Emerson on Plato...I think

I admit that I don't really know what to say about Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay “Plato, Or The Philosopher” (here called "A Short Introduction to Plato"). As usual, Emerson eloquently talks about everything and nothing (and perhaps about Plato), but it's not altogether clear if anyone is the wiser afterwards. Nor is it obvious where Plato's philosophy ends and Emerson's begins. Sure, the sage of Concord always sounded like this, and perhaps it was a deliberate “guru trick” to make people think harder (or to evoke feelings rather than the rational mind?), but personally, my brain is just spinning. But yes, after trying to read a few works about the chief Transcendentalist (also hard!), I did get the esoteric-Hermetic hints.

Emerson believes that Plato united both “Asia” and “Europe”, both the “infinity” of the Asian mind and the concreteness and practicality of Europe. Philosophically, he acknowledged both the One and the Many, and the “ladder” (great chain of being?) in between. The world (the Many) is understandable, precisely because it flows from the One (the Good, the Soul, the Divine). The scientific and the spiritual can therefore be united. So can, say, mathematics and poetry, which Plato also brought together in his own person.

Emerson doesn't shy away from Plato's elitism, but seems to interpret it in an individualist manner (which fits the American temperament better, but could also be given an esoteric spin). “The Republic” is an allegory of how to educate the human soul. Emerson mentions the need for a teacher, exemplified by Socrates. The teacher teaches by example, or even by his personality or Eros, rather than by mere discoursing. Presumably, Emerson viewed himself as such a teacher. Socrates was all things to all people, apparently an important fact. In passing, I note that Ralph Waldo quotes the Bhagavad Gita and the Quran, but not the Bible. It's also interesting to note that Emerson contradicts himself on whether or not the universe is knowable. At one point, he suggests that it is. At another, that it really isn't – even Plato “perishes”, as “unconquerable nature forgets him”. We are left to study on this for ourselves…

Most of the essay, however, is simply a long rhetorical eulogy to Plato and his immortal contributions. Says Emerson: “Out of Plato come all things that are still written and debated among men of thought. Great havoc makes he among our originalities. We have reached the mountain from which all these drift boulders were detached.” In other words, the entire history of philosophy is a series of footnotes to Aristocles…

I'm not sure how to rate this hard-to-read piece of Concordiana, but since I feel in a somewhat uncharitable mood, I will only give it two!