Thoreau and Emerson split over whether concrete detail or ideal beauty deserved attention

Evidence

In general, these two men in the boat were in agreement. They were both, in their ways, trying to flag down the rush of materialism and to warn that any reckless plunder of nature leaves men inevitably sick and sorry. But one of them was a born naturalist, and the other, for want of a better term, we might call a humanist. And thus we see them, as they paddle along. Emerson sitting at the stern, eyes neither wholly open nor shut, conscious of a vague wealth of beauty around him; but Thoreau observing the wedge-form wake of a muskrat, the skating insects inshore, the shape and texture of leaves; nothing escapes those eyes. — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 800

Categorization

• XREF: The naturalist-versus-humanist divide maps directly onto interpretation’s twin poles — precise observation of phenomena versus overarching meaning — from earlier chapters on the reasoned whole picture. — connects to: Emerson could not understand attention without productive ambition — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 798; Emerson honestly preferred contemplation over hands-on contact with nature — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 795; Emerson and Thoreau jointly seeded preservationist and interpretive practice — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 812 (+3 more)
• DEFINE: Distinguishes two interpretive temperaments: the born naturalist who lets nothing escape the eye versus the humanist attentive to ideal wholes.

Broader Connections

• Emerson ranked intellect and human moral figures above nature itself #expands (0.85) — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 810
• Emerson resented nature as competition with human moral hopes #expands (0.78) — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 811
• Thoreau, like Plato, treats moral truth as requiring a shift in perspective. #corroborates (0.70)