Conversation with Emerson

Read Time:6 Minute, 49 Second

I recently read a moving article about an encounter between two gentlemen who met in a public library and made an impression on each other that would last a lifetime. It was graceful and inspirational and left its mark on my soul. This is not about that story.

However, I also visited the public library a year or so ago and I too met an interesting fellow there. Meeting someone in a library and taking that memory with you forever, is an interesting concept; and that it also happened to me, resurrected memories I had long ago suppressed.

I wish to tell you of my conversation with a man named Emerson:

My new friend was not corporeal, or to be more precise, he was no longer corporeal. But he was as real as any one of us; and I knew from the beginning that he had lots of relevant ideas to share. Wisdom poured out of him as if from a faucet – a faucet that dispensed wisdom and one that was in the open position.

I was recovering from a serious intellectual injury at the time. I will now tell a tale to you, just as I told it to Emerson:

I had ruminated over terrorists (and why they do the things they do) for quite some time. The first thing I did was to point out to myself that perceiving them as evil, and addressing the problems they cause as one would address “evil acts,” is inappropriate. Why? Because to be evil, one must intentionally commit sin, and terrorists do not usually do this. Their motives are rarely the pursuit of evil.

Terrorists commit what we consider unconscionable acts of violence when they rationalize them to be “the right answer,” usually to a very serious problem without an apparent solution. The issue could be any of the following:

1. They have never felt like part of a family or had a real sense of belonging and the terrorist organization provides one.

2. The acts are sanctioned by or endorsed by a Higher Power.

3. The acts are justified as the solution of last resort in a desperate situation.

4. The acts are ordered by one in a position of authority, thus indemnifying the terrorist from philosophical guilt.

5. None of the above. A different reason other than for the unadulterated love of evil.

I reflected on these possibilities during a time when terrorism was in the fore of everyone’s minds. I and a friend were watching a newscast about it, and I almost volunteered my opinion on the matter, but at the last minute I decided it would be best to avoid getting into a long debate with him on such a complex issue. It was late, so I abstained from any commentary at all. I was afraid if I were to offer up my opinion on such a controversial topic, I would not have time to support it and would seem foolish.

He said: “They probably think they are in a no-win scenario. Any of us would be tempted to take the only option that could possibly work if we had no other way out.”

Of course, I was devastated. I wanted share my full analysis with him, but I didn’t feel at liberty. I did not want to commit plagiarism.

Emerson explained this phenomenon to me:

In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty. Great works of art have no more affecting lesson for us than this. They teach us to abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility then most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else tomorrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another.

“To take with shame, our own opinion from another.” Well said, Emerson. That is exactly what I initially had to do. My newscast companion later amended his previous statement with the idea that maybe punishment was not merited. This offended my utilitarian sensibilities, and odd as it may sound, relieved some of my agony. I was immediately compelled to debate his view. In total, his idea about the matter and mine were not far off. But emotionally, I wanted to attack his position, not because it was different from mine, but because it wasn’t, and I could not express my original idea to him without appearing obsequious or disingenuous. In offering up his opinion, he intended no evil; his action, nonetheless, was very hard to forgive.

Emerson told me not to worry about it and explained that he does not even think that way: “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think,” he said.

I see. So what if my newscast companion erroneously concludes that he inspired my thoughts?

The problem is this, Emerson: I DO care what others think. I think you also once said:

“No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution; the only wrong what is against it.”

It is human nature to care what others think. It is also pro-survivalist.

He did not agree. Let me reiterate: He said no law is sacred other than that of one’s own nature. I quoted him on this issue to make my point and he did not agree. He claimed that he stood by his original words, though he would easily have abandoned them if they no longer suited him, and I think the implication was that I had misinterpreted human nature. He further compared my use of his words to reciting the ideas of famous people, memorizing what they thought word for word, that we may express their wisdom readily, relieving us of the responsibility of intellectual deliberation. He described mental self-reliance as art, and thus as “divine,” and as the thing that makes us unique, the thing that makes each of us a unit, as opposed to an un-intellectual mass that thinks by rote. He said detecting the divine spark, inspiration (our uninhibited view), should be the goal of every individual, and that we should proudly express whatever we find inside us, regardless of what anyone will think.

“Imitation is suicide,” Emerson said.

It took me a while to appreciate the gravity of this implication. Imitation is suicide. The thing that makes us “a something” as opposed to just being an echo of something else, is the property of “being ourselves.” If we emulate someone we respect, then we are trying to be more of someone we “idolize.” The idol already exists, so to the degree that we succeed, we cease to exist and become just more of the thing he is. Since this imitation is voluntary, it is suicide.

