Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Is this your first reading of Self-Reliance? Or did you read it some years ago, and if so about when?

If you did read it years ago, do you remember what your reactions were to it then?

As I had commented some time ago, when I first read this essay, I think when I was still in high school, I thought it was a wonderful expression of individual responsibility and freedom. That was just as the 60s were about to begin, and the essay seemed very much to fit the mood of the times. I was young, I was imbued with my self-importance, my thoughts were (to me) deep, insightful, serious, and Emerson seemed to me to be willing to take me seriously.

I was a bit of a non-conformist, and Emerson validated the legitimacy of non-conformity.

I have not finished the essay either but I have just read this paragraph which begins with this sentence:
What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think...
WHAT A WONDERFUL COURAGEOUS THOUGHT!
and ends with this:
it is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.
SO MANY PEOPLE BEHAVE LIKE LEMMINGS GOING ALONG WITH THE CROWD, TOPPLING OVER THE CLIFF FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS. IF THEY HAD THE COURAGE OF THEIR CONVICTIONS AND STOOD UP TO THE MASSES, PERHAPS THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE.
CAN ONE PERSON EFFECT CHANGE WITH INDEPENDENT THOUGHT AND ACTIONS?
And then I love this statement:
The conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars.
DOESN'T CONFORMING FOR ITS OWN SAKE MAKES US ROBOTS, UNABLE TO CREATE?

Like Everyman, I had read the essay back when I was high school age and I thought it was wonderful. I'm almost positive that in some long-unsorted box in the basement, I still have the book. It was wonderful enough to keep.

Then earlier this year, my face-to-face book group read "Self-Reliance." And although I LOVED the essay because I found it so very emotionally freeing, I also thought that the essay was filled mostly with rhetorical florishes, that it didn't actually have well-grounded arguments.

I have to spend the next couple days on my other groups current selection, but I want to pop in and read how other people read Emerson.

I wrote up thoughts in May---and because I'm so terribly wordy, I posted them under book reviews. I didn't know whether they would belong here in a comment exchange setting.

Oh. Patrice, had commented on her impression that Emerson might have been reacting against "a Puritanical, conformist, New England mentality."

Emerson came from a long line of ministers and was himself a minister until shortly after the death of his first wife, when he resigned, I think over the issue of communion.

Like Patrice, I got them impression that yes, Emerson might have been a bit self-indulgent. One of my co-readers had read a background book on him and said that his wife did almost all of the hard work of raising the children and managing the household.

But again, like thewanderinghjew, I DID find the essay as so wonderfully and somehow authoratatively providing ... permission ... to be myself.

And LOTS of good lines!

LOL. EVERY time I see that word, I have to look it up again!

2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption

Interesting point to consider. Mmmm. There does seem to be a good deal of that in the essay, but I don't think I would quite put Emerson there, because it seems to me that (1) he was advocating everyone to pay attention to their own feelings and thoughts, and (2) in looking at his correspondents and circle of friends it seems that he also enjoyed exchanging ideas with others.

That's if I'm understanding the definition of solipsism correctly. My standing there is none to firm.

Aside. Background information on Emerson. As in how others (contemporaries) viewed him.

I browsed Harold Bloom's Classic Critical Views: Ralph Waldo
Emerson. Mostly I just read Bloom's summations. These are the bits
I found interesting:


John Quincy Adams (1840) Adam’s entry is typical of Christians
suspicious of the mystical leaning of transcendentalism, and the
effect such aspects will have on the Christian Church. Citing
Emerson’s ‘failing in the every-day avocations of a Unitarian preacher
and school-master.’


Herman Melville (1849): (Did not actually meet Emerson). Melville
refers to Emerson’s reputation for borrowing material and taking his
education 2nd or 3rd hand (for Melville loves “all men who DIVE”).
This is a critical point in understanding Emerson’s method of
composition. He shaped his essays and lectures from material he
recorded in his journals and notebooks, far-ranging ideas and thoughts
taken from direct experience and from his readings as well. Thus,
Emerson might be said to be something of a collagist.


Walt Whitman (1881) visited Emerson a year before Emerson’s death…at
that meeting, also, A. Bronson and Louisa May Alcott, Margaret Fuller,
Henry David Thoreau.


Oliver Wendell Holmes (1884; biography): He was a very light man.
He got on the scales at Cheyenne, on his trip to California, comparing
his weight with that of a lady of the party. A little while
afterwards he asked hi fellow-traveler “How much did I weigh? A
hundred and forty?” “A hundred and forty and a half,” was the answer.
“Yes, yes, a hundred and forty and a half! That HALF I prize; it is
an index of better things.”


Emerson’s mode of living was very simple: coffee in the morning, tea
in the afternoon, animal food by choice only once a day, wine only
with others using it, but always PIE at breakfast.”


Ten o’clock was his bed-time, six his hour of rising until the last
ten years of his life, when he rose at seven.


Louisa May Alcott (1885; “Reminiscences): “I count it the greatest
honor and happiness of my life to have known Mr. Emerson…..We went to
school with the little Emersons in their father’s barn…. Often piling
us into a bedecked hay-cart, he took us to berry, bathe or picnic at
Walden…”


William James…. Shared many interests with Emerson, including the
phenomena of religious experience and mysticism…James had a sincere
affection for Emerson.


Orestes Brownson (1841) thought Emerson was not a systematic thinker;
his value lay in his ability to break the associations of common
perception, and allow readers to see and perceive the world in a new
aspect.


