Emerson's "Self-Reliance"
So, Emerson definitely got his point across. Don’t worry about what others think, but rather, pay attention to what you think, feel, etc
I disagree with Emerson’s statement, “The nonchalance of boys who are sure of a dinner … is the healthy attitude of human nature … independent, irresponsible, looking out from his corner on such people and facts as pass by, he tries and sentences them on their merits … as good, bad, interesting, silly, eloquent, troublesome.”
I don’t believe people should be commended for making rash first impressions; yes, most of us do judge others at first glance, but that’s a flaw in human nature, not a “healthy attitude.” Oftentimes first impressions are flawed or mistaken, and correcting those flawed first impressions can take a lot more time and work than would simply waiting to pass judgments.
Interesting point: The Lethe is a river in ancient Roman mythology that flowed through the Underworld and washed away the memories of those people who were going to be reincarnated. (Emerson writes of men who care what people think and “court” others, and says “There is no Lethe for this. Ah, that he could pass again into his neutrality!”)
Everyone can relate to Emerson’s example of a person conforming to society by putting on a fake smile when he/she feels uncomfortable. I definitely felt a twinge of recognition (and guilt?) when I read that; smiling “fakely” is both one of the hardest and one of the easiest things to do. Props to Emerson for noting that.
Emerson seemed to touch on the nature vs. nurture argument when he wrote, “I suppose no man can violate his nature.” I don’t necessarily agree with that. Although I definitely believe that people have certain innate characteristics, in this quote, Emerson speaks in terms that are too finite to allow the wiggle room that environment provides. I'm a firm believer in the combined influence of nature and nurture on an individual's character.
I don't agree with Emerson's argument that people should only seek the wisdom contained within themselves. Firstly, I don’t necessarily believe that people have all that much inner wisdom. It’s a fairly rare occasion that a genius, who never received any education, is discovered in a developing (third-world = un-PC?) country. Not everyone is born to be as brilliant as Albert Einstein; most people are lucky if they are able to study and understand Einstein's theories. Basically, looking back to the past and learning from the wisdom accumulated by one’s predecessors enables progress and greater accuracy of thought. Obviously you shouldn't be wholly dependent on the past for your ideas, but… it’s healthy to have a certain degree of respect for the past.
How did you interpret the quote, “Men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by overt actions, and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment.”? I like the quote, but I don't fully understand it.
-Danielle
P.S. Sorry this is so long... Bad habit.
I disagree with Emerson’s statement, “The nonchalance of boys who are sure of a dinner … is the healthy attitude of human nature … independent, irresponsible, looking out from his corner on such people and facts as pass by, he tries and sentences them on their merits … as good, bad, interesting, silly, eloquent, troublesome.”
I don’t believe people should be commended for making rash first impressions; yes, most of us do judge others at first glance, but that’s a flaw in human nature, not a “healthy attitude.” Oftentimes first impressions are flawed or mistaken, and correcting those flawed first impressions can take a lot more time and work than would simply waiting to pass judgments.
Interesting point: The Lethe is a river in ancient Roman mythology that flowed through the Underworld and washed away the memories of those people who were going to be reincarnated. (Emerson writes of men who care what people think and “court” others, and says “There is no Lethe for this. Ah, that he could pass again into his neutrality!”)
Everyone can relate to Emerson’s example of a person conforming to society by putting on a fake smile when he/she feels uncomfortable. I definitely felt a twinge of recognition (and guilt?) when I read that; smiling “fakely” is both one of the hardest and one of the easiest things to do. Props to Emerson for noting that.
Emerson seemed to touch on the nature vs. nurture argument when he wrote, “I suppose no man can violate his nature.” I don’t necessarily agree with that. Although I definitely believe that people have certain innate characteristics, in this quote, Emerson speaks in terms that are too finite to allow the wiggle room that environment provides. I'm a firm believer in the combined influence of nature and nurture on an individual's character.
I don't agree with Emerson's argument that people should only seek the wisdom contained within themselves. Firstly, I don’t necessarily believe that people have all that much inner wisdom. It’s a fairly rare occasion that a genius, who never received any education, is discovered in a developing (third-world = un-PC?) country. Not everyone is born to be as brilliant as Albert Einstein; most people are lucky if they are able to study and understand Einstein's theories. Basically, looking back to the past and learning from the wisdom accumulated by one’s predecessors enables progress and greater accuracy of thought. Obviously you shouldn't be wholly dependent on the past for your ideas, but… it’s healthy to have a certain degree of respect for the past.
How did you interpret the quote, “Men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by overt actions, and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment.”? I like the quote, but I don't fully understand it.
-Danielle
P.S. Sorry this is so long... Bad habit.
posted by L Lazarow | 9:57 PM
7 Comments:
“Men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by overt actions, and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment.”
It basically means (I think) that man only portrays his characteristics consciously and is fully aware when he is conveying his personality.
Changing gears...
