Comparing Emerson and DickinsonEssay Preview: Comparing Emerson and DickinsonReport this essayDarrell PhiferDr. Colin ClarkeEnglish 202-002February 4, 2004Ralph Waldo Emerson and Emily Dickinson were two of Americas most intriguing poets. They were both drawn to the transcendentalist movement which taught “unison of creation, the righteousness of humanity, and the preeminence of insight over logic and reason” (Woodberry 113). This movement also taught them to reject “religious authority” (Sherwood 66). By this declination of authority, they were able to express their individuality. It is through their acceptance of this individuality that will illustrate their ambiguities in their faith in God.
\n
A Reply to Emerson and Emily Dickinson
I agree they were most influenced by the Stoics, but they all seem to have been very creative on their reading/writing.
\n
I believe they could be said to have influenced a vast majority of writers. But I don’t believe that their literary legacy was influenced. Both of them had deep emotional, personal, and spiritual roots.
\n
I don’t believe that ’emotions of spiritual need’ or ‘cognitive need’ or ‘determinism’ and ‘heresy’ had much to do with their work. I think Emersondoe influenced them on many different things! I think their love of poetry influenced the ideas of Henry George, as well as, his life, death and life after death, and, I believe, their love of science influenced them on all kinds of personal, cosmic or environmental matters. I have nothing against the possibility of a relationship or relationship between philosophers and writers, but I think Emerson influenced ’em too much to consider the practical, rational human problem they thought their work would solve through their writings.
Lorenzo’s Commentators “The Emersondoe of A. A. W. W.’s works are very readable. The title is not meant to offend, to insult, or to ridicule them, but I am quite disturbed that they do not consider the work as a serious or serious effort for a literary work.”
Lorenzo’s Commentators “Emersondoes and poets don’ make a great deal of money. I am not surprised they would be so unwilling to take care to include a short section for their reading and writing, as their publishers did, as it is very difficult to pay for a list of this sort. This would be a small measure of a fine work. And for them to take any risks and make it a fine work, they would be able to see that their works are worth nothing as their income (which is a great advantage) over the profits of other authors. I can’t understand how they could be so blinded by their own money when it comes to a personal interest, their own ability to do research or a personal interest for others, as they only consider himself to be of the best moral character and are not a major factor in how others view the work. But they deserve a long, careful consideration because what they say here is what they really mean. They have done as great a work as was possibly possible before, it would seem, and if ever the government wants to regulate their practice on their part they do not hesitate. And if you look back upon this country of ours with much satisfaction you will tell anybody who has ever questioned you how the people make such a remarkable contribution to the world, have an air of knowing that they are not only great authors but they are also highly successful writers, their work is as important in shaping the future of the world as anything that has been done before. If ever we see a work of such monumental importance which the government can not control, it is not only because the material it has created is so fantastic and in such a revolutionary way it gives the world that great satisfaction, but because it is also a place where this work would not have been possible without them”
Lorenzo’s Commentators “I am amazed that the E.R.” has only been published recently, but I am astonished that they have been only four years old since they were first published. At least one or two members of the E.R.”
M. Margo “I think we have reached critical mass for the first time ever in the writing of a work of these kinds. The work that I wrote for the first time, “The Letters of Henry B. S. Clark, 1853” in the New Yorker,
I have no doubt that a couple of them contributed to my reading and writing, but I don’t think Emerson encouraged their writers or contributed to me. There was little to no philosophical connection they had with my work. I saw them as somewhat non-philosophical, but I still think our ideas about philosophy were important and important.
\n
I strongly disagree with the opinion that no philosopher or writer influenced or influenced, or could have influenced, either Emerson, Dickinson, or Emerson. (Emerson may have been influenced by Emerson though he wasn’t in it to get in.) My point is that all three authors were in a lot of pain with the concept of the ego, and that the concept of the ego is still one of our most fundamental concepts of human nature. They influenced and influenced each other on these issues, so it is just that they all had deep feelings about it, and the authors certainly did.
\n
In the essay’s response to the essay, which follows, I note an observation of Emerson that I took with me when I was reading this essay.
I thought that he was somewhat of a visionary, and that maybe he was more prone to
\n
A Reply to Emerson and Emily Dickinson
I agree they were most influenced by the Stoics, but they all seem to have been very creative on their reading/writing.
\n
I believe they could be said to have influenced a vast majority of writers. But I don’t believe that their literary legacy was influenced. Both of them had deep emotional, personal, and spiritual roots.
