Talk:Transcendentalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spirituality Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.

This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the 19th century task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

for prior comments, see Talk:Transcendentalism/Archive

Spirituality Portal


Contents

[edit] Vandalism

Lots of foolish vandalism lately it looks like, propose a semi locked state or the like from a more experienced user.

Ryoutou 17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History and Philosophy

I think the article needs more on the history of Transcendentalism, and should be divided into sections, one of philosophy and one on the history itself. - Pingveno 20:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What's the relavance of linking "transcendental meditation" from the article? They appear to have little in common besides a name.

There are many views on this topic and a lot of it started in the early to mid 19 century.

I think the link to Kant and other hard philosophers and philosophy should be de-emphisized. Trancendetalism though having philosophical pretensions was primarily a literary movement. It was not a product of german idealism so much as german romanticism and romanticism generally. The idealist philosophers influenced a lot of romantics aside from just the New England crew. This is a common tension in views of Emerson, and some others like Theraue, and Carlyle, they wrote in a tone that might be interpreted as philosophical but did not call themselves philosophers. Emerson called himself always a poet. He attacked philosophy in favor of the poetic outlook. Some like Stanley Cavell have tried to say Emerson was a philosopher, but I think they are in the distinct minority, and change the meaning of philosopher to do so. The way the article is now leaves the immpresion that these were just a bunch of ametuer, "table top" philosophers. I think the reality is that they were a very dynamic literary movement that in many ways founded American culture. By the way theirs a nice quote from Charles Dickens in his notes on America which was mostly a critical look, that talks about the Boston Trancendentalist, and ends with him saying "If I lived in Boston I would be a trancendentalist too." Or something like that. You could google it.--Case 21:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the narrow definition of philosophy which would include Kant as "hard" and exclude (e.g.) Emerson is a distinctively twentieth-century invention. The standard anthology The Transcendentalists, edited by the intellectual historian Perry Miller, is instructive on this topic, portraying Transcendentalism as primarily theological-philosophical rather than literary. And the claim that Transcendentalism is a literary movement founders on the extremely thin literary production of the movement anyway (especially if we use "literary" in the way the 19th C. authors would have understood it, as referring to poetry and fiction), as compared to their prodigious and excellent criticism, scholarship, lectures and essays. So I don't think it's out of place to characterize it as a theological and philosophical movement as much as, or more than, a literary one (and the Kant reference is primarily an explanation of the name, anyway). But the article can certainly be improved in many ways, so feel free to make whatever changes seem appropriate. -- Rbellin 04:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I was unfamiliar with Transcendentalism and depended upon this article to enlighten me I would leave dissapointed. This article needs serious attention. CWatchman (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would like some help

Does anyone know what kind of relation the Transcendentalists philosophy has with Nietzsche's? Are they antagonistic? As I'm not familiarized with the latter, I'd really much like to know. Edited: The Individual 00:52 2/V/05

Nietzsche read Emerson and was influenced by him to some degree. Beyond that, matters are less settled, and there's not a whole lot of scholarship on the relationship. There's a book called Nietzsche and Emerson: An Elective Affinity, ISBN 0821410377, that you might look at for more on the relationship. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] recent changes

I have reverted two recent changes to the article. First, User:Euhlig changed the lead paragraph to the present tense, which is inappropriate in a historical article (and this article has occasionally attracted Transcendentalist-revival POV-pushers). This article is about the early-to-mid-19th-century movement in American thought, not any current movement referring to it. Second, User:Kenosis deleted a description of some of Transcendentalism's founding motivations ("Transcendentalism originated as a protest against the general state of American culture and society, and particularly the state of intellectualism at Harvard and the doctrine of the Unitarian church which was taught at Harvard Divinity School.") and appended an edit comment describing this as "erroneous stretch of imagination". It's certainly not patently untrue, and in fact this is a generalization of a kind found in many scholarly works on Transcendentalism -- so I can see no justification for the deletion. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unitarianism

Do you have an outside source for the assertion that the transcendentalism was founded due to problems with Unitarianism? I know little about transcendentalism, except for the fact that it and its founders are particularly revered by the Unitarian church, which I grew up in. You can hardly visit one of them without finding an "Emerson Hall", or something of the like. And most of them are listed under categories like "american unitarians". My first urge was just to edit that part out, but I saw you'd reverted it before so I thought I'd ask. J.S. Nelson 09:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you know little about Transcendentalism, it's good you resisted the urge to start deleting things from the article. I'm not sure how you get to "problems with Unitarianism" from this sentence, but the fact that Transcendentalism originated partly as a protest against Unitarian theology is as virtually uncontested as historical assertaions get. Take a look at any scholarly work on Transcendentalism (say, Perry Miller's The Transcendentalists, or Barbara Packer's essay in the Cambridge History of American Literature) for a source. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just making sure; I thought it was perhaps a weirdly formatted sentence because the Unitarians are so fond of the transcendentalists (and learning more about the origins of Transcendentalism, I see to what great extent the Unitarian theology I grew up with has embraced the concerns of the transcendentalists.) To clarify, I meant "problems with Unitarianism" as in "problems they had with Unitarianism" which I would assume lay behind their protest. J.S. Nelson 06:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tense

Why is "transcendentalism" strictly historical? My dictionaries define the word as "a philosophy that emphasizes..." and "any philosophy based upon the doctrine that..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euhlig (talk • contribs)

