Emerson defines the individual through the Soul; the Soul entails all of one’s thoughts; it is one’s mind—not to be mistaken with the physical organ, the brain. Emerson also makes the distinction between spirit and matter. And, while, the Soul is strictly spiritual, our actions are a result of that Soul, connecting spirit and matter. Emerson asserts that reality is a product of the spirit, or the invisible world. He states this clearly in “Nature”: “A Fact is the end or last issue of spirit. The visible creation is the terminus or the circumference of the invisible world” (“Nature”).
     Emerson describes Nature through the previously established definition of Soul. In his essay, “Nature,” he clearly defines the term Nature as “all that is separate from us,” “all which Philosophy distinguishes as NOT ME.” So, the definition of Nature varies slightly from person to person. For me, Nature is all that is not my Soul; for you, nature is all that is not your Soul. Emerson continues his essay asserting that Nature is an expression of the divine and that it “subserves” the individual (“Nature”). Mumford, the author of “Morning Star: Emerson,” explores Emerson’s “four categories of thought,” commodity, beauty, language, and discipline, the four categories in which Nature subserves man (Mumford). Commodity refers to the idea that Nature provides man with material profit, and discipline refers to the idea that Nature provides man with an opportunity to learn “the understanding of intellectual truths.” The meanings of beauty and language are self-explanatory, as they match their present day uses (“Nature”). Essentially, Emerson’s Nature, all that is not oneself, allows the individual Soul to achieve its fullest potential, in all facets of life—commodity, beauty, language and discipline.
     Emerson’s last division of the universe, the Over-Soul, connects the Soul and Nature. In his essay “Over-Soul,” Emerson defines the entity as a “Supreme Critic,” “the Unity” between all Nature and Souls. Although the Over-Soul has a supreme aspect, it is not to be mistaken with a theological God, for Emerson’s ideas were independent of religion (“Over-Soul”).
     Emerson’s conception of the universe implies that man has control over his actions, leading into today’s philosophical debate over free will. Free will, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the “capacity of rational agents to choose a course of actions among various alternatives” (O’Connor). In this debate there are two prominent schools of thought: compatibilism, the idea that free will and determinism (the conception that every event is determined by an unbroken string of prior events) are compatible, and incompatibilism, the idea that free will and determinism are incompatible (“Compatibilism” and “Determinism”). Therefore, with regards to the definition of free will, there is no doubt that humans, the rational agent, have “various alternatives” when acting, but the controversy arises when determining whether humans actually have the power to choose between those various alternatives.
     Emerson’s division of the universe suggests that he believes in free will; while his belief that realities are created by their prior circumstances make him a determinist. This is expressed in the above-quoted excerpt from nature: “A Fact is the end or last issue of spirit.” The Fact, or reality, is a result of spirit, which is a prior circumstance. Emerson is a unique determinist, for in his conception of the universe, every event is caused by an unbroken string of prior physical and spiritual events. Regardless, since Emerson is both a believer of free will and a determinist, he is a compatibilist. His argument relies on the existence of (a) supreme, spiritual power(s) such as a “soul” or “Over-Soul.” However, the incompatibilist school of thought rests on the assumption that the universe is not comprised of a spiritual force that transcends matter.
     From the scientific and philosophical point of view that matter is the sole component of the universe, the conception of free will becomes impossible. Given the lack of scientific evidence for the idea of spirit and soul, much of the scientific world advocates incompatibilism. Our lack of free will is derived from the fact that human actions and thoughts are triggered in the brain, resulting from interactions between the elementary entities of matter. For example, the firing neurons in the brain, which create thought, are triggered by interactions between the atoms and fundamental elements comprising that neuron. The resulting thought then triggers an action. However, one does not have control over the initial elementary interactions. Therefore, from a scientific point of view, in order for free will to be possible, one must control the elementary particles of matter that comprise them—this requires man to be his own inventor, which is a logical fallacy (“Free Will”). As Strawson, an ex-professor of philosophy at Oxford, concludes, “one cannot be ultimately responsible for one’s character or mental nature in any way at all” (Strawson).
     But is life not full of choices and decisions? Again, the idea that humans have choices in their lives is undisputed, but rather the fact that humans have the power to decide is the illusion. As Gerard Hooft, Nobel Laureate and professor of physics at the University of Utrecht, puts it, “I can't change my mind in an instant about whether to drink the coffee or hurl it across the room. My decision must have roots in brain processes that occurred in the past,” but “[I have] the freedom to calculate what happens if I throw my coffee cup…[and] the freedom to calculate the effects after I drink from my cup” (Merali). This ability to calculate, the capability to think and analyze potential actions, creates the illusion of free will. Again, in the absence of a soul or spirit, thinking is no more than fundamental interactions of matter, over which we have no power.
     However, this scientific rendition of incompatibilism does not necessarily mean that the universe is non-random. Simply put, one school of thought rests on the idea that the interactions of fundamental elements of matter are random, shown in the Standard Model and the study of Quantum Mechanics, the branch of physics concerned with defining the fundamental of matter. On the other hand, other physicists, like the previously quoted Gerard Hooft, argue that there is no randomness in the interaction of elementary particles, in which case, the universe would be non-random (Merali).
     The Emersonian conception of the universe, with the Soul, Over-Soul, and Nature, and the division between spirit and matter, clearly makes him a determinist and a compatibilist advocating the existence of free will. However, the opposing scientific theory of incompatibilism denies the existence of a soul or spirit and other such romantic and idealistic conceptions, disproving the existence of—and explaining the illusion of—free will.

Works Cited:
"Compatibilism and Incompatibilism." Wikipedia. 13 Mar 2008. Wikimedia. 14 Mar 2008 .
"Determinism." Wikipedia. 14 Mar 2008. Wikimedia. 14 Mar 2008 .
“Free Will.” Wikipedia. 14 Mar 2008. Wikimedia. 14 Mar 2008 .
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. "EMERSON--ESSAYS—THE OVER-SOUL." American Transcendentalism Web. 14 Mar 2008 .
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. "EMERSON - NATURE." American Transcendentalism Web. 14 Mar 2008 .
Merali, Zeeya. "Free will - is our understanding wrong?." NewScientist. 01 Aug 2007. Reed Business Information Ltd.. 14 Mar 2008 .
Mumford, Lewis. “Morning Star: Emerson.” Interpretations and Forecasts. 1973.
O'Connor, Timothy. "Free Will." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 14 Apr 2005. Leland Stanford Junior University. 14 Mar 2008 .
Strawson, Galen. "Luck Swallows Everything." Times Literary Supplement 26 June 1998 14 Mar 2008 .