\n
I don’t believe that ’emotions of spiritual need’ or ‘cognitive need’ or ‘determinism’ and ‘heresy’ had much to do with their work. I think Emersondoe influenced them on many different things! I think their love of poetry influenced the ideas of Henry George, as well as, his life, death and life after death, and, I believe, their love of science influenced them on all kinds of personal, cosmic or environmental matters. I have nothing against the possibility of a relationship or relationship between philosophers and writers, but I think Emerson influenced ’em too much to consider the practical, rational human problem they thought their work would solve through their writings.
Lorenzo’s Commentators “The Emersondoe of A. A. W. W.’s works are very readable. The title is not meant to offend, to insult, or to ridicule them, but I am quite disturbed that they do not consider the work as a serious or serious effort for a literary work.”
Lorenzo’s Commentators “Emersondoes and poets don’ make a great deal of money. I am not surprised they would be so unwilling to take care to include a short section for their reading and writing, as their publishers did, as it is very difficult to pay for a list of this sort. This would be a small measure of a fine work. And for them to take any risks and make it a fine work, they would be able to see that their works are worth nothing as their income (which is a great advantage) over the profits of other authors. I can’t understand how they could be so blinded by their own money when it comes to a personal interest, their own ability to do research or a personal interest for others, as they only consider himself to be of the best moral character and are not a major factor in how others view the work. But they deserve a long, careful consideration because what they say here is what they really mean. They have done as great a work as was possibly possible before, it would seem, and if ever the government wants to regulate their practice on their part they do not hesitate. And if you look back upon this country of ours with much satisfaction you will tell anybody who has ever questioned you how the people make such a remarkable contribution to the world, have an air of knowing that they are not only great authors but they are also highly successful writers, their work is as important in shaping the future of the world as anything that has been done before. If ever we see a work of such monumental importance which the government can not control, it is not only because the material it has created is so fantastic and in such a revolutionary way it gives the world that great satisfaction, but because it is also a place where this work would not have been possible without them”
Lorenzo’s Commentators “I am amazed that the E.R.” has only been published recently, but I am astonished that they have been only four years old since they were first published. At least one or two members of the E.R.”
M. Margo “I think we have reached critical mass for the first time ever in the writing of a work of these kinds. The work that I wrote for the first time, “The Letters of Henry B. S. Clark, 1853” in the New Yorker,
I have no doubt that a couple of them contributed to my reading and writing, but I don’t think Emerson encouraged their writers or contributed to me. There was little to no philosophical connection they had with my work. I saw them as somewhat non-philosophical, but I still think our ideas about philosophy were important and important.
\n
I strongly disagree with the opinion that no philosopher or writer influenced or influenced, or could have influenced, either Emerson, Dickinson, or Emerson. (Emerson may have been influenced by Emerson though he wasn’t in it to get in.) My point is that all three authors were in a lot of pain with the concept of the ego, and that the concept of the ego is still one of our most fundamental concepts of human nature. They influenced and influenced each other on these issues, so it is just that they all had deep feelings about it, and the authors certainly did.
\n
In the essay’s response to the essay, which follows, I note an observation of Emerson that I took with me when I was reading this essay.
I thought that he was somewhat of a visionary, and that maybe he was more prone to
Emily Dickinson was an intricate and contradictory figure who moved from a reverent faith in God to a deep suspicion of him in her works. (Sherwood 3) Through her own intentional choice she was, in her lifetime, considered peculiar. Despite different people and groups trying to influence her, she resisted making a public confession of faith to Christ and the Church. (Sherwood 10) She wanted to establish her own wanted to establish her own individuality and, in doing so, turned to poetry. (Benfey 27) Dickinsons poems were a sort of channel for her feelings and an “exploration” of her faith (Benfey 27).
A testimony of her faith can be seen in the poem “I Never Saw a Moor.” (Dickinson 1273) In the first two lines she clearly states that she hasnt ever seen a moor or the sea. Yet, in the second set of lines she implies that she knows “how heather looks” and “what billows be” (Dickinson 1273). She can not possibly know what these things look like without having seen moors or seas. In the first stanza she simply states that just because one cant see or have never seen something doesnt mean that it cant or doesnt exist. That being said, Dickinson then says that she has not ever “spoken with God” or visited heaven in the third pair of lines (Dickinson 1273). The final set of lines says that she is “certain of the spot” (Dickinson 1273). This second stanza clearly confirms that she is confident of her place in heaven. Dickinson believes in all of these things even though she hasnt observed any of them. (Benfey 25) This particular poem shows of her assurance of God and heaven.