Philosophy
I have decided to make some changes in my life. I am returning to my old system of serious study. Philosophy is the word of the day, so I traveled to my local library and picked up some books. Over the weekend I returned to my Thoreau collection... Very thought provoking. I continued with that today, and began a re-study of Emerson's 'Self-Reliance'.
In reading the two I can find many similarities, yet I have always felt that Emerson has no heart. Self-reliance is a great idea, one that I strongly agree with, but even I think he takes it too far. At least in some respects.
He talks about philanthropy, and how he 'grudges the dollar, the dime, the cent I give to such men as who do not belong to me and I do not belong to.' They are not HIS poor he says. I will have to think about this more, but I really don't think that I agree with him.
Or maybe he is talking about supporting an institution which only gives money. I can see that. The mere giving of money is not very helpful in my oppinion. Lives are changed by example and by direct interaction. I am reluctant to conclude that he is simply hording his money, or that he is so heartless as to not care about the situation of others.
His ideas about self-trust and expressing one's own veiws I agree with. I am not sure that it is necessary to be a 'non-conformist' as he says. I don't believe in conformity, I believe that all people should have their own ideas and do what suits themselves. This is what I feel he is saying...
Perhaps I just dislike the term 'non-conformist.' It has such a negative conotation now, for people who do things simply to non-conform. I know people like this and it comes off as fake. They are not being themselves, and not doing something simply for the reason that others are doing it is just as bad to me as a policy of conformity. That is what I believe Emerson is trying to say also.
Unfortunatly, as it is late, I will have to finish this tomorrow. It is an interesting topic to consider because I have put so much thought into it on my own. I look forward to the challenge of deciphering more of his work tomorrow. :)
In reading the two I can find many similarities, yet I have always felt that Emerson has no heart. Self-reliance is a great idea, one that I strongly agree with, but even I think he takes it too far. At least in some respects.
He talks about philanthropy, and how he 'grudges the dollar, the dime, the cent I give to such men as who do not belong to me and I do not belong to.' They are not HIS poor he says. I will have to think about this more, but I really don't think that I agree with him.
Or maybe he is talking about supporting an institution which only gives money. I can see that. The mere giving of money is not very helpful in my oppinion. Lives are changed by example and by direct interaction. I am reluctant to conclude that he is simply hording his money, or that he is so heartless as to not care about the situation of others.
His ideas about self-trust and expressing one's own veiws I agree with. I am not sure that it is necessary to be a 'non-conformist' as he says. I don't believe in conformity, I believe that all people should have their own ideas and do what suits themselves. This is what I feel he is saying...
Perhaps I just dislike the term 'non-conformist.' It has such a negative conotation now, for people who do things simply to non-conform. I know people like this and it comes off as fake. They are not being themselves, and not doing something simply for the reason that others are doing it is just as bad to me as a policy of conformity. That is what I believe Emerson is trying to say also.
Unfortunatly, as it is late, I will have to finish this tomorrow. It is an interesting topic to consider because I have put so much thought into it on my own. I look forward to the challenge of deciphering more of his work tomorrow. :)