If I interpret him correctly he is saying a man should find out who he is and what he's good at and strive to become his best self. Sounds good to me. However, when I think of men (and women) they seem more concerned with conforming to their peers and following a master or a role model in order to fit into the herd. This is a perfectly rational thing to do since outliers get picked off while there is safety in numbers. Therefore, wouldn't this instinct to conform to the group be natural and in tune with nature?
And if you look at history and the present politicization of racial and sexual identity (i.e., power) it seems that the desire to fit in and develop hierarchy within a group in order to oppose other groups is endemic to human nature. Otherwise, wouldn't the individual become a "random particle" easily demoralized and denigrated?
I wonder if Emerson would critique that in the following way: conforming with your peers is rational if the goal is self-preservation. You could readily counter that and say there are more goods available from conformism than self-preservation. And I think that Emerson would reply that most of those additional goods are illusory or merely conventional. He would, to use Nietzschean language that Emerson almost uses in his comments on "might makes right," say that the individual who takes this path is not atomised, he is a beast of prey. He is the only free man, the only one who is not a slave. And most of the slaves enjoy their slavery because they lack the strength required to judge things on their own and to live by that judgement. Those who fear being atoms aren't ready for the hard path he has laid out.
One could offer a rejoinder and say that Emerson, even by his own admission in the essay, insists that he falls short of the ideal he lays out. If he can't, so much the worse for anyone else, and thus, one should conform.
One might also add that his teaching really is for the few--for the rarest kind of individuals; but he seems to invite everyone to try it. And perhaps those who aren't capable of it but who try it anyway will find themselves even more alienated by society than ever before--hating the need to conform while being incapable of doing otherwise; or just opting out, and playing video games, using drugs, etc so that they don't have to participate.
There is a lot to say and I don't think that I settled the question.
Thanks for your clarification. I honestly don't know much about Emerson or Nietzsche although I have read Birth of Tragedy and like it a lot.
Emerson in your description– in a way – reminds me of the book written in 1845 or so by Henri Murger, Scènes de la vie de Bohème (or translated at Gutenberg.org as Bohemians of the Latin Quarter). Murger, to put it mildly, had a somewhat jaundiced but bitter/funny view, which was then transformed to a more exalted Emersonian style in Puccini's La Boheme, and then later, returned to ironic mode in Aki Kurismaki's film version.
Probably the diff between artsy-fartsy bohemians and Emerson is that they were as materialistic as the petit-bourgeiosie they mocked and shocked. Emerson seems to want to "transcend" the material and satisfy some sort of desire to leave this world? Maybe he would go to Mars with Musk if he were alive today.
Excellent essay! Revisiting transcendentalism is something all Americans ought to do, the few lines given in schools don’t do Emerson or Thoreau justice!
Yes! Out of context he seems very squishy. But I think most Americans would live better lives if they revisited and took seriously "Self-Reliance" every few years.
If I interpret him correctly he is saying a man should find out who he is and what he's good at and strive to become his best self. Sounds good to me. However, when I think of men (and women) they seem more concerned with conforming to their peers and following a master or a role model in order to fit into the herd. This is a perfectly rational thing to do since outliers get picked off while there is safety in numbers. Therefore, wouldn't this instinct to conform to the group be natural and in tune with nature?
And if you look at history and the present politicization of racial and sexual identity (i.e., power) it seems that the desire to fit in and develop hierarchy within a group in order to oppose other groups is endemic to human nature. Otherwise, wouldn't the individual become a "random particle" easily demoralized and denigrated?
I wonder if Emerson would critique that in the following way: conforming with your peers is rational if the goal is self-preservation. You could readily counter that and say there are more goods available from conformism than self-preservation. And I think that Emerson would reply that most of those additional goods are illusory or merely conventional. He would, to use Nietzschean language that Emerson almost uses in his comments on "might makes right," say that the individual who takes this path is not atomised, he is a beast of prey. He is the only free man, the only one who is not a slave. And most of the slaves enjoy their slavery because they lack the strength required to judge things on their own and to live by that judgement. Those who fear being atoms aren't ready for the hard path he has laid out.
One could offer a rejoinder and say that Emerson, even by his own admission in the essay, insists that he falls short of the ideal he lays out. If he can't, so much the worse for anyone else, and thus, one should conform.
One might also add that his teaching really is for the few--for the rarest kind of individuals; but he seems to invite everyone to try it. And perhaps those who aren't capable of it but who try it anyway will find themselves even more alienated by society than ever before--hating the need to conform while being incapable of doing otherwise; or just opting out, and playing video games, using drugs, etc so that they don't have to participate.
There is a lot to say and I don't think that I settled the question.
Thanks for your clarification. I honestly don't know much about Emerson or Nietzsche although I have read Birth of Tragedy and like it a lot.
Emerson in your description– in a way – reminds me of the book written in 1845 or so by Henri Murger, Scènes de la vie de Bohème (or translated at Gutenberg.org as Bohemians of the Latin Quarter). Murger, to put it mildly, had a somewhat jaundiced but bitter/funny view, which was then transformed to a more exalted Emersonian style in Puccini's La Boheme, and then later, returned to ironic mode in Aki Kurismaki's film version.
But, most likely I'm missing something.
Interesting, I had never heard or Murger before.
Probably the diff between artsy-fartsy bohemians and Emerson is that they were as materialistic as the petit-bourgeiosie they mocked and shocked. Emerson seems to want to "transcend" the material and satisfy some sort of desire to leave this world? Maybe he would go to Mars with Musk if he were alive today.
Very good stuff. 👍🏻
Thank you.
Ralph Waldo Emerson—a man for all and none.
Excellent essay! Revisiting transcendentalism is something all Americans ought to do, the few lines given in schools don’t do Emerson or Thoreau justice!
Yes! Out of context he seems very squishy. But I think most Americans would live better lives if they revisited and took seriously "Self-Reliance" every few years.
Absolutely. I’m bumping it up on the reading list now!