What is American Transcendentalism? (Philosophical Definition)

A video on New England Transcendentalism also known as American Transcendentalism, including their approach to epistemology, religion, and politics.

Sponsors: NBA_Ruby, Eugene SY, Antoinemp1, Antibody, Ismail Fagundes, Adrien Ecoffet, Tom Amedro, Christopher McGevna, Joao Sa, and Dennis Sexton. Thanks for your support!

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more! (#Transcendentalism #Emerson)

[Peggysmusic]

Thanks for this video. I'm trudging through Henry David Thoreau's book, Walden: Or, Life in the Woods (lots of big words... lol), which was eagerly recommended to me by a friend. I needed this video to help me get an overall grip on Transcendentalism, which I needed to better understand the book. To my defense, I'm reading the book in Swedish, which provides me with more than the average challenges of reading Thoreau. The book, together with this video, has helped me realize that my friend seems to be a follower of Transcendentalism, given his behavior and interest in deep thinking and a simple life.

[fellnermichael]

I feel a lot of things that can't be rationally explained. All of us do and that's a good thing. I think finding out the "truth" about anything that isn't rationally explainable through logic or science is entirely subjective and therefore futile to be argued about in terms of who is right and wrong. When I go out into the woods and just feel nature, the trees the grass the sounds etc. That experience creates a feeling inside of ME that no one can entirely understand, not even me. But a lot if people have a similar feeling/experience that resonates with something we all can feel. I say cast the truth, the thought of absolute truth aside when talking about such things as the sublime, beauty and so on and just FEEL it, feel what it means to you. That's how I understand transcendental ism. Great video, thank you

[floydwilliams]

The misconception is that we all have to agree, when in fact, we don't, each of us can have a different view, and as long as we aren't kicking or punching one another to prove who is "right", there's nothing wrong with us all seeing things differently.

[jacob_massengale]

Violence is not the only option when dealing with disagreements of intuition. The two parties can go there separate ways and live in separate societies or subcultures. Also, one can use media to make their intuitions more intuitive for everyone, such as art, literature, and various forms of systematization. When there is a difference in intuition there is the possibility of respect for opposing parties and valuing the other's freedom. Reason can't save us from disagreements of intuition because it can't decide basic beliefs that are used as premises; those are established intuitively.

[sasilik]

My problem with intuition is that I don't see how you can get intuition without empirical experience. So you can't say that you rely on intuition but not on empirical experience.

[tigersspeaks]

Woooah! I was not expecting a strawman! Transcendentalism isn't a matter of dismissing debate, it's a matter of understanding what the starting point is. EVERYONE is starting from an irrational non-reasoned presuppositional background and then reasoning from there. What is with this insinuation that this school of thought leads to "might makes right"??!

[sevenzeros]

I like a combination of observation, reasoning, and intuition. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: "Where a marked man is sent into the world, [nature] overloads him with bias, sacrificing his symmetry to his working power. It is said [this] man can only write one book."

In other words, if we have more than one tool, why not use all of them?

[lorenzomunoz]

The pursuit of happiness and transcendentalist ideals can coexist, you can depend on personal revelation and intuition to push you towards your desired path

[LukeoXx]

I think intuition is important because life experiences can very valuable resources for predicting and interpreting lived circumstances but intuition is not a sure way to find knowledge. I find the reliance on intuition from Transcendentalism to be alive and well in post modern society where feelings are often more valued than empirical facts.

[dylantruong]

thank u for reading the slides, i didn’t think i could of done it without u :/// </3

[chrisallen]

I would argue that the ‘knowledge’ usually referred to esoteric knowledge, such as the religious ‘do unto others’ doctrine, instead of mundane ‘reasoning’ topics. Kant had recently used logic to define the same. (1800ish)

[bruno_loves_hops]

This caused me to think about the importance of imagination and boredom. Just based on the basic definition of transcendentalism, it's grounded in intuition. Obviously we need intuition AND yes, it does lead to knowledge. Let's think of all of the advancements humans have made in this world. Intuition precedes knowledge and even effort.

[ashleighj]

Thanks so much for the video! Very helpful!

