Discuss Three Points of Convergence Between Emerson and Spinoza - Essay Example

Though each and every single concept of their demands a series of comments, yet for the purposes of this document, three spheres of congruency in thought shall be discussed. It shall be obvious in due course, that how the essence of concept remains congruent, despite a shift in the vocabulary. Both these concepts depict unanimity in frame of thought. These ideas coincide over the fact that the mind can never really perish in its existence, because what entails the being of the mind is pure and inaccessible to us.

Spinoza clearly believes that the existence of the mind which is nothing to be questioned, and in many ways, it is actually the defining part that distinguished one human from the other. No matter what we do, the roots embedded in the crux of the mind of a person always stay in tact. Giving so much importance to the mind also signifies the linkage being established with the concept of existence of man. On the same lines, Emerson believes that the integrity of the mind is imperishable. In the perspective, the meaning can be inferred as the same.

The mind alone can have no integrity - it has to be associated with man himself. Therefore, again extrapolating the fact that the mind is sure to dominate the proceedings of life, despite what course of actions are undertaken. The Mind as an entity can never destroy, as it is the true emblem of existence for man - his distinguishing factor.Uniformity of ExistenceRegarding this issue, the following was implicated:"No one wishes to preserve his being for the sake of anything else" (Spinoza, 1677).

"With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do" (Emerson, 1841).The concept of uniformity of behavior and thought has always triggered the minds of thinkers. However, it is interesting that both of these present a similar stance on the said subject. Spinoza is of the opinion that it is not naturally desirable for anybody to maintain an existing thread of ideas and/or actions. Preservation of one's being, therefore, in lieu of something else is not an instinctual yearning that man can go ahead with.

Further, it is rationalistically not practical as well that the same should be accomplished.Similarly, Emerson puts forward the notion that consistency can not be correlated with a being. The factor of change is not only necessary, but it is imperative. With the dynamics that the human beings portray, consistency is not only incompatible, but impossible. The journey of every soul's towards its destiny is considered to be embedded within the concept of not staying preserved; in not maintaining the status quo.

Only in regular amendments, adjustments and constant evolution is the key to the supremacy and existence of human beings.Significance of NatureThe respective viewpoints in this domain are:"It is impossible, that man should not be a part of Nature" (Spinoza, 1677)."I suppose no man can violate his nature" (Emerson, 1841).On the significant role played by nature in the behavior of man,