First of all, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The general philosophical sense of the word is, quite properly, noted in Wiktionary, and other uses of "transcendentalism" in philosophy are further described in the Wikipedia articles on transcendence (philosophy) and transcendental idealism. Those are not the subjects of this article. As the second sentence of the article says, this article is about New England Transcendentalism. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, I've also added a disambiguation header to the top of the article. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Whitman

My AP U.S. History textbook The American Pageant: Thirteenth Edition lists the three "Trumpeters of Transcendentalism" to be Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman, in that order. I noticed that Whitman is not listed on the page: does he belong there? JeffreyGomez 02:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Whitman was not a Transcendentalist. He was from New York, not New England, and had nothing to do with Transcendentalism as a moral, religious, philosophical, or literary institution. Sure, he corresponded with Emerson (famously using Emerson's letter about the first Leaves of Grass as a promotional device) and met him a few times, but that's all he had to do with Transcendentalism. High-school textbooks are not the most trustworthy sources. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

yes he was a trascendentalist. Song of myself is entirely about helping people cope with the changes of his time. ... hello?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.46.252 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


See this article: http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/roots/legacy/whitman/index.html

Also, our own WP article on Whitman reinforces the view. He may have not been part of the movement's genesis, but following the majority of its tenets - and certainly was under the wing of the leader of the movement. I'd agree with his inclusion in this vein, but I'm not sure I'd list him at the top.

Cheers, Ryo Ryoutou 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this should not be inserted in the article, because it is false. Whitman was not directly affiliated with Transcendentalism in any way. (Nor was he "under the wing" of Emerson in any sense, as the article you linked makes quite clear.) The Wikipedia article on Whitman, like many others, is salted with dubious generalizations about literary history that have apparently been pulled out of introductory textbooks by people with little familiarity with the subject. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Emerson took issue with some approaches Whitman took, but the same could surely be said for his views of HDT's misanthropic nature. A search shows many references of WW reviving the movement, of being within the spirit of the movement etc - and he knew Emerson on a personal basis. Emerson wrote professional recommendations for him, which is certainly a closer relationship than some folks have "within a movement". You are saying perhaps that WW was a modernist? Seriously, what category (with your implied academic erudition within this field) would you put him in? Ryoutou 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I would categorize Whitman as a 19th-century poet. He was sui generis in every way that mattered, not a member of any "category." (Also, you might want to read more about the story of that infamous letter from Emerson about Leaves of Grass before calling it a "professional recommendation," and the two were not terribly close personal friends, though they did meet.) The Transcendentalists (that is, those who called themselves that and were called that by others at the time) were a clearly defined group of people who are enumerated in this article, not a grab-bag label for any contemporary author that we deem close to their "tenets" or "spirit." -- Rbellin|Talk 22:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking of Emerson's letter about Leaves, which Whitman used as a review and angered Emerson - but of Emerson's writing to the Dept of the Interior to argue for his job. And yes, they met - a number of times. Emerson visited Whitman and reviewed works in progress, Whitman visited Emerson, etc. Whitman all of his professional life claimed Emerson as his primary inspiration, though I suspect you would say that was purely for commercial gain? It seems pretty clear that had Whitman but spent a year at Walden he would be universally accepted as part of the movement, which is a trivial bit of micro-geography. It isn't you or me that is claiming the allegiance to the "tenets" or "spirit", but the author himself. At the very least I would support his presence on this page as being on the periphery of the movement should another editor come along who agrees and can create consensus. Ryoutou 13:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Whitman was not an active part of the transcendentalist movement. That in mind, he was a speaker of transcendentalists cases and, regardless of what he called himself, is a shaping force of what we now call transcendentalism. I do not agree that Whitman should be listed as a prominant transcendentalist but would move that he be mentioned in the article at some point for the unquestionably profound impact he had, not just on the movement itself, but on our particular views of it. Long story short...who cares how he's categorized? "A rose by any other name..." -David S. Kadaris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.45.247 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I don't think that Whitman should be completely excluded from the article...nothing wrong with at least mentioning him. 66.32.226.140 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supposed Quote From "The Transcendentalist"

The paragraph beginning the section _History_ is very confusing, referring at once to Emerson's speech "The Transcendentalist" and his book _Nature_. The boxed quote beginning "So we shall come to look at the world" is marked as being from "The Transcendentalist," but is nowhere within the linked text of the speech. Is it from _Nature_ instead? If so, please change it. 128.147.28.1 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and other expansion

Hello, folks! I started a "Criticism" section, which currently only includes a brief mention of Hawthorne and a fuller discussion of Poe - I will try to expand and, hopefully, others will jump in. I'm going to pick at this article here and there, adding references in-line. I would also suggest some further clean-up, possibly merging "Origins" into "History", and possibly a separate section for "Beliefs" or "Philosophy" or something. Thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is there a solid way to determine if "Transcendentalism" and "Transcendentalists" should be capitalized? I've been seeing it both ways - should we just pick one? --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that when talking about Transcendentalism as a title for the Transcendentalist movement, as opposed to "transcendentalism", which could refer to the general word, it is capitalized. When talking about "transcendentalists" as individuals, however, it seems like it's NOT capitalized. Can anyone confirm or deny this? 66.32.151.112 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying, and it's as good an argument as I could come up with. Does anyone know any better? --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transcendental Club

In my opinion, there should be more information on the Transcendental Club in this article. It is only mentioned, not described at all. While there is a separate article, I think at least a brief description should be added. 66.32.151.112 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole article could really use some help. Feel free to lend a hand yourself! --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation page

Instead of having small section at the bottom for "other uses of transcendentalism" shouldn't someone make a disambiguation page? Isn't that what they're for?Reaper Man (talk)