Philosophy of Ralph Waldo Emerson

Over the past few months, I've embarked on a study of philosophy, beginning with the classics such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and continuing down the line of historical greats. It is quite amazing to understand the progress of thought; politically, spiritually, and socially, and to see how it has brought us to this present day. Of the many philosophers that I read, there were two in particular who really grabbed my interest, Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer. Both philosophers went beyond the explainable and into deep theories of metaphysics, aesthetics, and idealism. Their German philosophy went on to inspire many other greats such as Richard Wagner, Albert Einstein, and one of my favorite authors, Leo Tolstoy.

This tree of thought, also inspired the great American thinker, Ralph Waldo Emerson, who created his own vision of Transcendentalism and Individualism. Beginning in the 1830s, Emerson embarked on a literary career, writing essays, poems, and giving lectures all across America. To this day he is regarded as one of the fathers of American free-thinking, and went on to inspire other acclaimed writers such as Henry David Thoreau, Emily Dickinson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Robert Frost. His philosophy has greatly influenced me, and in this post I will briefly describe some of his key ideas.

His first claim to fame was his essay about Nature, written in 1836. In this essay Emerson began to lay out his foundation of the concept of Transcendentalism, and the relationship between nature and the soul. The outdoors are to be seen as a source of supernatural energy, full of beauty, history, and idealism that can elevate the body, mind, and especially the soul.

Another one of his significant essays was on the subject of Self-Reliance written in 1841. In this essay, Emerson began to describe his concept of individuality and non-conformity. That people should put the utmost faith in oneself, into their ideas, and their actions. He also emphasized that self-reliance is extremely important, but should be seen as a starting point, and not a final goal.

In the Over-Soul, written in 1841, Emerson describes the importance of the soul and it's relationship to this world. He describes the existence of the soul, it's connection with personal ego's, it's connection to other human souls, and it's relationship to God. This is perhaps one of his deepest and most poetic essays, in which Emerson states that the soul is everlasting.

He wrote essays on many different topics, such as The American Scholar, Circles, The Poet, History, Politics, Experience, The Transcendentalist, and Fate. All of his essays, revolve around a central concept of individuality and the importance of the soul. He was especially influenced by Napoleon Bonaparte, and the famous French writer Michael de Montaigne. Emerson was also a keen admirer of writer, Henry David Thoreau, who both shared similar visions.

Some Famous Emerson Quotes

What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us.

Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

Nothing can bring you peace but yourself

Thought is the seed of action

It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion, it is easy in solitude to live after your own; but the great man is he who, in the midst of the world, keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.

Peace cannot be achieve through violence, it can only be attained through understanding

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

All I have seen, teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen

This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we know but what to do with it.

Movie Masterpiece: The Tree of Life

So after a year of anticipation, I finally saw this artsy independent film directed by Terrance Malick, starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. I went to an art cinema at Keystone, to find the film. And after about ten minutes into the film, I knew it was going to be extremely slow and drawn-out. About an hour into the film, I was already checking my watch. And when it was finally over, I walked out with disappointment and a massive headache.

I enjoyed Terrance Malick's film, "New World", for it's poetic, artistic sequences, and its amazing classical soundtrack. I therefore expected this film, to go a step beyond what he did in New World, and bring a large sense of abstract transcendence. The idea seemed brilliant. An abstract story of the origins of life, childhood, adulthood, and the afterlife. Not to mention it also starred two of the best actors in the business, Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. So where did it go wrong?

In my opinion, it was an overwhelming amount of incredible visuals, without much substance. To put it plainly, the story is weak and very minimal. The film is somewhat similar to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, where we get long drawn-out sequences of surreal images. Journeys through deep space and time. Incredible images of cosmos, planets, and nature. Instead of a linear plot, we get thoughts of poetry and philosophy. Segments that are carried by the filming, and the music, and not so much the story.

With that said, I can't take away from the acting. Brad Pitt did a great job, as a tough-father set in the 1950s, who believed he had to be hard on his children to make them strong. His wife, played by Jessica Chastain, was the complete opposite of him; fragile, soft, and very motherly. The two of them together did an incredible job of incorporating that cliche idea of 1950s parenthood. Then there were the three children, the real stars of the film. The eldest boy became strong-willed, rebellious, and was later portrayed by Sean Penn. The middle child had a taste for the arts, and was constantly bullied by his older brother. The third and youngest child, was the follower and observer. All three of the boys did not have any acting experience, yet did a great job at creating these characters.

So the acting was good, the filming was perhaps ingenious, and even the score was quite moving, yet perhaps my expectations were a bit higher. This film has received critical praise so far, and even won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. I can definitely understand why it has received such critical acclaim, for it's creative and surreal presentation. However as of now I don't entirely agree with them. This film requires extreme patience, and is definitely not for everybody. Perhaps my expectations were too high, and I was hoping to walk out of that theater blown away. Instead I was left with instant disappointment, and can only wonder if my interpretation of this film may change over time.

Current Film Review: Thor

When I saw the previews, I had mixed feelings about this superhero blockbuster. On the down side, the film appeared to be quite cheesy, with perhaps too much color and costume. Yet on the up side, it had Natalie Portman, and got into the subject matter of Norse Mythology, which we don't see enough of. We've seen numerous Greek Mythology films about the Trojan War, Clash of the Titans, etc. yet hardly see any adaptations about Nordic folklore.

This film is primarily an adaption of the Marvel comic book series, Thor, and brings many of it's characters into play. Such as Thor's companions known as the Warriors Three, and Thor's mortal love interest, Jane Foster, played by Natalie Portman. The film succeeds in creating both the comic book world, and the world of Norse Mythology. The planet of Asgard, was a visual captivator, a realm of the gods, led by King Odin. Other major gods included Odin's son, Loki, who turns to be the antagonist in this film, as well as the powerful gate-keeper Heimdall.

The story is put into motion, when the heroic Thor, is cast out from his realm, due to his arrogance and war-mongering. On the planet Earth he meets Jane Foster and a team of scientists, and sets off on a mission to retrieve his hammer, Mjolnir. He then must confront his scheming brother, Loki. The film is a typical summer blockbuster, that is fun to watch on the big screen, high on special effects and visuals, yet not much performance. I personally was a little disappointed with Portman's lack of character in the film. I'd say overall the movie was nothing more than an average summer theater movie.