And I'm back

After two excruciatingly long weeks of being sick in one form or another, (as a few of my friends like to put it "You look like you're dying!"),thoroughly learning my lesson about the importance of sleep and just, in general, realizing that when we try to power through, we inevitably make things much worse; I return to this blog with a sheepish grin and a feeble apology.   I'll try my best to stay current, but I'll beg your indulgence if some of my posts seem outdated.
Without further ado, Emerson's Nature struck a chord with me both as a writer (his prose is sometimes achingly beautiful) and as a spiritual being.  This may sound rather hackneyed and superficial, but part of what drew me to Emerson's argument was how it made me feel. In my English 185 class, we went through a long period of discussing how good works of literature made us feel.  This concept did not frighten me, but rather, seemed repugnant.  Why should I care how a book made me feel?  Aren't the ideas more important for what they stand for, rather than the emotions that they evoke?
That being said, Emerson's Nature reaches that perfect balance betwixt artist and analyst.  His arguments are concise but filled with breathtaking imagery.  For example, he says at one point

"Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any occurrence of special good fortune, I have enjoyed a perfect exhilaration. I am glad to the brink of fear. In the woods too, a man casts off his years, as the snake his slough, and at what period soever of life, is always a child. In the woods, is perpetual youth. "-Nature, Chapter 1 (70 words)

Obviously, this is the wordsmith within Emerson having a little fun; but it really speaks to the American Public's growing affection with nature and progress as well.  He urges a return, of sorts, to the bounty of nature and an appreciation for what she can provide spiritually.  This argument is good, but it's a very pathos filled plea.  Emerson likes nature, it's really pretty.  The cynic in me is rolling her eyes and trampling flowers.
However, he strengthens his argument with the next section, Commodity, and talks about how

"Nature, in its ministry to man, is not only the material, but is also the process and the result. All the parts incessantly work into each other's hands for the profit of man..."-Nature, Chapter 2 (33 words)

With these two sections as meager examples, Emerson's argument demonstrates why it is so effective.  Nature isn't something that's pretty to look at, but rather something that we can make work for us.  That's where its power lies.  It appeals to both the material, everyday existence, and the spiritual inner-workings of the natural world.  Thus, with a two rather short passages, Emerson speaks to the mind and the soul.

In summary, Emerson's argument, made me feel. So often, I've been almost ashamed of being an English major because it operates on how one feels and not how one thinks. With an injection of logic (which may be shakier than I'll care to admit) Emerson's argument remains relevant and romantic; and as something that I can fully agree with 175 years later.  (Take that De Tocqueville!)