The mind watched like nature
Can the mind be studied the way a naturalist studies plants and animals, by watching rather than by building a system? Emerson's Harvard lectures try exactly that.
The powers and laws of thought, Emerson argues, are facts in a natural history, to be numbered and recorded like stamens and vertebrae. Behind the method lies a claim: the laws of mind and of nature are identical, as every hose in nature fits every hydrant. He watches instinct, the shapeless giant beneath thinking, and inspiration, which is instinct roused into speech. Memory is the thread on which a person's beads are strung. He declines the systematic form expected of philosophy and offers instead a fragmentary curve of observed points.
- intellect
- memory
- knowledge
- perception
- thought
- instinct
- imagination
- nature
- intellectual development
- learning
- human nature
- truth
Enter a dialogue
- You proposed to study the mind's powers the way a naturalist counts stamens and vertebrae. What can watching a thought at work reveal that a philosophical system misses?
- You admit you cannot write in the systematic form a science of mind expects, only dot a fragmentary curve. Is a collection of observations really a philosophy?
- The laws of thought are nature's laws too, you argue, as every hose fits every hydrant. Why would mind and world share one pattern?
- An old intuition someone once dismissed as a whim returns years later as a firm conviction. Why do you treat such early hunches as auguries worth trusting?
- A thought arrives alone like a foreign traveller, you write, but once named belongs to a powerful family. How does one idea lead to its relatives?