Edgar Allan Poe (1842) wrote: “Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson belongs to a
class of gentlemen with whom we have no patience whatever—the mystics
for mysticism’s sake.” (But he liked some of Emerson’s poetry.)


Thomas Powell: seemed to come to Emerson’s defense … there was a
fairly common criticism that Emerson was an atheist, a pantheist, and
anti-Christian.


Walt Whitman (1880) clearly admires Emerson, but notes that Emerson’s
diction may be “too perfect, too concentrated” all the writing is
“good butter, good sugar” all the time, to the detriment of his
ideas.


Sir Leslie Stephen (father of Virginia Woolf): thought that Emerson
recognized the need for a “sharp intellectual shock” in America to
awaken and realize the nation’s full potential…the Emerson realized
America’s lack of intellectual history and sought to create one…”His
characteristic want of continuity made him as incapable of evolving a
central idea as of expounding an argument,” but that this lent value
to Emerson’s poetry.


George Gilfillan (1854) pastor. “Emerson is ONE of the FEW SCEPTICS
who has PERSONALLY, and by NAME, insulted the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Gilfillan is correct in arguing that Emerson rejected the divinity of
Christ, and wrote of the divinity of nature, and the elevation of man
to the position of a god (at least, “a god in ruins”).


Joseph O’Connor (1878) criticism of Emerson is that he has no
system, and that “systemization is necessary to all knowledge.”
According to O’Connor, this lack of systematic expression is
debilitating to the Church, which is O’Connor’s primary concern.
“Man’s intellect seeks the certain, and where he cannot find it in the
supernatural he will have recourse to the natural. The profound
attention paid to all the mechanical and natural sciences, to the
exclusion, if not the denial, of supernatural religion, is the logical
result of the absurdity of Protestantism.”


Elizabeth Palmer Peabody (1885) says Emerson sought to illuminate his
hearers, not to speak to them and lead them from a position of
authority.


Edwin P. Whipple (1886) recognizes Emerson as a radical. Readers
may not understand this today, but Whipple helps us realize that, in a
contemporary context, Emerson was unorthodox (to the point of
threatening) to established religious and social systems. Emerson’s
“radicalism penetrated to the very root of dissent,” Whipple writes,
and Emerson’s emphasis on the primacy of the individual challenged the
accepted orthodoxies of the day. To a culture that encounters Emerson
largely through aphorisms and self-help catchphrases, this may seem a
peculiar claim. But for students of his time, this perception of
Emerson as a dangerous, even threatening intellect is important
because Emerson’s radicalism helped determine the condition of the
American intellectual landscape.


Charlotte Bronte (1849) in a letter “Emerson’s Essays I read with much
interest, and often with admiration, but they are of mixed gold and
clay—deep and invigorating truth, dreary and depressing fallacy seem
to me combined therein.


Too much? Just let me know if it is.

This was my first time reading Self-Reliance.

A few of the elements that stood out for me were the following.

There was the non conformist individual concept; the individual is supreme. Individualism and following your own drummer, so to speak, are admirable traits and ones to be cultivated to be sure. But taken to the extreme, I think society begins to break down. Or as someone here noted, selfish. It sort of reminded me of the Ayn Rand school of thought. This was most evident in this line from the essay, "Then, again, do not tell me, as a good man did to-day of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong." It seems like a selfish sentiment to me.


Emerson also seems to be giving a rebuttal to Christianity or more correctly institutional Christianity. Where one looks outside oneself to find God by following an institutional doctrine and church. When Emerson wrote: "...for God is here within". " We must go alone. I like a silent church before the service begins better than any preaching." it reminded me of the Quaker concept "silence" and of the" light within" which the subscribe to.


Then there were two occasions in the essay that I thought had a distinct Buddhist flavor.

The first is where Emerson wrote: "But man postpones or remembers; He does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time." One of the goals of Buddhist meditation is to help the practitioner live in the "now" in their daily lives.

The other sentiment that Emerson wrote that had a Buddhist element in it was when he wrote, " It supposes dualism and not unity in nature and consciousness." A major element of Buddhism is the notion of the wrongness of thinking that one is separate from all other things. For example, "when one perceives a tree as a thing separate from everything surrounding it, or when one perceives a "self" that is distinct from the rest of the world. "

That's about all I have right now. I'm enjoying reading all your comments.

Patrice wrote: I agree, I've written Ayn Rand in the margins more than once.

I'll have to check how old he was when he wrote this essay. I can't imagine a 60 year old writing with such vehemence about "self-reliance"!
==================================================
I'm glad that I wasn't the only one who saw Rand in the essay. :) The essay was a bit difficult to understand for me, so I am happy to be on the right track. It will also help to be reading it with this group.

I'm also glad to find another person who loves marginalia ! I underline, highlight, use various colors, write comments, and definitions in my books. Or as some say, I personalize them. :)

As to when he wrote it, I found this online:

Self-Reliance," first published in Essays (First Series) in 1841, is widely considered to be the definitive statement of Ralph Waldo Emerson's philosophy of individualism and the finest example of his prose. The essay is a fabric woven of many threads, from a journal entry written as early as 1832 to material first delivered in lectures between 1836 and 1839.

Patrice wrote: "Did everyone notice that Obama invoked the idea of "self-reliance" as the essence on the American character?"

