Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Emerson's Self-Reliance (Great Essays Series) (Patreon)

Published:
2021-11-07 12:14:02
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Many of you have expressed interest in diving into the great essay writers.

So I would like to share a deep-dive lecture breaking apart Ralph Waldo Emerson's 1841 essay on Self-Reliance.

This audio had an overwhelmingly positive responses, and many of you are drawing Emerson into your inspiring comments here.

We'll be reading Emerson's essay on 'History' in light of Hugo's Les Misérables, with these writers on seemingly opposite ends of the idealism scale. One might wish to ponder to what degree Hugo and Emerson would agree with each other.

Emerson is one of the fathers of American Literature, up there with Whitman, Melville, and Emily Dickinson.

He is working in the tradition conceived by Michel de Montaigne, a crowning jewel of French Literature and father of the personal essay as we know it today. We will approach Montaigne, pulling apart some of his most delightful essays ('Of Cannibals', 'Of Experience'), but for now, or when the time is right, and in any way that suits you, enjoy Emerson.

Where to read "Self-Reliance":

I'm personally working from a beautifully battered second-hand version of the collected essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson from Library of America. Perfect for those readers wishing to plunge into his oeuvre.

His essays are also freely available and downloadable from online literary havens like Gutenberg.

Let us know what your personal response to Emerson's Self-Reliance has been.

Happy essaying, everybody!

Files

Previews only

Ep 43 - Self-Reliance (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

If you're enjoying the Hardcore Literature Show, there are two ways you can show your support and ensure it continues: 1. Please leave a quick review on iTunes. 2. Join in the fun over at the Hardcore Literature Book Club: patreon.com/hardcoreliterature Thank you so much. Happy listening and reading!

Comments

Arnt Woldmo

I think the link is broken!

River
>>72657400

I've been mining the back catalogue and therefore read Emerson's Self-Reliance. I truly enjoyed your post, thank you! I too, found myself comparing my own life to the "positive" and "negatives" of Emerson's essay. It was by chance that I had also recently re-read Siddhartha after being inspired by the reading of Walt Whitman's, Song of Myself. I am mostly in agreement with Emerson, Siddharhta, and Whitman though with a little balance thrown in; reading the greats, seeing some art, and traveling a bit can be fun and a little balance of fun should not subtract from one's true, intuitive sense. I guess I mostly enjoyed the idea of Siddhartha radiating peace and joy within his smile alone, unique to himself yet part of the whole.

Sarah Bell

Hello :) New here. What a joy your lecture on Emersons essay! Thank you was indeed inspired.

Pablo
>>71450881

👋🏻 Hi Sarah 😀 A warm welcome to the HL Book Club to you!

hardcoreliterature
>>71450881

Hello and warm welcomes to the club, Sarah :) It's amazing to have you here, and I'm thrilled that you enjoyed the lecture!

