Emerson and Peirce

Rachael Dziechciarz
(1)
After several phone calls to my Grandma Dorothy, and my great-Aunt Virgie I was able to find some information about my family back in the mid-1800s. I learned that my great-great-grandparents, from both sides, came to America when they were very young from Poland. My great-great-grandfather on my grandmother’s side was a manger of a scrap metal factory in Buffalo, and my great-great-grandparents on my grandfather’s side owned a working farm. One thing that I found very interesting was that all of my ancestors came from Poland and settled in either Buffalo, NY or the outskirts of the city. Also, they lived there their entire lives, which is very cool to me since I have already lived in 3 different states. Another interesting thing I learned was that on my great-great-grandparent’s farm they bred canaries, and even won prizes in New York City for their method of cross-breeding the birds to produce beautifully colored feathers. Although most of my great-great-grandparents were born around the end of the time period we were to look up, I am glad that I still called my relatives to learn a little more about my family history. One thing that I will note since this information doesn’t fully portray “life in America at the end of the 19th century” is that they all came over to America after the Civil War, and before the Industrial Revolution.

(2)
The first phrase from Emerson’s piece that I chose to evaluate was “this change is not amelioration,” which is located on page 38 in John Stuhr’s book. This phrase interested me because of what it means, and how different it is to what I was brought up believing. Basically, Emerson argues that “society never advances.” (Stuhr 38) This greatly contradicts what I have always “known” about mankind. Of course society has advanced, I thought, because we know how to live longer, we are more open-minded (at least I think that most people are), and we have produced works of art that are both beautiful and thought-provoking. On the other hand, Emerson argues that whenever we make improvements in society, mankind as a whole loses something of equal value. For example, the more reliant we are on technology, the less able we are to survive without technological conveniences. The more we use the car, the less places we walk.
This also ties in with another key phrase that Emerson mentions, the “fine Geneva watch,” which is also found on page 38 in the Stuhr book. Emerson describes this expensive watch that society deems as valuable as an example of how that same society can no longer tell time by the position of the sun. I find both of these phrases so interesting because they go against what I feel in is correct: If we have the fine Geneva watch, then does it matter if we can’t tell time by the sun? For Emerson, it does, because he is trying to show that change is not necessarily for the better. It’s hard to argue that society is able to learn new things, and also at the same time retain every piece of knowledge that was ever passed on from father to son, since the dawn of mankind. So, Emerson’s claim that “change is not amelioration” rests upon the assumption that society must lose some knowledge, in order to gain knowledge elsewhere. Therefore, for Emerson, it’s easy to see why the constant changes in society are not always improvements. If information is constantly being lost for the sake of advancement, then maybe we have lost priceless ideas/skills just to keep up with society. I really liked reading Emerson’s unconventional thought process, as well as his reiteration of the fact that you must trust your instincts, and never conform. But, even though I believed in a lot of the wise words that he said in this piece, I must disagree with his claim that society must lose information in order to advance. I have always thought that society takes what it knows, and builds upon that information to make it better. For example, even though I can’t tell time by the sun, I think a watch is more accurate. Man used what he knew about the position of the sun to make watches, and coordinate all of society to the same time.
I believe that both of these phrases can be related to the philosophical debate of the individual vs. society. Which one has the authority to say what is true? For Emerson, he would say the individual, and that to always trust yourself is the best way of knowing what is true, and what is right. I agree with this line of thinking, “to thine own self be true,” but I also think that the general consensus of society does not always hurt the truth. If everyone only looked inside their own heads for answers, then how would we determine the sane from the insane? We wouldn’t be able to, because everyone would be their own judge of what is right and wrong. I am not arguing that you must conform to society or else you are crazy, but I do think that a mixture of your own instincts and what society believes is necessary to determine the facts.

(3)
The first main point from Peirce’s work that I would like to discuss is Peirce’s “first and foremost concern,” which he states to be “advancing the cause of inquiry.” (Stuhr 44) Peirce wants to synthesize the questions of science with the questions of philosophy. He thinks that both scientific and philosophic inquiry can be related, and help each other to explain the human condition. The question, “what is our purpose?” can be just as important as “how do plants grow?” and both can receive answers through the same line of questioning. Peirce wanted to show that asking questions about everything was necessary in order to know anything. Furthermore, once you feel that you know something, more questions and tests are needed to make sure that what you know does not change. The quote, “Do not block the road of inquiry” (Stuhr 49) is a metaphor that truly sums up Peirce’s “first and foremost concern,” that inquiry is crucial to knowledge. The metaphor is that inquiry is on a road, which is ongoing, and doesn’t simply end at the corner when you think you understand something. It is precisely at that corner where you must ask more questions, and keep walking along the road, in order to make sure that your understanding can stand up to all of the questions that you ask. This can be easily related to pragmatism; because the only way people can learn things and have them be useful is by continuously asking questions. If you think you have learned something and then it changes, how will you be aware of this change if you do not inquire about it?
The second main point from Peirce’s work that I am going to discuss is what is phenomenology, and what Peirce calls “the phenomenological recovery of human experience.” In its most basic definition, phenomenology would be the study of phenomena, and more particularly (for Peirce) the study of the phenomena that goes on within the human mind. This includes ideas, predictions, self-awareness, and pretty much anything that we can recognize as a conscious thought. This is also where he gets the phrase “the phenomenological recovery of human experience.” Peirce regards the things that happen everyday as the most important things for philosophers to use to make hypothesis about people, in essence, to find the truth about humans and their thoughts. Peirce wants philosophy to be studied objectively, and in a careful manner, and in order to do this the only thing philosophers have to use is everyday experience. I think that this relates to pragmatism because it is helpful for people to be aware of, to understand, and to study our everyday experiences, since this is what is most important to humans every day. To not have a full understanding of how people act and think everyday is a completely useless way to live. Philosophers need to understand the “phenomenological recovery of human experience” because that is the most helpful and useful way of discovering what is true in this world.