Emerson is often called a transcendental philosopher or a philosopher-poet. I usually think of him as a poet and I would never simply refer to him as philosopher. I know this is rather general, but would anyone care to a: express their opinion on whether he is a philosopher and to what extent, and b: bring up some of his “philosophies” for discussion?
I’m particularly interested in any notion that supports the phrase “Emerson isn’t technically a philosopher,” because I said it the other day whilst talking out my ass and I’d love to be able to support it if it comes up again.
I am no expert on Emerson, so cannot really help here. I can suggest though, if you have not already done so, that you have a look at Kaufmann’s introduction to The Gay Science, for discussion of Nietzsche and Emerson.
I’m happy to be able to confirm your opinion that you were, indeed, talking out your ass. Your position isn’t even faintly credible; Emerson’s reputation rests on his essays (i.e., philosophical work) rather than his poetry (and to a lesser extent on his correspondence with Carlyle, which was very widely read in the 19th century). You might be able to make a case for him being a reformer more than a philosopher per se, but you also might have a hard time defending that one.
I think James No. 2 has already pointed you to his influence on Nietzsche; let me now point you to his influence on the American pragmatists. One particular line of descent was explored in Jonathan Levin’s 1999 book The Poetics of Transition, if this is a subject of interest to you.