We all know that the transcendentalist movement was an utter failure. If we know that, why do we keep trying to revive it? Why do we always see those "non-conformists" that always seem to conform? (I'm looking at you emo scene)
As we discussed today in class, we are innately social creatures. We are supposedly related to all the herd animals. i.e. We will always fall into line someday, someway.
It really bothers me to see people spouting off about non-conformity, shouting "down with the system!" at the top of their lungs. (not that it matters, just throwing it out there)
Seeing that the transcendental/non-conformist movements always fail, isn't it inherently bad to follow such movements?
I actually think that the quote, "men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by overt actions, and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment," means that people are unaware that their true personality is coming out every moment. It's the idea that the overt actions (such as rescuing a lost puppy) don't only reflect a person's personality (in this example, kindness) but that personality can be shown in the small and almost unnoticeable things (such as a kind smile).
I agree with Albert that the transcendentalist/non-comformist movements do always fail. I don't think that it is necessarily bad if people follow them, becuase we have to realize that the realist movements fail too. For every realist movement, a non-conformist movement follows, and then another realist movement,etc. This may seem extreme, but I think that basically all movements fail becuase they always end and are followed by another movement. There's nothing wrong with following the current movement, but it would be foolish to assume that the curren movement will always be around (becuase it won't). Probably the reason why these movements fail is becuase people either eventually seek change or they simply cannot prevent it, or perhaps both!
--Caroline
Hi to all of those who were at AP tests today during class. In class we talked about how the transcendentalist movements are primarily through youth.
The question posed was does society look down upon youth, or do they look upon them in a positive light?
I believe that children expect a lot of attention. I think the scale is tipped a little toward the positive side of neutrality. There is a lot of time and effort spent on children. I don't think that all of the money being poured into the education system would be there if children were looked upon negativly. Also, there is a lot of time and effort made by adults to make "enriching activities" such as camps and special classes and pleasure activities.
We also touched upon why the movements are started by youth and why don't they work.
On the way youth as a general topic is seen, i'll pretty much repeat my opinion from class today, which most of you all missed...
It has been my personal experience that adults, teachers in this case, do not take our generation seriously. I have had so many situations in classes for years that show the opinions of us in the eyes of our "elders": we are ignorant, not trustworthy, juvenille, and idle.
Now I know that not all adults have this perspective, but most of which I have come across couldn't agree with it more.
As Mr Lazarow was saying, it is not the purpose of school and teaching to force us to remember the fermentation cycle for example, but to simply learn how to learn. How to question what is told to us in order to find the "truth" in the world. I believe our generation is greatly underappreciated, and although there are a few negative samples of teenagers and youth, the general population has the capacity to comprehend much greater things than the average adult believes we can. I'm beginning to rant but I've had major issues with teachers degrading my thoughts and opinions this year so I figured i'd get it out on the good old blog...let me know what yall think.
love,
the hippie.
This comment has been removed by the author.
jillie, I <3 you and you're gonna be 2008's American Idol haha
Oh and the AP Bio test = Death for those of you who were fortunate enough to not have to take it
The transcendentalist ideals Emerson believes in deal a lot with human interaction and human behavior. I always relate everything to discussions from my humanities class, so here I go again:
"Men do what is called a good action." -Emerson
Let's refer to a concept as simple as sharing. We are taught at a young age that we shouldn't be selfish but must instead offer what we have to others. When it comes to actually sharing, more often than not, people don't share because it makes them feel like a better person. Instead, people share because it would be considered a "good action."
The same concept applies to giving charity. When a little girl appears at one's front door asking you to buy an obnoxious looking bracelet ( that has buttons and gems pasted on it with glue oozing from the sides) from the collection in her basket so the money could help her buy a puppy (most random example, i know), you don't actually want the bracelet and she may be charging you WAY too much, but you buy it anyway because it's a "good action."
What does this mean? Well, the truth is not exposed. No one actually acts on their innermost thoughts or opinions. This may be thought of as conformity to some *cough*Emerson*cough* but in fact, it's just being compassionate or humane. "Do unto others as you would like done unto you."
I, too, think that the youth culture as a whole is underestimated. The older generations are always looking back and claiming that we've gotten much stupider, we're not as smart as they were, etc. I think we've all heard "Kids these days...they get worse as time goes on."
I think currently as a society, we place a lot of value on experience and accomplishment. Statistics show that fewer people are getting married or having children. One reason is that they are more keen on getting ahead in their profession than settling down or whatever.
We may pay a lot of attention to children, but it's mostly to make sure that they are on the "right road" to success. We place such an emphasis on report cards, statistics on which school has the highest percentage of 5's on the AP tests, etc. We sometimes become too concerned with ensuring success that sometimes, society fails to attempt a preservation of appreciation of the innocence associated with childhood.
Yeah... that was only a continuation of our class discussion. Not really anything directly related to transcendentalism.
Post a Comment
<< Home