Today we reached a point in the conversation when we might have asked, "would Emerson want us to follow his philosophy (if we can call it that)?" What if someone were to refuse or refute his ideas? What might be his reaction? What evidence do you draw on for your thoughts on this question?
Beyond that, how can we reconcile Emerson's emphasis in this essay on self reliance with the idea of a transcendent "spiritual principle" we gain through intuition rather than experience, and with the benign influence of Nature which he emphasizes many times elsewhere? Is one "selfish" by being self-reliant?
I believe that this contrast in your second main question is part of what Emerson is searching for. I think he wants the reader, through introspection and solitude, to ponder this answer to the "harmony" of Nature and a transcendental "spiritual principle". However, I do not believe even Emerson knows or feels it is right to publish the answer. He states in a nonchalant manner, "Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then?"(99).
ReplyDeleteJim, I am a little confused with your second question-- how can an emphasis be resolved?
Also, I think that if someone was to refute his beliefs, Emerson would be stuck in a paradox. If he supports this person's refutation, he is agree to flaws in his philosophy. However, if he disagrees to this person's refutation, he is going against preaching originality, self-reliance, and non-conformity.
I think that Emerson does want people to follow his philosiphy. However, I see this piece being stuck in a bit of a logic loop: If someone were to follow his ideas from this paper, I think he would be caught between supporting them because they are following his directions, and disagreeing with them for just going along with someone else's point of view. For me, that was the least logical part of this paper, because it seems like he is trying to tell us how to think, yet he spends the entire piece telling us not to imitate anyone else's ideas. I don't know if I'm reading into it too much, but I was wondering if anyone could get me out of that loop: Would he prefer that we ignore his ideas as his words suggest, or agree with his as I think the purpose of this paper was?
ReplyDelete-Adam
Thanks for pointing out the language issue, Chase. Taken care of.
ReplyDeleteWhere the paradox is concerned, I think framing the issue that way limits the possibilites to either/or. In fact, I think there are other ways to resolve (this time I mean resolve) the apparent contradiction. What other ways can you imagine Emerson could respond other than by seeming to betray his own position? What might he say to someone who disagrees? Is disagreement itself impossible in his philosophy?
With respect to the second paragraph's initial query:
ReplyDeleteI don't have an absolute answer (as if there was one), but I'm just tossing out another way to view the "Paradox box" that Emerson has thrown at us.
Let's approach it mathematically (I'm not kidding). If we know that three independent elements are related in some way, and we know the values of two of them, we can figure out the third, right? 2x=4 is not such a bad equation to solve. So, this means that we assume all elements but one 'unknown' to hold a known value, and work from there.
Now let's apply this rather obtuse formula to Emerson and his myriad of philosophical possibilities (because they seem contradictory)...
Perhaps he's asking us to throw out all that we know and assume to be true about personal relations and their affect on our own identity--in other words, he's NOT asking us to use a) his "Transcendent being" (the "2") and b) our own ideas about inter-personal relations (the "4") to discover what might be the balance between the Transcendent and Self-Reliance, but RATHER he wants us to assume that BOTH his Transcendent ideas and his opinions on Self-Reliance are true, and that the fact that we (earthen laypeople) cannot reconcile the two is just a function of our ignorance. He wants the Transcendent and the Self-Reliance ideals to be assumed as true ( the "2" and the "4") and from there we are to contemplate the "x" that is the feasible compromise--something that apparently means they are not mutually exclusive.
Let me pose a question (if you could follow any of the above): do you think Emerson himself knows the solution, the balance between the two seemingly-opposing schools of thought? Or does he just want to hide that he is just one of us (earthen laypeople), and that he is only able to say such things because he is a more coherent writer and would like to have his be a household name? Who. Knows.