"History" and "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson

I think he looks like Abraham Lincoln

I'm sneaking in to the tail-end of Tea With Transcendentalists to share my thoughts on two of Ralph Waldo Emerson's essays, "History" and "Self-Reliance." "Self-Reliance" is a reread for me, my first introduction to Transcendentalism in the eleventh grade. "History" was recommended to me in different posts where I mentioned this event. I actually wanted to read all of the First Series of Emerson's essays, but finals being what they are, it just didn't happen.

"History" describes the "mind common to all individual men." Emerson describes how every man is part of one collective conscious, how every capability and action is nascent in every individual. According to Emerson, "of the works of this mind history is the record." Every act of history is present in every person. The reason we read the stories of history and relate to them is because they are actually a part of us. I loved this quote:

All that Shakespeare says of the king, yonder slip of a boy that reads in the corner feels to be true of himself. We sympathize in the great moments of history, in the great discoveries, the great resistances, the great  prosperities of men; -- because there law was enacted, the sea was searched, the land was found, or the blow was struck, for us, as we ourselves in that place would have done or applauded.

And also this:

The world exists for the education of each man. There is no age or state of society or mode of action in history to which there is not somewhat corresponding in his life.

I enjoyed reading about Emerson's philosophy of the collective human soul, and in some ways I agree with him. I think that we do thrill to the romantic stories of history, the empowering battles, moments both victorious or pathetic, because we all possess a common core of humanity. I think our humanity does gift us with something unique. However, I don't believe in it quite as literally as Emerson. I don't believe that, for example, the reason I enjoy reading Emerson's essays is because as Emerson was writing them, I myself was with him writing them too.

"Self-Reliance" in a way draws upon this idea of the collective conscious by reflecting it back to the individual -- because we all possess this collective consciousness, we all can depend on ourselves to be guided correctly. Because all laws proceed out of the collective conscious and we are a piece of that conscious, we are laws unto ourselves, and we need to seek approval and validation from ourselves, not from others. Emerson says:

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.

I suppose I am not a genius, because I don't think this is true. Maybe I don't read into things deeply enough, but I find that when I am true to myself, I often disagree completely with other people, especially in deeply important things like spirituality and morality. Maybe I am right and they aren't in tune with themselves? I'm being facetious, but I would imagine those same people think the same thing about me -- that I delude myself and that they are the ones who are correct in their "private heart."

I did like this quote a bit better:

Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events.

I agree with Emerson that in order to truly live our lives, we have to be comfortable with ourselves, doing what our conscience dictates to us. However, I am a little confused by how it ties in with Emerson's doctrine of believing the truth in one's private heart is equivalent to truth for all men, because he follows later in the essay by saying, "Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist." A few pages down he says, "I would write on the lintels of the door-post, Whim." I respect the belief to follow one's heart, but I am not convinced that if we all were to do so, we would be acting from one purpose.

Other than this miff I have with Emerson believing so wholly in the collectiveness and yet the singularity of the mind, there is a lot of good in this essay -- too much to summarize in a few paltry paragraphs. I really love the way he argues for creativity and work, saying to not be self-conscious or feeble but to simply do what you know you must do with every ounce of power you have and to ignore the voices of derision around you.

One small section of the essay has always stood out to me in particular, and this is Emerson's rant on traveling. According to Emerson, traveling is a waste of time if you are trying to forget something that pains you or change yourself, because no matter where you go, you are still the same self. He says,

The soul is no traveller; the wise man stays at home, and when his necessities, his duties, on any occasional call him from his house, or into foreign lands, he is at home still and shall make men sensible by the expression of his countenance that he goes, the missionary of wisdom and virtue, and visits cities and men like a sovereign and not like an interloper or a valet.

I like to get all mixed up in a new place, to completely submerge myself in the new experience and grow from it, so this idea of entering "like a sovereign," deigning to spend my time there, doesn't appeal to me. Emerson does make up for it a little bit by qualifying,

I have no churlish objection to the circumnavigation of the globe for the purposes of art, of study, and benevolence, so that the man is first domesticated, or does not go abroad with the hope of finding somewhat greater than he knows.

Eh, I feel like often in traveling I have the opportunity to learn something greater than I know -- I think there is something to be said for transplanting oneself and observing life from a different angle. But I am willing to agree to disagree with Mr. Emerson. Although many of his philosophies do not agree with mine, I enjoy reading them and I'm looking forward to reading more of them.