Yes, I'm reading the little blue Penguin hardcover with Obama's inaugural address 2009, Lincoln's first and second inaugural addresses 1861 and 1865, his The Gettysburg Address 1863, and Emerson's Self-Reliance 1841. The preface calls "Self-Reliance...one of Obama's favorite works...Together these writings embody the American values and ideals that Barack Obama reminded us on election night we all share: "self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity.""

Asmah wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Did everyone notice that Obama invoked the idea of "self-reliance" as the essence on the American character?"

Yes, I'm reading the little blue Penguin hardcover with Obama's inaugu..."

I am not sure that Obama believes in self reliance since his views tend more in the direction of socialism which leans more to group reliance than individual effort.
I have not read the entire essay (I am away in Maine on vacation and soon to be in Canada) but I wondered if the statement Alias Reader quoted , ("Then, again, do not tell me, as a good man did to-day of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations. Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong.") is addressed anywhere else in the essay. If there is no consideration of voluntary individual gifts of charity then I agree that it is a selfish sentiment.

Patrice wrote: "Eman, methinks it is no coincidence that you have chosen Self-Reliance as the next read after DQ! Great choice!"

I know why I chose it, but I'm interested in knowing why YOU think I chose it!

Patrice wrote: "I'll have to check how old he was when he wrote this essay. I can't imagine a 60 year old writing with such vehemence about "self-reliance"!"

I'm not sure when it was actually written, but his First Essays, in which it appears, was published in 1841, when he was 38. But I agree with you in suspecting that the ideas, if not the actual writing, were perhaps from earlier even than that.

You haven't asked me but I think DQ marched to the beat of his own drummer and was happiest that way although his sanity was in question, at that time. From my limited reading, isn't Emerson really saying follow your own mind regardless of what other's think? Fulfill your dreams without worrying about what other's think of you. How do you know someone else is "more right" than you are?

Patrice wrote: "I thought it was a counterpoint to DQ's devotion to his chivalric novels. Self-reliance, thinking for yourself, not exactly DQ's MO, right? "

Interesting -- that's exactly the opposite of my reasoning! I was thinking that DQ was a perfect example of a person of whom "we have heard the last of conformity and consistency." One could, I suppose, argue that he was consistent in his own way, though I would question that, but certainly he was a non-conformist as one could get, very much one who does NOT "take with shame our own opinion from another." And if Emerson was right, that "to be great is to be misunderstood," DQ is right up there among the greats, isn't he?

But though your thinking wasn't mine, I do see our point. DQ certainly let himself be guided and almost ruled by the views of the writers of the chivalric romances.

Patrice wrote: "You know, you're right. As with everything in this book I see both sides. He lives "by the book". But he's not influenced by what others think. He's not conforming to social pressures.
But is..."

I think he is thinking for himself but he is not thinking rationally, perhaps, and yet he is fulfilling his dreams, his idea of truth. If he had chosen to imitate malevolent heroes, who knows what the end result would have been. The key is to be independent and be a free thinker but not to allow your behavior to impact negatively on others. Sometimes his did, but his intentions were pure, so I suppose I find his errors easy to forgive and sympathize more with him when others take advantage of his weakness.

To be a bit more explicit about my thinking in juxtaposing DQ and Self-Reliance, I suggest that DQ is in fact a clear example of one kind of person who emerges from adherence to Emerson's precepts.

But I expect -- I hope! -- that this viewpoint is controversial and generates some interesting discussion!

And I also invite people to suggest other characters from literature who also seem to embody the principles that Emerson puts forth. (People from real life are also possible to offer, though I suggest avoiding political figures since the political issues sometimes tend to overtake the points of the analysis.)

Adelle wrote: "Aside. Background information on Emerson. As in how others (contemporaries) viewed him.

I browsed Harold Bloom's Classic Critical Views: Ralph Waldo
Emerson. Mostly I just read Bloom's ..."

To this fine list might be added Mary Moody Emerson's opinion of the First Series of Essays (in which "Self-Reliance" appears): "...a strange medley of atheism and false independence."

Mary was Emerson's aunt.

thewanderingjew wrote: "...I think [DQ:] he is thinking for himself but he is not thinking rationally, perhaps, ..."

Ah, but what is rationality? Isn't it really, at heart, conformity to a set of social norms?

Can somebody who is truly self-reliant also be considered fully rational by society? Doesn't self-reliance require, at least in part, refusal to submit to the consistency of the social norm?

Alias Reader wrote: "
Then there were two occasions in the essay that I thought had a distinct Buddhist flavor.
..."

I'm glad someone else picked up on this as well. I'm not so sure how Emerson would treat the Buddhist principle of compassion though. It seems somewhat at odds with his notion of autonomy.

Everyman wrote: "Is this your first reading of Self-Reliance? Or did you read it some years ago, and if so about when?


This is my first time reading Self-Reliance.

It definitely inspires me to say how I feel without fear of how I might be perceived by others.

I think one of the most important concepts I take away from the reading is how I want to exist in the world, ultimately drawing my own conclusions and following the paths I choose rather than those that are pre-ordained or socially expected of me. It also feel Emerson enforces the notion that we should allow others to comfortably exist in the world as they are rather than how we feel they should be. That’s an idea I feel strongly about.

