Anti/Transcendental Writers

I prefer the anti-transcendental writers. From what we've read of them, not only do I enjoy their writing more in general, I think they're more realistic than the transcendental writers, on the whole. The transcendentalists seem really idealistic to me. I know that people are sometimes killed by nature, as they are in "developed" areas as well--but therefore, nature is not always good. It sometimes is survival of the fittest. Nature isn't a clean, well-kept-up park--it's a home for predators and prey alike.

People, likewise, are not always good. Some people may argue that humans are good at their core, but I don't think most people would disagree with me when I say that sometimes people do do bad things. Humans can be as dangerous as nature is, if not more dangerous.

The last transcendental belief, that the truth can always be found, doesn't always hold up either. True, the Bible says that all of our works will someday be revealed--but I don't think that's what the transcendentalists mean. Even if it is, then the transcendentalists are one for three.

And there are plenty of unsolved mysteries in the world that we, as individuals, may die before understanding.

Thus, in my mind, the anti-transcendentalists are more often accurate.