Being Nature

This article compares Emerson and Zhuangzi, arguing that both share an ethical-cosmic core in which ethics is a way of attending to the world rather than a set of dogmas. The philosophical quest for both is oriented by eudaimonia, or the good life, but they propose an alternative path of nurture: a daily exercise free of specific goals that cultivates oneself in constant relationship with Nature. The metaphor of the pastoral attitude—Proteus in Emerson, yang-sheng in Zhuangzi—illustrates this. Despite substantial metaphysical differences between their concepts of Nature (natura naturans versus ziran), both advocate a disposition of listening and agreement to Nature, inviting readers to nurture life without aspiring to happiness and to welcome the flow of becoming.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Many comparative studies between Emerson and Zhuangzi have analyzed which Daoist concepts were imported within the transcendentalist intellectual movement. In this article I will follow a different methodology; with a theoretical approach I will try to define the ethical-cosmic core common to the two authors. For both, ethics is not a set of dogmas but rather a way of attending to the world. “How shall I live?” (Emerson 1983, p. 943) asks Emerson when opening The Conduct of Life and, as we shall also see for Zhuang-zi, the philosophical quest is oriented by an existential urgency in which the needle of the compass is eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία) or the good life. This concept has been present since the early days of the western philosophical discipline and was crucial especially to Aristotle, for which there is a predefined teleological end to be followed. Emerson and Zhuang-zi propose an alternative path, that of nurture: a daily exercise free of specific goals that aims to cultivate oneself in constant relationship with Nature. Well, why is it essential for both authors that humans immerse themselves in Nature to achieve a good life? To answer this question, I will first start from the metaphor of the pastoral attitude, outlined by both where, in Emerson, it is represented by the figure of Proteus associated with nature naturans, and, in Zhuang-zi, it is present in the concept of yang-sheng, (养). The Emersonian metaphysical metaphor is also archetypal of an ethical model explicitly proposed in Zhuang-zi. As the shepherd lets the flock wander without dictating a direction, paying attention only to those who lag behind, so man should lead life by asking himself: what lingers in me? Following I will discuss how, from this common archetype, substantial metaphysical differences emerge between Emerson’s and Zhuang-zi’s concept of Nature; particularly between natura naturans and ziran (自然) and of the consequent relationship of self-transcendent, in the concepts of soul and xing (性). Out of this framework will emerge two different types of spirituality that nevertheless underlie a common disposition of listening and agreement to Nature and the Universe. This existential posture is not only ethical, but also cosmological because it crosses the boundaries of separation between man and Nature, placing them in harmony. The result is a philosophical quest that invites us to nurture life without aspiring to happiness, cultivating a gaze that is attentive to the present and not directed toward a future goal. We live in a society still tied to the concept of happiness as a fundamental indicator of an individual's well-being, and we are constantly anchored to a universe teleologically oriented in a single direction, in which nature has become technique and development has become progress. Emerson and Zhuangzi, with their respective dispositions, show us an urgency that is more relevant than ever, which is to welcome the flow of becoming by respecting and listening to the rhythm of Nature, by becoming shepherds of ourselves.