On the other hand, I’m not sure I am exactly clear where he is coming from in terms of the negative impacts of deriving ideas from the writings and experiences of others. I’m not sure if he is suggesting that we should completely dismiss others’ ideas so that our minds will be a clean tablet, free for only our individual thoughts and connections to the universe. I find a lot of value in exploring the ideas of others (both the greats and respected peers) and don’t know that I would want to exist in a world of mental solitude in an attempt to keep other’s perceptions from influencing me.

I guess I’m trying to say that I’m okay with having other’s ideas shape my thinking if those ideas are conducive to my ultimate goals in this life. I definitely think there should be a filtration process that goes into deciding what is worth internalizing and what is not.

I lean with AliasReader in that I have concerns about how fiercely we can all become absolute individuals without imperiling the society we live in. Balance?

And the Buddhist aspect was something I hadn't seen. The "living in the Now" truly fits in with a Buddhist outlook. Much more so that I have thought the standard American outlook at the time would have been.

Also, a couple of posters have caught my attention by noting The Fountainhead. My face-to-face group is reading that for next month. I'll be reading now with new eyes.

Part 1 of 2 (Exceeded max)

I had read this when I was in high school and I remember having liked it very much. Now, not so much. But what a freeing guy Emerson is. You can read what I wrote. Or not read it. Or like it. Or criticize it. Emerson whispers in my ear, “What care you?”


“Self-Reliance” by Emerson

“Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again…”

What a great line. I think I’ll open with that one. As I’ve already changed my mind on this essay once, it’ll leave me an open door should I change my mind again. 

In the true spirit of Emerson, I have ignored the prescribed questions. What care I what some stodgy academic in his ivory tower might have deemed of import? I shall be my own man! Or maybe Thoreau’s. (Go boldly in the direction your dreams lead you.) Or maybe Kirk’s. (To boldly go where no man has gone before.)

On my first read, last week: Ahh…. All the pretty words, and the good lines sprinkled here and there, and the affirmation….Oh, I felt as though I had just attended an Up with People rally!

On my second read: Oh, but there are still some great lines in this essay. But quite a bit of what Emerson says…doesn’t seem to say anything….and much that he does say, I hold to be untrue. I think that writing such as this by Emerson is what goes into political speeches.

He opens, “I read the other day some verses written by an eminent painter which were original and not conventional” (169). This says nothing. But what an opening. So informal. So inviting. I could be sitting across from him, sharing thoughts and coffee and homemade strudel at his honest, rough-hewn kitchen table. I look into his blue-blue eyes and I’m already in a mood to concur with him. “an eminent painter” Mmmm. A painter is a creative type. So I infer he wrote something creative. “An eminent painter” Must be a very creative. He must know what he’s doing. He must be valued since Emerson sources him here, albeit unnamed. “Let’s back him. Let’s agree with him and be smart and creative like he is.” *He had me at hello.

* Wouldn’t that be considered an Emersonian response. “You had me at hello.” Gut-feeling. No reasoning required.


Wait a minute….wait a minute…. A painter, eminent or not, is not necessarily a skilled writer of verse.

And this, um, painter, has written something “original” and “not conventional.” What does that mean? {I redacted the “h _ ll” … just so I could use the word “redacted”}


Original doesn’t necessarily mean something worthy of admiration. Somehow Emerson has so presented “it” that sight unseen/words unread, I emotionally am in agreement with Emerson’s implication: original = good.

And ***conventional doesn’t necessarily mean worthy of distain. It could mean tried and true, classic, not “modern” and “inspired” perhaps, but perhaps the solid work that has been proven over the years. *** Yet somehow Emerson has me with him on this as well. I have allied myself with the “superior” position; I look down on the “conventional.” Whatever it might be. Don’t look behind that curtain. What need have you for details?




“The soul always hears an admonition in such lines, let the subject be what it may” (169). Examples, please. Especially with that “let the subject be what it may” expander.

“The sentiment they instill is of more value than any thought they may contain” (169).

Wait a minute….wait a minute. “of more value than any thought they may contain” Nope. I don’t think so. I mean…what about that whole Enlightenment thing, that Age of Reason movement? I mean, there’re Obama and Cheney giving their speeches this morning. Sentiment in some people is, hey, Obama. Sentiment in some others is, hey, Cheney. Really now, shouldn’t thought be, well, at LEAST as important.
[I’m trying to train myself in the political speeches to try to discern what are merely pretty words and what are sound reasons.:]

Emerson goes on, “To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men---that is genius” (169). Mmmm. Well, “no” on that one, too. I don’t think that’s genius. [Although it makes me feel good.:] What is true in my private heart is not true for all men. Or I think the world wouldn’t have the problems is does. (Obama, what? 52%; McCain 48%. Need I say more?)


“A man,” Emerson writes, “should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within more than the luster of the firmament of bards and sages.”

Wait a minute. Didn’t Emerson open this piece by referencing “an eminent painter”? More, I should think, in the “bards and sages” category than the “some guy” category.

Yes, maybe that “gleam” is a really, really good idea. Consider it. But “more than the luster … of sages”? Well, difficult to determine as Emerson doesn’t describe what kind of ideas are gleaming or what kind of sages are lustering. And so many fanatics have those gleams. It gives me pause {“We could and should take over Europe!” (It’s always good to reference Hitler in counterarguments. I’ve been using it at home lately. Alexandra, my daughter, might say, “I would like macaroni and cheese for lunch,” and I respond “You know, Hitler probably liked mac and cheese.”)}

“Great works of art,” still on page 169, “have no more affecting lesson for us than this. They teach us to abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility the most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else tomorrow…” But… wait a minute… great works of art --- in almost (note my qualifier) any category --- are not built on spontaneity….but on having mastered much of the knowledge and teachings of those who went before. Frankly, even as an observer of art, or as a reader of books, quite a good deal of foundational knowledge is required.


