral article should not say that. Kirkmc (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Visit to Salt Lake City

I may add this info pending further discussion and research:

Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Good out of evil. One must thank the genius of Brigham Young for the creation of Salt Lake City — an inestimable hospitality to the Overland Emigrants, and an efficient example to all men in the vast desert, teaching how to subdue and turn it to a habitable garden.”

On 18 April 1871 Emerson , in his sixty-eighth year, arrived in Salt. Lake City via the railroad

DAB (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure you cite properly using reliable sources. And use the correct date format too. I think the biographical note that he went to Salt Lake City is more important than the quote, unless some of your sources go into further detail about it as something of relevance. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Salt Lake City is confirmed in von Frank's Chronology of Ralph Waldo Emerson, which refers to JMN 16:408. He met with Brigham Young on the 19th. And on the 17th, he noted in his journal that he weighed 140.5 lbs. Kirkmc (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Death

Emerson did not die from walking in the rain. Pneumonia is not caused by walking in the rain. (See http://www.webmd.com/lung/bacterial-pneumonia.) While contemporary accounts may have attributed his death to walking in the rain, it should not be cited as fact on Wikipedia considering current understandings of medicine (which can be researched on Wikipedia). For examples of how to explain contemporary lore while also remaining true to medical fact see the Wikipedia pages of William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levingesundheit (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

influences

emerson considered himself as the resurrection of the persian poet sa'di he was heavily influenced by persian poetry