In reading Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Self-Reliance, I found a great deal of wisdom in this writing, but the majority and ultimate theme of this piece I find to be utterly ludicrous which caused what admiration I had of Emerson for his great insights to diminish. Parts of Emerson’s views are indeed noble, such as not taking one’s opinion from another’s, but thinking for oneself and arriving at one’s own conclusions based on what he believes to be truth. I also agree with Emerson’s statement, “My life should be unique; it should be an alms, a battle, a conquest, a medicine.” He is correct in his argument for not conforming for conformity’s sake, “Whoso would be a man must not be a conformist.” However, this is where Emerson’s philosophy begins to crumble. Sometimes, not for the sake of conformity but for the betterment of society and oneself, conforming to a social norm is often best. For example, should one not go to college simply because the majority of his peers are going and he must not be a conformist? No! To conform to this social norm in my generation is almost always the better choice for both the individual as well as society. And thus are many arguments and thoughts of Emerson in Self-Reliance tainted by lack of practicality.
Emerson said, “A great man is coming to eat at my house. I do not wish to please him; I wish that he should wish to please me. How selfish and pig-headed of Emerson! Is it not right to want to please our guests, whether great or small? I find this absurd for Emerson to not only wish not to please his guest, but to expect the guest to wish to please him. Imagine if the entire world was so inhospitable and self-centered as this one statement implies of Emerson—it would be a sad, dog-eat-dog world for certain.
In relation to self-reliance, Emerson says, “We must go alone. Isolation must precede true society.” I struggle with this idea. Though there are definitely benefits to solitude and thinking alone, are not two minds better than one? I can accomplish much more with another person, and I learn much more through a discussion, debate, interaction with another person than through simply reading the same discussed material in isolation. I am far more enlightened and enriched through comparing other’s opinions to my own rather than relying solely on my own interpretations through reading alone; my conclusions based on my own contemplation.
Finally, another idea of Emerson that would prove disastrous if applied to society is this: “I shun father and mother and wife and brother, when my genius calls me.” As grand as the human mind is and the capabilities it possesses, there are unquestionably times when our discernment and judgment—our ‘genius’—are tainted or hindered. Otherwise what need would there be for counselors who help a young teen decide what to do about her pregnancy, or help a suicidal person cope with the death of a loved one, or to counsel a couple where one’s ‘genius’ calls for divorce while the other’s calls for reconciliation? Emerson thinks it wrong for humans to hold themselves to higher authority, such as the law or the Bible. Yet my next door neighbor’s genius called him to murder his brother, mother, my mother, and all who testified against him in court, and to set his wife’s house on fire. Because his genius called him to do such things, should it have been done regardless of the affects it would bring upon others, or should my neighbor be held to higher authority such as the law that says it is wrong to murder, though his genius said it was right? Emerson did not think so: “No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.” If all other thoughts and ideas of Emerson were noble and worthy of exaltation but this single one, I would still count him an imbecile, though exceedingly wise he may be in other capacities, for this idea taints them all.
Should all of America adopt Emerson’s way of thinking wholly and apply it to their own lives—what utter chaos would strike the country! How would there be laws, or authority to protect our safety and our rights, or punishment to discourage wrongs? How would there even be an argument for such a thing as the existent of wrongs? How could there be any trust between two parties? Without trust, how could there be any intimate, loyal relationship or friendship that the human heart longs for? The answer to all these questions is a resounding, “There wouldn’t be.” Though Emerson had many lofty ideas for the betterment of the individual by being ultimately true to oneself above all else, and for the geniuses that would arise through such freedom of thought than from conformity, these ideas as a whole would be detrimental to society and to the common good of the community, and would ultimately, if it stood long enough, be the fall of our nation as we know it.
Emerson said, “A great man is coming to eat at my house. I do not wish to please him; I wish that he should wish to please me. How selfish and pig-headed of Emerson! Is it not right to want to please our guests, whether great or small? I find this absurd for Emerson to not only wish not to please his guest, but to expect the guest to wish to please him. Imagine if the entire world was so inhospitable and self-centered as this one statement implies of Emerson—it would be a sad, dog-eat-dog world for certain.
In relation to self-reliance, Emerson says, “We must go alone. Isolation must precede true society.” I struggle with this idea. Though there are definitely benefits to solitude and thinking alone, are not two minds better than one? I can accomplish much more with another person, and I learn much more through a discussion, debate, interaction with another person than through simply reading the same discussed material in isolation. I am far more enlightened and enriched through comparing other’s opinions to my own rather than relying solely on my own interpretations through reading alone; my conclusions based on my own contemplation.