[brendabenjamin]

I think that they were starting to listen to themselves. It was a different way of thinking and they had the freedom to do it. It was glorious for them to have the freedom to express. Now, we do have to look at their work from that time and....

[Backwoodsandblades]

It has to be noted that neither Emerson or Thoreau participated in Brook's Farm and were doubtful and critical of it.

[xenoblad]

It is a kind of datum. Idk if it's knowledge, but at least in ethics, intuition is sort of needed for grounding a lot of arguments from the perpetual issue of infinite regression.

The strong advantage of intuition is that you can be circular.
How do you know you Intuit X?
I intuit knowing I Intuit X.

I do wonder what's the difference between intuitions and proclivities? Proclivities seem to be the minimum propositional attitude to perform a deliberate decision.

[ellionnaplays]

I think that the reason they decided to rely on intuition over the common rationality is that it is taught that God is personal, and the relationship between one person and God is personal. The bible says that God is within us. By them saying to rely on personal intuition they are relying on faith that God will guide them. In the bible, it's said time and time again to be apart from the world, relying on intuition alone was their way of having faith in God.

[BrandyBrans]

Obviously, intuition to the exclusion of observation and rationality is a non-starter, but as with a lot of zen-styled schools of thought, I think it's an overcorrection of an innate societal tendency. To put ritual, or tradition on a pedestal or to venerate and become obsessed with empiricism as the sole method of reaching truth, vs becoming completely unstructured, inactive, and intuitive. And the reason advocating for those other extremes is useful is because the more you try to achieve them, the more you understand how impossible they actually are- for example, all your intuitions begin at some point with sensory input which you reason and extrapolate out. So ultimately you lapse to a middle ground where you try to pick the correct tool for the correct job. The example you cited of people ultimately being forced to resolve a disagreement with violence is valid, but here is my hypothetical critique:

If you, a member of a tribe, encounter a situation with finite resources, where you must compete with another tribe for that resource which is essential for your continued existence, would you expect of yourself and the other members of your tribe to examine the evidence and decide via hedonistic calculus which of your two tribes is the more rationally worthy of survival, or would you intuitively prioritize the survival of yourself and friends and family over that of strangers, regardless of any empirical facts to the contrary?

[rdblindmouse]

My understanding is this.
It represents a society built on the belief that people are of a common thread that we are one with God and or nature that is within and around everyone ( oversoul). We are individuals that have value and obligations to our society and to the nation, and each individual understanding that self will and self determination is freedom, And that Gov and different institutions ( Monopolies, big business, Religious institutions) may not think about or care about you or your individual rights and beliefs, and can even present a danger to you .You have a right as a citizen to disagree or even fight back in some way. ( Not pay a fee, Withold your taxes ect.) You have an obligation as a citizen to hold the Government to certain moral convictions and truths for the betterment of your community, state and country. The Gov should be guided by the will and conscience of the population. Not the other way around. And to create a self sufficient autarky with limits on trade. and. a non interventionist approach to world affairs. Also a limited approach to Gov interference in state and individual rights in the country and a minimalistic approach to banking and the financial system. Gov is an artificial phenomenon and you being part of nature and the oversoul and being an inherently good, just and moral human, is its antithesis. And that you shouldn't be forced to believe and adhere to "other peoples" reasoning and logic. As rational human beings we know what's best for us and its up to each individual to decide what best for themselves and have the freedom to make their own decisions and have their own beliefs in affairs that affect them personally based on their own knowledge, experience, belief system, and circumstance. For instance If the Gov says " We can end this war by dropping a nuclear bomb and it will save so many lives" Maybe it's true but you have some moral or spiritual resignations to the Idea, you believe the truth is something different. You have a right to disagree and believe that its wrong and petition the Gov or resist on that basis. Much like Kant's categorical imperative being a way of exposing truth and in the forefront of a persons thinking .Things like morality and ethics being the driving force in finding out what's right and making good decisions based on that and not just on theories and statistics. I hope that my interpretation helps and doesn't screw anybody up. These are my own understandings of American transcendentalism. Perhaps you see it differently? ✌

[jichaelmorgan]

Haven't many scientific breakthroughs initially started out as intuition, a hunch? Did the trancendentalists altogether reject the rational? Or did they more see intuition as a starting point?