In looking at the Over-Soul in Essays: First and Second Series, Emerson tries to identify a number of ideas that provide us with a greater understanding of our nature. Our perception of nature and ourselves cannot be fully understood until we understand our own soul. The thoughts and ideas that make up our current mindset do not provide us with enough insight of what makes up our deeper drives and our aims. Emerson argues that Over-Soul is a process of thought that is processed through our ideas, soul, and a larger community.
In understanding the Over-Soul, Emerson is trying to hold realism and idealism together, claiming that this promotes human understanding. The idea of realism is that all the general ideas are real, such as laws. These make up the essential properties of life without any other influences. Idealism is the idea that things have a nature of an ideal growth or generality. This idea focuses on a positive outcome in the mind of an individual. Emerson holds these two differing ideas in equal regard. While many might view it as impossible to be realistic and idealistic at the same time, Emerson claims our human understanding is developed through this understanding.
The ideas of nominalism and materialism together are also expanded upon. Nominalism understands the general as just terms that we use to label our thoughts and ideas. This sort of classification system is variable to whichever individual perceives the general. In materialism the only existing things are individual objects, or brute forces. These two ideas clearly conflict each other as well. Nominalists look and identify that which is abstract and not concrete, whereas the materialist can only view what is physically there.
Emerson’s claim is that only Nature can exist within all these divisions. You can physically touch nature, yet to describe what nature truly is, abstract thoughts and ideas would be used. Nature can also be seen by what it is made up of, the laws that govern it are straightforward, yet ideally nature can be so much more to the individual. Nature itself is truly remarkable in its undistinguishable dimensions.
Nevertheless, the idealist and the materialist also hold a unique relationship between themselves. The idealist believes that all things are of the nature of thought or ideas, that fundamentally our consciousness of our surroundings is what defines what we view as real. The materialist however knows that at the root of all that exists, is individual objects that exert brute forces. This idea is quite difficult for the idealist to deter from. When one is looking for physical proof that makes up nature, the abstract that cannot be held, is irrelevant.
These ideas of what is real and what constitutes value brings up a pertinent question: what is the nature of thought? Thought is immaterial and intangible, yet without it no division could identify their values. Thought is similar to a sign or representation that holds meanings about something, whether it is real or fictional. So its value, while not tangible, carries as much weight as a thought or idea as a brute force.
The text also brings up the question: what is the nature of soul? Philosophers Plato and Aristotle offer differing views on the subject. Plato believed that the highest form is good, truth, and beauty, and that these traits govern everything. Aristotle believed that there is no highest form of the good in nature or in us. In the Over-Soul Emerson is in agreement with Plato. He states that,
“..to speak from our character … which evermore tends to pass into our thought and hand, and become wisdom, and virtue, and power, and beauty” (156).
Emerson clearly believes that these intangible aspects are what makes up our soul, that in nature and in ourselves these nominalist qualities are the foundation for our understanding. As this theme is also mirrored with Plato, this is a much deeper look at what is the foundation of our more customary thoughts and ideals. However Emerson also points out a fallacy in our views:
“We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are the shining parts, is the soul” (156).
He could not be more frank in suggesting that our divisions of thought and nature have led us to also divide our soul. It is a struggle for many today to view the ever-changing “bigger picture.” Emerson believes though, that if we can take all the wonderful aspects of the world around us, and be able to understand and appreciate their values as complimentary to one another, we can understand what is our soul. Emerson also explains that the soul knows not of dates, persons, or events, simply that the soul only knows the soul (158). This particular idea really stands out in the text as he is claiming that the soul is independent of man, and can stand on its own. In understanding this idea, we can see that this is very different from our modern way of thinking.
Additionally, there are objections to Emerson’s claim that these ideas of soul and thought are part of a larger community. It is easy to claim that thoughts live in the minds of individual human beings, rather than existing separately. It does seem somewhat ridiculous for Emerson to claim that the soul can exist on its own, and is waiting to be discovered. Man believes he is in control of his own soul, as well as nature. It is in his own nature to think this way. If man were not there to think these ideas, how could they exist on their own?
Emerson explains that “it makes no difference whether the appeal is to numbers or to one … (the soul) is no flatter, it is no follower” (169). This idea is key in supporting Emerson’s opposition. Only one individual is needed to make a difference, as the soul knows virtue and will act upon its own.
“For the soul’s communication for truth is the highest event in nature … it gives itself, or passes into and becomes that man whom it enlightens; or, in proportion to that truth he receives, it takes him to itself” (162).
In understanding the Over-Soul one must look beyond what is easily perceived in our day-to-day lives. We must recognize, understand, practice, and hold equally various perspectives of thought. In doing this we are able to understand our nature and our soul.
Works Cited:
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Essays: First and Second Series. New York: Vintage, 1990. Print.