And how can one defend that next bit? “…the whole cry of voices…and we shall be forced to take with shame…” What? We should feel bad because we didn’t jump in before we CONSIDERED something and as a result someone beat us out in expressing what would have been our own opinion??? So our self-worth is dependent on, what? on getting “credit”? on not having to say, even to ourselves, “yes, that’s what I was going to say. That’s what I think, too.” Are we so very fragile? So very “other” sensitive? How very un-Emersonian.

Everyman wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "...I think [DQ:] he is thinking for himself but he is not thinking rationally, perhaps, ..."

Ah, but what is rationality? Isn't it really, at heart, conformity to a set of..."

According to Merrian Webster it is: 1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable
According to Ayn Rand it is: The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action. ... It means a commitment to the principle that all of one's convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Rationality.html

Part 2 of 2

On page 170, Emerson writes, “What pretty oracles nature yields us on this text in the face and behavior of children, babes, and even brutes!” Should children, babes, and brutes be models to which we aspire? Ultimately, don’t we try to teach them to be less self-centered?

And sure of our dinners, should we, too, pay no heed to consequences? Would we take great joy in living in a society full of such? Or is this a privilege available only to those with full pockets, who are sure of their own dinners? Is Emerson saying “with wealth comes privilege”?




How many people really want to live in a world in which pledges are avoided? (top of page 171). Is there not an empowering surety that walks down the aisle with “to have and to hold”? “Sign on the dotted line” is commitment enough to finance much of business and more.


How well received Emerson might have been on college campuses in the 60s, clad in frayed blue jeans symbolizing his nonconformity with the mainstream and his solidarity with the “creative” people. Microphone in hand, “No law can be sacred to me but that of my own nature!” And the crowd, er, the mass of non-conforming individuals, roars. “What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? […:] If I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.” And the crowd goes wild.

“The doctrine of hatred must be preached,” writes Emerson (172). Why? Why are family ties so little esteemed? I’m not saying they are paramount, but “I shun father and mother and wife and brother when my genius calls me”. And what does that even mean?

There’s Emerson, on page 172, with the inheritance of his first wife, and his pockets full of speaking fees (most popular circuit speaker in America), and his writing royalties, and sure of his dinner, yet sometimes he, says, he lacks the manhood to withhold a dollar from relief societies. He caves. He has every right to not give to charities he doesn’t find worthy… But does he find ANY worthy? Is this a good attitude to build a society on? I have to wonder if he puts into the balance the advantages (Harvard education and all) that he was given in life? What charities DOES he find worthy? I don’t know, because he doesn’t actually say.


Also on page 172, he writes, “I cannot consent to pay for a privilege where I have intrinsic right.” I love how this sounds, all defiant-like, all stalwart, all filled with manly backbone. But what exactly does he mean?


When it comes to those non-authentic people, Emerson writes, “Their two is not the real two, their four is not the real four.” I totally love that line. I adore it! I want to marry it. But in point of fact, their 2 is 2 and their 4 is 4.


At the bottom of page 173, Emerson is belittling the “sour faces of the multitude…like their sweet faces, have no deep cause, but are put on and off as the wind blows and a newspaper directs.” ??? Emerson’s feelings are real and true, but those of the mere multitude aren’t? Perhaps the media does orient us. But solid examples would have been appreciated.


On the top of page 177 there’s this: “The magnetism which all original actions exerts is explained when we inquire the reason of self-trust.” Perhaps self-trust does generate magnetism. Hitler? History records his speeches were emotionally persuasive. Cheney? He strikes me as self-confident and appears to have self-trust in his reasoning. Yet polls indicate he lacks magnetism. Maybe if Emerson had given concrete examples….


Turning to 178, “Is the acorn better than the oak which is its fullness and completion?” What a great rhetorical question! What possible comparison does it hold to the statements which precedes it? (Which, by the way, I can’t quite make out.) Or the question which follows it?

So many of his sentences… I just have no idea what they are trying to say. “This one fact the world hates; that the soul BECOMES; for that forever degrades the past, turns all riches to poverty; all reputation to a shame, confounds the saint with the rogue, shoves Jesus and Judas equally aside” (179). ???


Emerson writes on page 180, “I like the silent church before the service begins better than any preaching.” I wonder, when I read that, if Emerson was thinking here of the period before he gave up preaching or after---when he himself would have been sitting in the pews….if he attended church. Was he in church to satisfy conventional public opinion? Does his 2=2? His 4=4?

Jennifer, Good post. You captured, I think, Emerson's strongest point (freedom) and one of his weakest points (the seeming brushing away of the influence of the ideas of others).

Jennifer: On the other hand, I’m not sure I am exactly clear where he is coming from in terms of the negative impacts of deriving ideas from the writings and experiences of others. I’m not sure if he is suggesting that we should completely dismiss others’ ideas so that our minds will be a clean tablet, free for only our individual thoughts and connections to the universe. I find a lot of value in exploring the ideas of others (both the greats and respected peers) and don’t know that I would want to exist in a world of mental solitude in an attempt to keep other’s perceptions from influencing me.

