Nature by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Something about this essay rubbed me all wrong. It just comes off so conceited sounding. Emerson says that there are few men who can see nature, that nature can only be seen by those with the hearts of children. He says that nature belongs to the poet, but part of what is so amazing about nature is that it belongs to everyone with senses. He also says: "In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows." I disagree with this too. I've experienced nature to be a very reflective sort of atmosphere, whether I'm feeling sad or happy. Going hiking does not suddenly make all of my troubles leave my mind, I may return from nature with a better outlook on what I saw as very problematic before, but not always. Nature can be soothing, but it does not fix everything. I'm all for nature, I grew up on a mountain out west with a father who is a nature photographer. I'm part of a family that appreciates nature very much, but Emerson seems to take it to the extreme. Then again, maybe I'm just not a "poet".
Every sentence of this essay is dripping with Transcendentalism. The opening paragraph of this essay is all about retreating from society to be truly alone with yourself in nature. "To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society... But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars." Transcendentalists believed that humankind was pure of heart and if we would only remove ourselves from the distraction of society, man can connect more directly with God. "Standing on the bare ground - my head bathed in the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space - all mean egotism vanishes." I may not agree with that statement, but it seems to be in line with what the Transcendentalists thought.