1. Do Now #4:
Do we really need to worry about saving the environment? Why or why not?
Is nature our friend or our enemy?

2. Aim: How does “Fate” offer a counterargument/refutation of “Nature?”

3. Aim: How does “Fate” offer a counterargument/refutation of “Nature?”
Claims of each essay:
Nature: There is a great chain that binds all things together.
Fate: All events are controlled by an indifferent force

4. Aim: How does “Fate” offer a counterargument/refutation of “Nature?”

5. Aim: How does “Fate” offer a counterargument/refutation of “Nature?”
When you counter-argue, you consider a possible argument against your thesis or some aspect of your reasoning.
Fate, in this way, offers a counterargument to the idealistic transcendentalist ideas of “Nature.”

6. Aim: How does “Fate” offer a counterargument/refutation of “Nature?”
Which of the two arguments seem to be the most convincing? Why?
What might have happened to Emerson to have caused such a shift in his writing and his thinking?
Nature (1836) versus Fate (1852)