In class yesterday we speculated a bit about who might qualify as truly “self-reliant” in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s sense of that term. Among Emerson’s contemporaries and near-contemporaries, the most obvious candidates would seem to be Joseph Smith (with his highly successful new religion) and Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson (with their dazzling and highly original poetry). Among our own contemporaries and near-contemporaries, the votes in class seemed to be leaning heavily toward L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology.
Carefully consider Emerson’s claim that “to believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men,—that is genius.” Whether in religion, the arts, politics, or wherever — who in our own age seems best to measure up to that standard? Is it really Hubbard? (I mean, c’mon — an intergalactic alien ruler named Xenu?) If so — if the fruits of self-reliance include Scientology — should we reconsider our opinion of Emerson?
Tuesday, October 20
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that according to Emerson, Hubbard would qualify as self-reliant. This to me is the flaw with the Emerson view of the world. Emerson could argue that a lot of bad people were truly self-reliant. They also just happened to be children of the devil (Hitler, Bin Laden, Rupert Murdock, etc.)
In my opinion Melville's view of the nature of humankind is much closer. Melville could clearly explain why Hitler and Bin Laden are clearly wrong in their ideologoies. While Emerson would give these men praise, perhaps even, comparing them to Socrates or Jesus.
Emerson has a lot to teach us about how we can build our self-esteems and our way of thinking. But, Emerson did not realize that humankind is innately deviant and non-realiable (at least most people).
I could never be content with basing my life-philosophy around a way of thinking that finds genius in people like Charles Manson!
L. Ron Hubbard certainly is an interesting case for self-reliance. Emerson lists men of genius who have spearheaded new nations, religions or stood up against old traditions to pave a new path (Luther, Caesar, Wesley, etc.) and I guess Hubbard might slide into this group.
However, I do have a few caveats with Hubbard. The first of which is the believability of what Scientology purports, but I don't know enough about it to make a negative claim. My other problem, though, is with Emerson’s somewhat confusing case for "self-reliance". He claims that "an institution is the lengthened shadow of one man," one "self-reliant" man. What about the millions of people that follow him? "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist," is also contained in his essay, but don't the followers of these genius men conform? Would these great men in history be remembered at all if it wasn’t for the conforming masses behind them? I guess in a perfectly self-reliant world I'm picturing a chaotic mess of people like L. Ron Hubbard running around professing new religions and following a unique path that is totally inane and fatuous. It doesn’t sound so good. Emerson says “a true man belongs to no other time or place, but is the center of things.” What if the things he is centered around are ridiculous? Emerson may say something like this that I missed, but it seems to me that if you can’t be “self-reliant” you should probably conform to someone who is, and make it a good choice. Men like Caesar and Jesus don’t come around too often.
As far as my choice for a “self-reliant” man, I’m going to go with C.S. Lewis. I do not have a particular Christian bent, but a man that begins as an atheist and slowly accepts a religion on his own terms seems “self-reliant” to me. Therefore, because of the path he traveled, his writing and thought is not unscholarly or lacking in secular and religious wisdom. Emerson does say that “If I know your sect, I know your argument,” but due to Lewis’ background he may disprove this claim. Though his affect may be small compared to the men mentioned above, and maybe that makes him less “self-reliant”, I do believe he has had a significant effect on our modern populace.
Obviously there are strengths and weaknesses to Emerson's argument. I think it is somewhat of a good thing to be self-reliant. One needs to believe in him or her self in order to achieve in what they believe. This can be both a good or bad thing. Obviously, Edison must have believed in himself or else he wouldn't have kept trying, and finally achieved in making the light bulb. Great inventors, philosophers, and spiritual teachers did so much, and affected so many because they believed in themselves; because they were self-reliant. This is what Emerson argues we must do as well. But there are people out there who are self-reliant who indeed seem like the "devil's child." I mean, like Leonard said, Hitler and Bin Laden were and are somewhat self-reliant. They had to truly believe in their cause in order to achieve it.
I guess it is good to be self-reliant if you are a "good" person. I would like to believe that I could be self-reliant and achieve my dreams and not care what others think. Emerson's argument is flawed... just like most arguments out there can be.
L Ron Hubbard could certainly be considered self-reliant. He did what he wanted and believed in what he wanted, and now has become a great leader in the eyes of many. Who knows? Maybe there was an intergalactic alien ruler named Xenu. Not saying I believe that, but whatever.
While trying to think of people in our day in age who are self-reliant, I decided to think of my future career field: Film directing. I think there are many visionary film directors out there who could be considered self-reliant. People who were risky and became successful, who did there own thing. M Night Shamalan, JJ Abrams, Peter Jackson, Spike Jonze, Zack Snyder. I think all of these directors brought something new to film directing, and they are now considered by most to be great directors.
Mazel, what's happened? We miss your posts! Are you on sabbatical? AGAIN?!? Man.
Anyway. Judy and her neighbor made a cat video! I know you're awfully busy with life and stuff, but if you can watch and even vote on the cat video and maybe even tell the cat lovers you know about it, we'd be most thankful. Go to my blog to see the details about the YouTube contest. You have to go to YouTube itself to vote (the voting thumbs don't come up on the blog itself for some reason). I can't believe my mommy helped to make a cat video! Man! -Bunsen of http://bunsensbark.blogspot.com/
If you go by what Emerson says is a self-reliant person, then yes Hubbard is. He obviously truly believes that there is an intergalactic alien ruler named Xenu and believes that it is true.
I do believe that we need to review our opinion of Emerson, but only on this believe. I believe the same as Leonard, that Melville's believe was much closer. Emerson suggests that anyone who has a belief that they feel everyone else believes that they are self-reliant.
Post a Comment