I guess I’m trying to say that I’m okay with having other’s ideas shape my thinking if those ideas are conducive to my ultimate goals in this life. I definitely think there should be a filtration process that goes into deciding what is worth internalizing and what is not.
-----------------------

I agree, Jennifer. I recently read that one of the ways that man was able to advance was through his ability to write down his ideas. This way ideas like fire and tools could be passed on to others. We didn't need to keep re-inventing the wheel so to speak.

On the other hand, I think when Emerson talked about being influenced by others, I think, in part, he was talking about the church and ones relation to a higher power. I felt he was saying you don't need to have a go between to speak to or know this power. The ability is in you. He writes, "The relations of the soul to the divine spirit are so pure that it is profane to seek to interpose helps."...." If, therefore, a man claims to know and speak of God, and carries you backward to the phraseology of some old moldered nation in another country, in another world, believe him not." Then he gives a nod to René Descartes. "Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say, " I think, I am, but quotes some saint or sage."

by Adelle: Also, a couple of posters have caught my attention by noting The Fountainhead.
----------------------------------------

The Fountainhead is a great read for a group as there is a lot to debate. I am not a Rand fan. The book made me so angry I think I wrote in the margins of every page ! But that was what I loved. It made me think. I sided with the character of Toohey, the antithesis of what Rand was preaching. :)

I still have Atlas Shrugged on my TBR stacks waiting to be read.

Note: there are large trade paper sizes of these books. Check Amazon. If you're like me, small pb can be a strain on the old eyes.

message 39: by Adelle
message 41: by Adelle

========================

Excellent !

Thomas wrote:
I'm glad someone else picked up on this as well. I'm not so sure how Emerson wI'm glad someone else picked up on this as well. I'm not so sure how Emerson would treat the Buddhist principle of compassion though. It seems somewhat at odds with his notion of autonomy..."

====================

You're right, Thomas, there does seem to be a lot of cognitive dissonance in the essay.

Adelle pointed this out quite well in her posts where she showed that there seems to be a lot of contradictory and unexplained sentiments in Emerson's essay.

Back to Buddhism & Emerson. I found this in Wiki:

In 1845, Emerson's journals show he was reading the Bhagavad Gita and Henry Thomas Colebrooke's Essays on the Vedas. Emerson was strongly influenced by the Vedas, and much of his writing has strong shades of nondualism. One of the clearest examples of this can be found in his essay "The Over-soul":

We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal ONE. And this deep power in which we exist and whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object, are one. We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are shining parts, is the soul.

Emerson was introduced to Indian philosophy when reading the works of French philosopher Victor Cousin

Alias Reader wrote: On the other hand, I think when Emerson talked about being influenced by others, I think, in part, he was talking about the church and ones relation to a higher power. I felt he was saying you don't need to have a go between to speak to or know this power. The ability is in you."

---------------------------------------------------

Hi Alias Reader,

That is a great point to bring up. I like how Emerson suggests we go about fostering independent thinking when it comes to religion. He writes:

“Let them chirp awhile and call it their own. If they are honest and do well, presently their neat new pinfold will be too strait and low, will crack, will lean, will rot and vanish, and the immortal light, all young and joyful, million-orbed, million-colored, will beam over the universe as on the first morning.”

This would make it seem that Emerson is not opposed to having someone there to facilitate or mentor a pupil of religion he is just suggesting we let that pupil do their own thinking and speaking so that they can derive their own ideas and see their own light rather than the light of their mentor.

I read some of Emerson’s ideas on education this week and really liked his suggestions on teacher student roles and relationships. After reading those exerts the main idea that resonates with me is that it is possible to support and guide without dictating the direction of a student’s mind.

This is my first time reading Self-Reliance and posting online.

In response to some comments made earlier:
He opens, “I read the other day some verses written by an eminent painter which were original and not conventional” (169). This says nothing.

My interpretation is that Emerson was referring to Thomas Cole’s (the founder of the Hudson River School) Essay on American Scenery written in 1835 (Self Reliance was written in 1841).

In his Essay on American Scenery, Cole would describe the beauties of the American wilderness and its capacity to reveal God's creation as a metaphoric Eden. He considered European scenery to reflect the ravages of civilization, for which extensive forests had been felled, rugged mountains had been smoothed, and impetuous rivers had been turned from their courses. In contrast, Cole believed the American wilderness to embody a state of divine grace and lamented that the signs of progress were rapidly encroaching. – mfa, Boston


Hudson River School painters, like the Transcendentalists, wanted to create their unique body of American work (art/literature). For them the wilderness of American landscape became a symbol of the nation’s potential as well as a source of spiritual renewal.

In the absence of cultural history so celebrated in European art, educated tourists sought spiritual renewal in the ruins of nature and monuments of their own sublime wilderness scenery. With the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, Niagara became an annual tourist destination for thousands, and because it had no equal in the Old World, Americans could claim cultural prominence. Anticipating an emotional and religious experience, visitors to the Falls saw themselves as pilgrims on a spiritual journey to a sacred site. –Hudson River School, Kornhauser

Could this desire for spiritual renewal have been initiated in the Christian Evangelical conversions/events happening in church’s in New England (Second Great Awakening)?

Patrice wrote: "I think that Emerson's emphasis on "authenticity" has come to fruition in our time. There is no right or wrong, no good or bad, other than "authenticity". I am always amazed by people who will get on tv and admit the most horrendous acts with a complete lack of shame"

"..."

