It seems that Emerson’s idea of the perfect man is someone who is well rounded, and not limited to any specific function within society. He complains that, “the state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk” and seems to be highlighting how men are divided by occupation. This heavily reflects Descartes’ views on education, and the necessity of making sure people are educated outside of what is immediately accessible to them. He is critical of close mindedness, and praises travel, experience, and the “book of the world”. Descartes criticizes the thoughts of “those whose experience has been limited to their own country” (Part I), and in Emerson’s case, he criticizes the thoughts of men who are limited by their occupation or bureaucratic duties. Rousseau also talks about how vital a balanced education is, and how one form of schooling is useless without some contribution from another (the school of nature, man, etc). Again, this can be linked to Emerson and his perception of the “incomplete man”.
It seems that a common link among many 19th century writers is this almost post renaissance evaluation of man, and the idea of the perfect human. The century was soaked in fascinations with eugenics, race, and classification of individuals, whilst also having a idealistic grand view of mankind, promoting the ability of all men to be able to achieve and obtain happiness. Among the philosophers whose works we’ve been reading and discussing, it seems the perfect man is free-thinking, not limited by the thoughts and opinions of others, and separate from “the herd” (Emerson).
There are interesting things going on in this post. It might be worth exploring the relationship between traveling the world and learning in the local between these theorists. A couple of things though. Be careful not to conflate school with education. I see you took some liberties with paraphrasing Rousseau.
Also make sure your pronoun usages are clear. There ‘s a moment in the beginning where I wasn’t sure if you were talking about Emerson or Descartes.
Finally, your last paragraph is a markedly different voice and tone. It seems highly influenced by something else you’re reading especially since the comment about what 19th century writers are doing seemed out of place with the theories you discussed. Only Shelly and Emerson are 19C people, and you don’t really discuss Shelly, so it’s odd. Plus the “almost post-renaissance evaluation of man” is also something that needs to be unpacked. In particular what’s “almost” here? the post-renaissance or the evaluation?