Sergey Taranenko

First time I tune in on the podcast and I must say that it's just as good as the literature lectures! I’ve originally heard about Vico’s “New Science” and his historic/literary theory from the preface of Erich Auerbach’s “Mimesis”. The idea of the recurring cycle of ages and understanding literature by immersing yourself in the time when it was written captured my attention and I decided to read the book for myself. Now I am wondering if there is any chance for a lecture series or maybe an episode of the podcast on Vico’s work? I would definitely be interested. In regard to Emerson’s essay, I caught myself noticing my own thoughts “coming back to [me] with a certain alienated majesty” more than a couple of times as I was reading; some of them were indeed rejected and I was “forced to take with shame [my] own opinion from another,” in other cases I simply found myself agreeing. I personally tend to lean more towards collectivism, not necessarily because it is a natural inclination, but rather due to substantial evidence that it is most suitable for human nature as well as most efficient. Similarly to you, I find my individualistic nature in conflict with my collectivist beliefs, and I also arrived at the conclusion that contradictory things can be true at once and a certain hypocrisy is inescapable if one is intellectually honest. I also agree that a lot of surface level individualism in this essay has very strong Buddhist and collectivist undercurrents in its philosophical foundation. Anyway, here are some thoughts that I had while reading and listening: “What pretty oracles nature yields us on this text, in the face and behavior of children, babes, and even brutes!” I often find myself reflecting on how the unfiltered and unrestrained mind of the child is one of the most potent creative forces in the universe. Even though I am still very young, and my childhood is not that far away timewise, I look back at it as if it was in another universe. In my childhood fantasies and memories, I regularly discover raw nuggets of inspiration which my rational adult mind can mold into practical and often artistic endeavors. Although my skill of bringing these creative impulses to life improves with time, I am still nostalgic of the days when creativity flowed in the air so freely and came to my mind so naturally. Nowadays I am so unrestrained perhaps only in dream. While I always thought about it purely in regards to creativity, I can relate to Emerson’s argument that perhaps one of the best examples of original uninfluenced action can always be found back in our childhood. “but your miscellaneous popular charities; the education at college of fools; the building of meeting-houses to the vain end to which many now stand; alms to sots; and the thousand-fold Relief Societies; —though I confess with shame I sometimes succumb and give the dollar, it is a wicked dollar which by and by I shall have the manhood to withhold.” There’s a timeless tendency in people, to self-actualize by escaping their origins and in modernity it seems to only accelerate. I tend to agree with Emerson—although it doesn’t sound nice to the ear—but one should prioritize saving his own family and friends before attempting to save a stranger, often one an ocean apart. More broadly, I think that this Western, or rather Christian, idea of world-saving charity carries a certain dangerous connotation. After all, life is primarily a struggle and great things, great achievements, comfort, and security, all come through a form of struggle, more often than not an individual one. This notion that we can solve all issues in someone’s life by throwing money at them, has little basis in reality. We should help the poor and miserable—as long as our own house is in order—but should the help be financial? “If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and spontaneous word? Do I not know that, with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institutions, he will do no such thing? Do I not know that he is pledged to himself not to look but at one side,—the permitted side, not as a man, but as a parish minister? I cannot express how often I’ve had this exact same experience, I guess it’s not an exclusive feature of our current society. I engage with people on any given popular issue and hear them repeat the same talking points for which I can often cite sources. I wonder if the way our scientific and educational institutions have developed is to blame for this? The need to create a consensus, or several competing consensuses, and pull ‘verified’ and agreed upon ideas from them instead of using original thought. Or is it just human nature? “The inquiry leads us to that source, at once the essence of genius, of virtue, and of life, which we call Spontaneity or Instinct.” In predominantly rational societies I feel that instinct is undeservedly scorned; many great insights can be discovered with our gut. As biology advances, I wonder what we will find out about its origins. Aside from the evolutionary foundation—which developed for thousands of years before civilization—I’ve recently read that our instinctual reactions can be influenced by the genetic memories from our proximate and distant ancestors. Thus, phobias could be a result of negative experiences passed down from those who came before us. I am curious about how far this goes. Could certain lineages accumulate valuable genetic memories over the years giving them an inherent advantage at birth? “We are like children who repeat by rote the sentences of grandames and tutors, and, as they grow older, of the men and talents and characters they chance to see,—painfully recollecting the exact words they spoke; afterwards, when they come into the point of view which those had who uttered those saying, they understand them, and are willing to let the words go; for, at any time, they can use words as good when occasion comes.” Experience is certainly superior to secondhand knowledge, but as a society or civilization we simply cannot all experience everything. Therefore, each of us must rely on past knowledge to some extent in order to advance his or her understanding of the world. Science, history, and literature all help us gain knowledge from experiences that are not our own. Emerson, like Siddhartha, seems to despise teachings, and he may be right when it comes to those of us that are larger than life, but it is not universally applicable. “It is for want of self-culture that the superstition of Traveling, whose idols are Italy, England, Egypt, retains its fascination for all educated Americans. [109]They who made England, Italy, or Greece venerable in the imagination did so by sticking fast where they were, like an axis of the earth.” As an avid traveler since I was a child, I noticed that this modern obsession with tourism is founded on a certain emptiness within our own homes. It originated in Western Europe and the US before globalization made it a feature of almost all cultures. In a book titled “The Tourist” Dean MacCannell hypothesizes that travel is increasingly becoming a replacement for religion (maybe it is our way of delaying the advent of the theocratic age?). While the author doesn’t think that this is necessarily a negative thing, I tend to agree with Emerson. We seem to go an extra mile to standardize and destroy our own culture just to go to Egypt and marvel at the pyramids. Those who seek an authentic cultural experience abroad might benefit from trying to create one at home. “And why need we copy the Doric or the Gothic model? Beauty, convenience, grandeur of thought, and quaint expression are as near to us as to any, and if the American artist will study with hope and love the precise thing to be done by him considering the climate, the soil, the length of the day, the wants of the people, the habit and form of the government, he will create a house in which all these will find themselves fitted, and taste and sentiment will be satisfied also.” This reminds me of when I visited Dubai and felt a sense of profound sadness and disappointment. These people found gold beneath their feet, centuries of culture and adaptation to their beautiful environment were behind their shoulder, and what did they chose to do? Litter the landscape with soulless concrete boxes just to imitate America… In my opinion it is one of the epitomes of capitalistic absurdity. To conclude, by and large I found myself agreeing with Emerson on most topics. However, I am very doubtful that each and every one of us can exert such all-encompassing individualism and autonomy. Now more than ever, when people are routinely convinced and convince themselves that they are special, I realize that a substantial portion of the population is anything but. Be it for reasons of intelligence, genetics, background, surroundings, a lot of men and women aren’t capable of being anything other than average; they shouldn’t be scorned or derided for it though, if we are to have leaders then we must also have followers.