It think this goes back to what Everyman was saying about social norms. The people you're talking about value the unconventional over conventional morality. And for better or worse, I think Emerson would appreciate those people, maybe not for their actions or their morality but for their individuality.

Last night I watched Obama's joint session speech advocating universal health care -- which is arguably a form of forced altruism. The day before he advised the nation's school children about responsibility and self-reliance, which seems to be a contradiction. So I wonder, is self-reliance incompatible with social responsibility?

My take on it is that self-reliance is not an absolute; we all conform to some degree, either because we want to be part of society or because we have to. Unless there is a basic agreement, a social contract, laws, what have you, then we are always going to be in conflict with our neighbor. On the other hand, the agreement does not have to be so explicit that it denies individuality, privacy, and liberty in general. There is a balance between the two. Exactly what that balance will be is a matter of political debate.

I feel like this point is lost on Emerson, but that is based on one reading of one essay...

This is my first time reading Emerson and I loved it!

I can't really correlate Emerson and Rand. Emerson seem to me to be a mystic and a very spiritual person, while Rand is very materialistic.

I have to admit that I did not like Ayn Rand/Atlas Shrugged. The whole thing really annoyed the heck out of me. Maybe I would have to read more works from both of them to make a better judgement.

Wow! what great thoughts everyone. This was my first reading of anything by Emmerson. I, like others, had mixed feelings about the essay. I loved the idea of the necessity of forming your own opinions. We live in a time when we are constantly inundated with the thoughts, beliefs, ideas, and opinions of others. The concept of taking a step back shutting everything else out and truly investigating your own ideas appeals to me.


I think he takes self reliance a bit too far though. Whether we like it or not we are not alone in this world what we do does affect others and what they do affects us.

Patrice wrote: ".Eliza, at first I misread your last sentence as "like it or not we are alone in this world". I think there is some truth in my misreading. In the end we can only be responsible for our own actions. Even though we may be part of a social contract in a society, ultimately, it seems to me, we have to decide what we are willing or unwilling to do. We may have to suffer the consequences if we go against the law. That's why Socrates drank the hemlock, right? He felt he had done nothing wrong but he was bound by law to suffer the consequence of his actions. I'm not too sure that he was right to drink the hemlock, actually, but that's another discussion. lol ."

I agree, personal responsibility is a concept that I believe is underated.

I guess I was trying to say that I thought Emerson's idea of total self reliance was almost impossible to actually achieve. So much of who I am is affected by the people in my life, my past, what I read, what I see etc... and (I could be misreading here) it seems to me he's saying that these things are actually a barrier to a true examination of self. I think his outlook seems a little bleak and lonely to me.

I have no direct experience with Ayn Rand, but I think Dianna has it right. Emerson is writing about metaphysics as much as about social concerns; indeed, one of the tensions within the Transcendental movement is between those, like Emerson, who are literary and philosophers and others who were more concerned with social issues like emancipation and women's rights. However, I think it speaks to the breadth of Emerson's concerns that a group like this would seize on both comparisons to Ayn Rand and Buddhism simultaneously!

One thing that struck me in reading the first half (as far as I have gotten) -- Emerson criticized the adoption of entire schools of thought, rather than the independent assessment and adoption of a single idea. He compliments certain ideas (and in some cases, the genius) of other people. Clearly he listens to others and is willing to accept some outside ideas. He rails against when the adoption of one idea makes one take with it an entire platform. He reserves the harshest criticism for those whose role is to propagate the platform.

“I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and spontaneous word? Do I not know that with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institution he will do no such thing?”

This is obviously a tendency in our society today as well, where we have just as many practitioners of this all-or-nothing mentality.

I do disagree with Emerson on a good many things: I think that the opinions of teenagers are not the epitome of good judgment; that it is better to be civil than rude; that the desire to please others is not a weakness; and that we actually should practice some degree of generosity. Perhaps he uses overstatement to get us to break out of our training and think more deliberately about why we do what we do.

I have never read Emerson before. I appreciate the thought-provoking essay and the lively dialog here.

Adelle wrote: "Aside. Background information on Emerson. As in how others (contemporaries) viewed him. "

Great stuff! Too much? Not at all!

I was particularly interested to know that James admired Emerson. I wouldn't have thought that.

Jennifer wrote: "On the other hand, I’m not sure I am exactly clear where he is coming from in terms of the negative impacts of deriving ideas from the writings and experiences of others. I’m not sure if he is suggesting that we should completely dismiss others’ ideas so that our minds will be a clean tablet, free for only our individual thoughts and connections to the universe. I find a lot of value in exploring the ideas of others (both the greats and respected peers) and don’t know that I would want to exist in a world of mental solitude in an attempt to keep other’s perceptions from influencing me. "

That's a point that struck me too, Jennifer. I wondered as I read that section what he would think of this discussion group, where we don't view "the centuries [as:] conspirators against the sanity and authority of the soul" but view the classic texts and authors as aids to help us toward sanity.

Indeed, why is he writing this essay at all? As soon as he writes it down, doesn't he seek to become an authority to guide the souls of others toward what he sees as the right path -- toward conformity with his ideas? When he says "you shall not discern the foot-prints of any other" why does he then leave his own foot-prints?

Patrice wrote: "More lines that seem to argue against DQ:

"the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought."

