President Camacho wrote:Why is Melville's name brought up so much? I really thought Moby Dick was torturous. Was he really a good author? It seems like many people think so.

I imagine myself to be defending Walden against the academic myth that Thoreau was influenced by Kant.

Tom

Saffron, reading essays about Kant isn't reading Kant. Using some of Kant's terminology isn't understanding Kant. To quote myself:

I know of no evidence that either Emerson or Thoreau read German philosophy. Frederick Henry Hedge was the German philosophy expert in the group, and from the little I have read of him, he is neither inspiring nor clear.

I do not have access to jstor, but here are some publically accessible links:

Emerson and Immanuel Kant
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendenta ... -kant.html

"Though his knowledge of Kant, Fichte and Schelling was primarily second-hand, this does not minimize its importance. It was, true, translated through a medium, and thus diluted, and altered subtly from its original form. Emerson did, true, alter it somewhat to coincide with his own primal urges and native influences. Yet without the seed that traveled across the water from Germany, the germination of American Transcendentalism would not have been."

This is untrue as the work of Hawthorne and Melville shows. The Scarlet Letter deals extensively with the relation of subjective and objective without any debt to Kant. Kant IMO is a status symbol of no practical importance for the study of Walden. Maybe Robert has read the Critique of Pure Reason, but I doubt any Thoreau scholar has.

http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendenta ... ridge.html
"Coleridge"
Frederic Henry Hedge
The Christian Examiner, March 1833

Coleridge, according to Hedge, failed to explain German metaphysics. I found Hedge's description of the transcendental effect hilarious:

"As in astronomy the motions of the heavenly bodies seem confused to the geocentric observer, and are intelligible only when referred to their heliocentric place, so there is only one point from which we can clearly understand and decide upon the speculations of Kant and his followers; that point is the interior consciousness, distinguished from the common consciousness, by its being an active and not a passive state. In the language of the school, it is a free intuition, and can only be attained by a vigorous effort of the will. It is from an ignorance of this primary condition, that the writings of these men have been denounced as vague and mystical. Viewing them from the distance [as] we do, their discussion seem to us like objects half enveloped in mist; the little we can distinguish seems most portentously magnified and distorted by the unnatural refraction through which we behold it, and the point where they touch the earth is altogether lost. The effect of such writing upon the uninitiated, is like being in the company of one who has inhaled an exhilarating [laughing] gas. We witness the inspiration, and are astounded at the effects, but we can form no conception of the feeling until we ourselves have experienced it. To those who are without the veil, then, any expose of transcendental views must needs be unsatisfactory."

Tom

Thomas Hood wrote:Saffron, reading essays about Kant isn't reading Kant. Using some of Kant's terminology isn't understanding Kant. ...Maybe Robert has read the Critique of Pure Reason, but I doubt any Thoreau scholar has.
Tom

Yes I have read the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant. In my Bachelor of Arts degree at Macquarie University I took a second year philosophy course in 1983 in which I wrote an essay on it. I have always found Kant hard to understand, and have found Heidegger's characterization of his main ideas in terms of the elan of transcendental imagination a useful interpretation. Kant distinguished between phenomena

Robert and Tom,
I am not sure what evidence you each are going on in arguing that Transcendentalism was not influenced by Kant. Please enlighten me. Here is what I have found to support that Emerson at least had some understanding of and was influenced by Kant. I am not trying to say he read Kant directly. I am only saying appears to be obvious that to some degree, at least one of Kant's ideas shaped the formation of Transcendentalism. Emerson himself gives Kant credit.

The following is a direct quote from a lecture Emerson delivered in January 1842 at the Masonic Temple, Boston:

"It is well known to most of my audience, that the Idealism of the present day acquired the name of Transcendental, from the use of that term by Immanuel Kant, of Konigsberg, who replied to the skeptical philosophy of Locke, which insisted that there was nothing in the intellect which was not previously in the experience of the senses, by showing that there was a very important class of ideas, or imperative forms, which did not come by experience, but through which experience was acquired; that these were intuitions of the mind itself; and he denominated them Transcendental forms."

Saffron wrote:. . .I am not sure what evidence you each are going on in arguing that Transcendentalism was not influenced by Kant. Please enlighten me.

Saffron, my understanding is that Kant had no influence on Thoreau, and, as Robert points out, their philosophies are antithetical:

Kant's theory of knowledge gave priority to mathematical reason, and here I think is a point of difference with Thoreau. Kant assigned more reality to a triangle than to a tree, while Thoreau saw the living thing as more real than the shape.

Thoreau was responsible, accountable, and significant below the enigmatic surface. He should not be painted with the same Transcendental brush as Emerson, Alcott , or Very:

"To the practical mind of that day the transcendentalists
seemed a set of visionaries, with their heads in the clouds and
their thoughts up among the moonbeams. Their talk was
more or less incomprehensible, their theories "transcendental
moonshine," and their radiant air-castles "pinnacled dim in the
intense inane." Of their ideal communities Lowell remarked
that "everything was to be common but common sense."
Dickens, on his first visit to America in 1842, was told when in
Boston that "whatever was unintelligible would certainly be
transcendental."' Among these New England idealists there
were, indeed, some apostles of the "new views" who made
themselves ridiculous by their eccentric dress and manners,
and by their "Orphic utterances," which even the initiated
could scarcely understand. Numerous "isms" sprang up,
special "revelations" were reported, fantastic schemes of social
reform were advocated, and the return to nature and the simple
life was enthusiastically urged upon the faithful"(p.151).
American Literature By John Calvin Metcalf
Google Book

Tom

I hate to admit it, but I hadn't ever heard of Thoreau until Tom Hood posted about him. I have only recently looked at some of these people you mentioned. I knew about Kant of course, but I just thought he was an economist!!! Critique of Pure Reason - I used to leave on a coffee table to impress my friends.