Finally, another idea of Emerson that would prove disastrous if applied to society is this: “I shun father and mother and wife and brother, when my genius calls me.” As grand as the human mind is and the capabilities it possesses, there are unquestionably times when our discernment and judgment—our ‘genius’—are tainted or hindered. Otherwise what need would there be for counselors who help a young teen decide what to do about her pregnancy, or help a suicidal person cope with the death of a loved one, or to counsel a couple where one’s ‘genius’ calls for divorce while the other’s calls for reconciliation? Emerson thinks it wrong for humans to hold themselves to higher authority, such as the law or the Bible. Yet my next door neighbor’s genius called him to murder his brother, mother, my mother, and all who testified against him in court, and to set his wife’s house on fire. Because his genius called him to do such things, should it have been done regardless of the affects it would bring upon others, or should my neighbor be held to higher authority such as the law that says it is wrong to murder, though his genius said it was right? Emerson did not think so: “No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.” If all other thoughts and ideas of Emerson were noble and worthy of exaltation but this single one, I would still count him an imbecile, though exceedingly wise he may be in other capacities, for this idea taints them all.
Should all of America adopt Emerson’s way of thinking wholly and apply it to their own lives—what utter chaos would strike the country! How would there be laws, or authority to protect our safety and our rights, or punishment to discourage wrongs? How would there even be an argument for such a thing as the existent of wrongs? How could there be any trust between two parties? Without trust, how could there be any intimate, loyal relationship or friendship that the human heart longs for? The answer to all these questions is a resounding, “There wouldn’t be.” Though Emerson had many lofty ideas for the betterment of the individual by being ultimately true to oneself above all else, and for the geniuses that would arise through such freedom of thought than from conformity, these ideas as a whole would be detrimental to society and to the common good of the community, and would ultimately, if it stood long enough, be the fall of our nation as we know it.
First paragraph: You are correct that people will generally do better with college than without, and, as far as I can tell, Emerson is debunked here - there are times where the costs and benefits tell you to conform, and times when the opposite is true.
ReplyDeleteSecond paragraph:
"How selfish and pig-headed of Emerson!" Selfish, yes. Pig-headed, no. Selfishness is not inherently a virtue or a vice. It's neither good, nor bad on its own. The most selfish person on earth is not guaranteed bread on their table by being so selfish.
When an individual is so selfish or self-righteous as to ignore the property rights or other rights of other individuals, then we have pig-headedness, that is, that's bad.
More specifically, you owe nothing to a guest who stays on your property. He doesn't have to stay there, and if he wants a place to stay, he should as you, the person who owns that amount of property, how you did it, then they might be closer to achieving independence. Furthermore, those who eat your food and dirty your guest-room bead sheets had better believe they owe you compensation of some sort. Perhaps, in your case, their company is compensation enough. This would generally depend on who the person staying at your place is, but either way, if you ask for compensation, they have a moral obligation to give it to you.
Third Paragraph: I've not read much of Emerson, but it seems like you're touching on exactly what he meant by "true society". If one takes the ideas from the crowd, then how will people generally advance? No, the best way to come to conclusions is through reason and evidence, not the opinions of others. See, the methodology is reason and evidence, and this process can be practiced alone or with others.
Paragraph four: I think this touches on the root of the discussion - morality.
Right and wrong, good and evil, these are all relative terms until a scientific method of categorizing actions is applied.
For instance, one problem with Emerson's idea is that of universality - the good of individual x, in Emerson's opinion, is the only thing relevant in determining whether x should or shouldn't do an action, regardless of the effects of that action on individual y. If x has the skills to hack into y's paypal account and take money from y whenever x needs to, the only thing stopping him, in reality, is the institution in place adding costs to and reducing the benefits gained from hacking. That is, x could devote, say, 1000 hours of his life to learning to hack, not to mention the risks of doing so, in order to gain some small, unnoticed portion of the income of y, or x could spend a smaller amount of time with less risk involved, earning an honest living. The respect and understanding of morality by individuals in the aggregate creates an added cost to x in two ways - guilt, created by his actions going against the moral code of his up-brining, and dissociation due to the immorality of his actions going against the morals of others in his life.
The fact is that x's benefit in this case is y's detriment, and the only thing stopping x from hurting y for his benefit is the institutions in place in their environment, adding costs to the action of taking from y (also, other institutions, such as security agencies and law enforcement which increase the risk and failure cost, respectively, of the act of cyber-theft). For example, x, if he is a "good" (morally adherent) person, will not take from y, regardless of the risks or financial rewards or costs, because the action is immoral, and that is a cost he is not willing to pay, lest he completely betray everything that for which he stands.
Fifth paragraph: America will cease to exist as we know it. This is a fact which has been avoided by no country in all of history. You have touched on a number of subjects here, especially in your conclusion, which are very interesting. If you'd like a brain for critiquing, I'm all ears.
Also, thank you for your essay on Sigmund Freud versus B.F. Skinner - very insightful, easy to read, and served as a great intro to my research in the field.
ReplyDelete