Writer Henry James argued that Emerson had no concept of the evil that exists in the world. In James's words, it was "a side of life as to which Emerson's eyes were thickly bandaged. . . . He had no great sense of wrong . . . No sense of the dark, the foul, the base." In your opinion, is this a valid criticism of Emerson? Explain why or why not, using at least 1 direct quote from "Nature" in your response..

Taking into account the work "nature," we can say that yes, the criticism to Emerson mentioned in the question above, is valid.

Explanation:

In "Nature," Emerson encourages the contemplation of nature and the enhancement of its beauty in a completely transcendentalist text. In this term he reveals the good that nature provides and how human beings spend time with their ills instead of enjoying these goods and all the comfort and beauty that nature constantly gives us. This may be a very beautiful concept, but it does not work in the real world, because we cannot control what problems happen and we have to solve them in order to really feel well, however Emerson takes a position in which he states that just contemplating nature will solve all the problems, when we know that this is not true. In this case, we can support the criticism that says that Emerson keeps his eyes bandaged to society, emitting a great sense of error and lack of basis.

my guy how are we supposed to know