I wonder if the reason I hadn't encountered Thoreau is because I'm British.

When looking at Transcendentalism, we were more likely to be pointed in the direction of Krishnamurti. Do you know about him? How does he differ from Thoreau?

[quote]When you look at this life of action

Penelope wrote:I wonder if the reason I hadn't encountered Thoreau is because I'm British.

Maybe Thoreau is blamed for the loss of the empire?

Thomas Hood wrote:Kant had no influence on Thoreau, and, as Robert points out, their philosophies are antithetical

The antithesis between Kant and Thoreau turns on their conflicting views of knowledge as representation or relation. For Kant, knowledge is the conceptual representation of reality, structured as language. This doctrine is known as the representational theory of truth. Thoreau has a more relational view of the nature of truth, whereby our knowledge of the world has a depth beyond the explicit concept, suggesting the theme of silent knowledge. This contrast between Kant and Thoreau underpins debate around the modern world view and its conflict with religious thought. Kant follows Descartes in accepting revelation as a politically expedient factor in thought, but also shared Descartes' contempt for the traditional religious argument that we know things because God told us. This is why Mendelssohn gave Kant the nickname 'the all-destroyer'. Thoreau questions the modern assumption that we can rely on reason rather than revelation, aiming to put back a sense of awe and wonder into thought. Kant also wrestled with this problem, but saw reason as complemented more by systematic empirical observation rather than by a sense of the divine. The point of Kant's critique was that pure reason is not sufficient to form knowledge, which requires that concepts are based on perception.

As I read them, both Kant and Thoreau have an ultimate goal of understanding transcendence, but they have markedly different approaches. Hence the antithesis is more between their methods than their goals. Both agree that the cosmos is transcendent in some sense, but where Kant suggests that mathematics is the key to knowledge, Thoreau is more mythopoetic.

Thomas Hood wrote:

Saffron wrote:. . .I am not sure what evidence you each are going on in arguing that Transcendentalism was not influenced by Kant. Please enlighten me.

Saffron, my understanding is that Kant had no influence on Thoreau, and, as Robert points out, their philosophies are antithetical:

Kant's theory of knowledge gave priority to mathematical reason, and here I think is a point of difference with Thoreau. Kant assigned more reality to a triangle than to a tree, while Thoreau saw the living thing as more real than the shape.

Tom

Robert & Tom,
I fully understand that Kant's idea that all thought was based on sensory perceptions from the objective world is the opposite of the Transcendentalist notion that the mind/intuition shaped ones understanding of the objective world/sensory perceptions/experiences. Just because Kant's theory of knowledge is different, even opposed to the Transcendentalist, does not mean they (in general, as a group) were not influenced by him. Thoreau was doubtlessly influenced by the other Transcendentalist and therefore it seems impossible to say that he was in no way influenced by Kant. The following quote from the very first post to my mind is misleading, if not false.

Not at all. Contrary to notions promulgated in numerous, authorative webpages, the Transcendentalism practiced by Thoreau had nothing to do with Kant, Unitarianism, or Harvard Divinity School.

Thoreau was responsible, accountable, and significant below the enigmatic surface. He should not be painted with the same Transcendental brush as Emerson, Alcott , or Very:

It is my understanding that this statement could be made about each one of the Transcendentalist, not just HDT. In fact, that is one of the striking things about the American Transcendentalist movement, it was not unified and rather there was much variation of ideas. It could almost be said that each of the individuals of the movement had their own brand of Transcendentalism.

Saffron wrote: The following quote from the very first post to my mind is misleading, if not false.

Thomas Hood wrote:Not at all. Contrary to notions promulgated in numerous, authorative webpages, the Transcendentalism practiced by Thoreau had nothing to do with Kant, Unitarianism, or Harvard Divinity School.

Well, I wouldn't want to say anything misleading or false , so if you would show me the error of my ways I'd be pleased to change. If Thoreau were influenced by Kant, I'd like something specific he said or did under that influence.

Walter Harding describes the alleged Kant connection on pp.62-3 of The Days of Henry Thoreau.

Harding wrote: ". . . there was a body of knowledge innate with man and that this knowledge transcended the senses -- thus the name "Transcendentalism." This knowledge was the voice of God within man -- his conscience, his moral sense, his inner light, his over-soul -- and all of these terms and others were used by the various Transcendentalists. But it was central to their belief that the child was born with this innate ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Unfortunately however as he grew older he tended to listen to the world about him rather than the voice within him and his moral sense became calloused. Thus did evil come into the world. And therefore it was the duty, the obligation of the good citizen to return to a childish innocence and heed once more the voice of God within him" (p.62).

Now, to me this looks more like Rousseau than Kant, although my knowledge of Kant doesn't extend much beyond Will Durant. Is there any suggestion in the writings of Thoreau that he embraced congenital infant goodness? Are "We need the tonic of wildness" (17.24) and "In wildness is the salvation of the world" supposed to apply to infants? I think they refer to an openness to mystery in the uniqueness and creative potential of every physical event.

Tom