Milton may have written what he thought, but he drew extensively from those who went before him. Paradise Lost is filled with references from and allusions to dozens of other authors.

Yes, he was original, but his originality very much stood on the shoulders of those who went before him.

Carol wrote: "This is my first time reading Self-Reliance and posting online.."

Welcome, Carol. Nice job putting him into historical context. We hope to hear a lot more from you!

Thomas wrote: "Last night I watched Obama's joint session speech advocating universal health care -- which is arguably a form of forced altruism. The day before he advised the nation's school children about responsibility and self-reliance, which seems to be a contradiction. So I wonder, is self-reliance incompatible with social responsibility?"

A nice presentation of the question. I had the same thought in a slightly different way. Emerson seems to ignore the reality that his ability to live and write are dependent on the work of others working in a social, conforming context. For a simple example, the paper he writes on is the product of many people working together, putting aside their individuality and the way they may think paper should be made to conform to the way in which the company owner they work for wants to see it made. If everybody who worked for the paper company threw aside all the wisdom of the past and ventured out on their own way, he would have no paper to write on. Similarly the food he eats, the clothes he wears,the house he lives in, the church he worships in, are all there because of the intertwined social fabric of people who have put aside their self-centeredness and subjected themselves to the conformity of the productive process.

It seems to me that he totally overlooks the debt of those people whose willingness to work together with conformity and consistency (doesn't he expect his sheets of paper to be of consistent size, shape, color, etc.?) as their goals.

It is much, I think, like the sailor who sails alone around the world. Her act may seem like the ultimate statement of individuality, but it would be impossible without the record of those who went before to explore and map the oceans of the world, those who over the centuries developed the arts of boat building and sailing, and those who made and financed the vessel and all the equipment, materials, and supplies the sailor relies on.

I don't see Emerson recognizing his enormous debt to those who make his plea for self-reliance and independence possible.

Eliza wrote: "I guess I was trying to say that I thought Emerson's idea of total self reliance was almost impossible to actually achieve. So much of who I am is affected by the people in my life, my past, what I read, what I see etc... and (I could be misreading here) it seems to me he's saying that these things are actually a barrier to a true examination of self. I think his outlook seems a little bleak and lonely to me."

I think that's an excellent way of putting it. Not only bleak and lonely, but, particularly his refusal to accept a role in providing for the less fortunate, very sad. It's a very empty philosophy, I think.

Zeke wrote: "I think it speaks to the breadth of Emerson's concerns that a group like this would seize on both comparisons to Ayn Rand and Buddhism simultaneously!"

LOL! Great point.

Everyman wrote: "Indeed, why is he writing this essay at all? As soon as he writes it down, doesn't he seek to become an authority to guide the souls of others toward what he sees as the right path -- toward conformity with his ideas?"

-------------------------------------------------

Great observation Every Man. he really presents himself like he is the ultimate authority on the subjects he brings up. Emerson may be amused if we were to point that out to him. It makes me think of when he wrote:

“Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then?”

I don’t think Emerson was afraid to contradict himself. I guess contradiction is a part of what it is to be human, or at least to grow as a human. I think it is part of growing and constantly re-evaluating who we are and who we are becoming as we go through life.

When I re-read the above quote I noticed that I wrote in the margin, “reminds me of Walt Whitman’s quote:”

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)” -Walt Whitman-

I love this quote because it reminds me that it’s okay for our thoughts and ideas to be all over the place. Every part of who we are and what we think doesn’t have to fit neatly like a jigsaw puzzle with all the pieces perfectly coinciding.

Jennifer wrote: I don't think Emerson was afraid to contradict himself... it is part of growing and constantly re-evaluating who we are and who we are becoming as we go through life.
----
Asmah replies: This clarifies Emerson's "I hope in these days we have heard the last of conformity and consistency."

Dang it! I was typing a part of the essay I really liked and I lost it. I will try again...

Emerson says, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines...--Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras...Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh [were misunderstood:]. To be great is to be misunderstood."

He must have realized that his writing would garner criticism and I think it took a lot of courage for him to speak out against the mindset of the times. I admire the courageousness of all those people he mentions to be able to go against the grain.

Jennifer wrote:
"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)” -Walt Whitman-
..."

--------------------------

Thanks for this connection to Whitman, Jennifer. I've made note of it in my text.

Today it seems if one changes his mind, it's viewed very negatively. I'm not talking about a person who changes with the latest poll or goes with the crowd but change because of thoughtful consideration. There seems to be no respect for growth, new information or understanding.

I like how Emerson said it. " A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Yes, Alias Reader, I noted that he made sure to put the word foolish in front of consistency. I think he was talking about sticking with what the crowd says even if it is foolish and obviously not true, rather than bein inconsistent for the sake of inconsistency, which is kind of to me like the difference between being one of the characters and being the little boy who speaks out in "the emperor has no clothes!"

I'm not sure if I expressed myself clearly there lol. I think we can compare Emerson and Don Quixote to the story "The Emperor has no Clothes." In that story the little boy speaks out when all the others are silent and tells the truth. I think Emerson and Cervantes are speaking out to say maybe that "The Emperor has no Clothes." I was just reading the part where the Duke and Duchess have given Sancho the money for the continuation of their journey and it reminded me of the custom of Patronage where a rich person would pay an artist to put out what they wanted to be put out. I remember it seems to me that Michelangelo, for example, was not really happy in his work but he had to do what his patrons made him do in order to continue receiving their patronage...