To
this day, “Self-Reliance” likely remains the most shocking
of Emerson’s many essays. Some people find it a supremely
dangerous one, and argue that its precepts, taken literally, would justify
anything and anyone, including Hitler and Stalin. Others say no,
that an Emersonian life is actually both demanding and profoundly moral.
Where do you stand and why?
You
have probably heard at least one or two sentences ( “Whoso would
be a man, must be a nonconformist,” “A foolish consistency
is the hobgoblin of little minds,” “Insist on yourself; never
imitate”) from “Self-Reliance” before now.
Certainly Emerson has a remarkable gift for aphorisms. What makes these sentences stick in the mind so readily?
In
“Experience,” Emerson addresses the fundamental metaphysical
question, which goes back as far as the ancient Greeks (Plato, Aristotle,
and the Sophists): how do we know what we know? Since all
experience is subjective, how can we be sure that anything we experience
is or derives from an objective reality? And if we cannot be sure
of anything (or anything much), what should we do? What is Emerson’s
position in regard to these issues?
Emerson wrote “Self-Reliance” in 1841; he wrote “Experience” in 1844. Yet one can hardly imagine a more profound change of outlook and tone than we see resulting from the passage of those three years. Indeed, the subject of “Experience” is largely the way personal experience shapes — and limits — the way we perceive the world. Do the insights and uncertainty of “Experience” invalidate the bold vision Emerson proclaims in “Self-Reliance,” or can they co-exist? I should note that “Self-Reliance” has always been the more popular, influential, and frequently quoted of the two.