 

 

 

The Sunday Salon: Events coming up

Hello readers! How has your week been? For some reason I have been absolutely exhausted and not especially effective, which is always disappointing but a fact of life I suppose as the year winds down. I got started with my NaNoWriMo project. Unfortunately, I am already extremely behind. However, this week looks as if it might be slightly less stressful, so hopefully I can play catch up a little bit and stay in the running.

I've been blogging since September of 2010, and while I have learned quite a bit about blogging since my baby blogger days, I am still trying to figure out certain aspects of book blogging. I think the biggest struggle for me is structuring my reading vs. going with whatever I want. Yesterday I went to the library with every intention of only picking up the book that had come in for me on hold (Lola and the Boy Next Door! !!!), but instead I came home with four books, and the other three certainly were not on my TBR or any challenge lists for this year. I've come to terms with the fact that I am not going to finish all the challenges I signed up for this year; however, there are a few that I am still hoping to complete. In addition, I add books to my TBR every day -- It is 227 books long on Goodreads, and there are also several books on my shelves that aren't "officially" added to my TBR, but which I am hoping to read as well. Earlier this year I declared that I wouldn't care about challenges, and that I didn't want to add stress to my reading. However, I didn't delete any of my challenges, and as the new challenges for 2012 are popping up, I am urged to join so many of them! I am even planning on hosting a challenge next year (more information about that next Sunday).

I guess my question to all of you (one that is asked frequently in the book blogging world, but one I nevertheless still feel as if I have no satisfying answer to) is, do you prefer to set goals and have lists about your reading, or not? I think the answer for me is that I love making those lists and goals -- I don't think I can help it, with the way my mind is set up. I think the thing I need to get over is forgiving myself for not completing those lists. It is fun to set goals for reading, but they should be flexible. This isn't earning a PhD. This isn't really going to affect anyone but myself, so if it isn't working for me, if it is making me stressed, it needs to be released.

This post is going on much longer than I intended. I actually planned on listing some of the events coming up in the next few weeks that I am excited to join. So, after all of that metaphysical pondering about the nature of such things, here are some events that I am excited about and that you may want to participate in as well (if, of course, you've resolved the extremely important matter of deciding whether or not participating in such things is wise for you).

First of all, I just wanted to remind everyone that the Indie Lit Awards are still accepting nominations for the best books published in 2011. Any reader can nominate this year (unless you were involved with the publication in the book. You know, ulterior motives), and if you are reading this blog I can only assume that you are in fact a reader, so get over there and nominate. Pleaseandthankyou.

Secondly, Tea with Transcendentalists is coming up. Reading Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, "Self Reliance," was a pivotal moment in my education and I am excited (and a bit intimidated) to read more of his essays. Please join us in learning more about Emerson and his colleagues from November 15-December 15.

Thirdly, Yvann is hosting an event called Advent with Austen. I had never thought of this before, but Jane Austen really does seem like a cozy, Christmas-y friend for Advent. I am hoping to reread Persuasion and possibly Sense and Sensiblity as well. Part of me feels silly for doing so much rereading when there are so many other books to read out there, clamoring for my attention on the TBR list, but honestly, if we don't have time to revisit the books we love, what is the point of adding more to the list?

Finally, Sarah is hosting a second incarnation of the Back to the Classics Challenge. This is one of the challenges I am kinda stressed about finishing this year... but I love it. I want to do it again. And I really want to finish it this time, so I can feel justified in pushing myself to do it again next year. The categories this year are:

1. 19th century classic
2. 20th century classic
3. Reread a classic of your choice (Oh joy. I can do this one!)
4. Classic play
5. Classic murder/horror/crime novel
6. Classic romance
7. A classic that has been translated from another language into your language
8. A classic award-winner
9. A classic set in a country you will probably never visit.

I don't have too many ideas at this point, but I will figure it out as I go.

And while we're going over this, I'll probably participate in the Chunkster challenge again and the one I am hosting. I should probably keep it to that, but I doubt if I will be able to. There are two other challenges as well that look lovely to me -- a Shakespeare reading challenge and a medieval literature challenge -- but I am trying to suck it up, put them on my TBR and release the pressure.

Are you still here? You are amazing for putting up with my ramblings for that long. Go enjoy your Sunday!

PS: Daylight Savings. Of course you put up with me that long. You have an entire extra hour of life today.