“Very interesting,” I told Emerson. I actually disagreed with some of what he said. It is our human nature to imitate, and to care what others think. No one is above it, not even Emerson; and to imitate greatness is to assume greatness as part of ourselves. You do not have to choose individuality over imitation. You can marry the two attributes into something unique and become a mosaic that is greater than the distinct pieces that create it.

Emerson was very verbose and debating him would have taken a good deal of time. I did not dispute his words any further. I put the book down with a renewed sense that these literary institutions are home to an abundance of fascinating characters. I know Emerson would have had an answer for just about any challenge I laid before him, but it would have required more attention than I was willing to give to the discussion, and besides, I was sure if I pressed the matter, I would have appeared foolish in the eyes of my new friend, and that was an outcome I could not abide.

About Post Author

John Myste

John Myste is a proud agnostic liberal living in Texas with his loving wife, two loving dogs and a cat. He does not actively seek the truth, and has a firm opinion on nothing. He likes interesting discussions and unique perspectives; and he hopes and believes that if he indulges in these, the truth will follow.
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

23 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
13 years ago

I’m so relieved to find some point of disagreement with you. I admire your writing so much that I refuse to offer praise any more, on the grounds that it wouldn’t be good for you.

But … Tony Blair? I’ll excuse you on the grounds of your Americanness. You have not had him as your prime minister, just as I never had George W. Bush as my president. Not that I would allow praise of the latter to escape my lips, even if, or especially if, Ralph Waldo Emerson commanded me thus.

But to pursue my point: when has quick-on-your-feet slipperiness ever been a virtue? Of course it would be the highest of virtues if the person possessing it was your advocate in court, getting you off a serious charge, or recovering a big sum of money for you (from which he would deduct a high percentage). But in everyday business, it’s the kind of vice found in the world’s most evil leaders. Not that I ever use the word evil, or even believe it exists. But if Satan had to manifest in human form (if he existed at all, you understand) he would adopt the fake grin, the fake tan and the quick-on-your-feet slipperiness of the said prime minister, on which topic i have wasted more words already than it deserves.

Reply to  Vincent
13 years ago

Now that you put it that way, it is a little like including Machiavelli, which I would have done, but Paul did a better job. Machiavelli examined whether a leader should be loved or feared in order to survive. This was already determined centuries before, by Paul: the answer is both! Thus, Machiavelli did not make my list.

However, you make a good point that slipperiness is not a virtue. It is, however, an ability I admire. You almost convinced me. Almost, but Mr. Blaire still retains his slippery seat. Once again, he wiggled his way through the thicket unscathed. God bless him.

13 years ago

I’m so confused… But it’s temporary flutter!

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

I would like to blame Emerson, but I think I am the culprit. I would call this piece creative non-fiction. I got myself into a situation where I did not want to share my opinion with a friend, but I worried that he would disagree and a debate would follow, and I would be forced to either let it drop or I would run out of time debating it. Either way, he would think, “what an idiot.”

He then shared his opinion on the matter with me, which was basically my opinion; so I then wanted to share my opinion, but I did not want him to think I was “just saying” that this was my idea all along when it was not.

I was worrying too much what other people think and not enough about what I think. This reminded me of my favorite classic essay, written by Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose handsome image you see above. In that essay he argued several things, but mainly that your opinion defines you and you should never worry what someone else with think about it. He argued that “great” men were ones who could say what they thought freely and the lesser than great men were the ones who quoted the smartest people they knew about, so they would not get caught being wrong.

Two of his quotes that I like were “Imitation is suicide” and “… to be forced to take with shame one’s own opinion from another.”

I completely agreed with everything I read (a long time ago when I read Self-Reliance, which is very short, and a delightful essay. It should be taught in all schools, even dental schools).

However, though I agreed with him, I thought his position on the matter was not completely realistic. He abandons completely the philosophy that you should ever care what others think. In the real world those who care what others think, those who don’t pass gas at the dinner table, for example, survive a little better.

Furthermore, it is human nature to care how you are perceived by others. You need to balance caring what others think with having the ability to be yourself and say what you believe. So, I thought I should have learned the lessons Emerson teaches in Self-Reliance, but I also think he was too dogmatic in his opinion.

I found myself wishing I could discuss it with him. I then said, “Well, he probably addressed all of my concerns” I am sure, if I read enough of what he says, I would find it.

I debated Emerson in my mind, by reading his works and finding how what he wrote about points my argument makes. The story is philosophical, not literal.

Hope that clears things up.

13 years ago

Impressive, thought provoking and inspirational. TY. Nice wordcrafting!

Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

Gwen,

I completely agree with everything you said. I could not have put it better myself.

Thanks.

oso
Reply to  Gwendolyn H. Barry
13 years ago

Gwen,
I’d heard that “John Myste” is the pen name of a group of bloggers from Texas Christian University,some English composition or homemaking class.

Reply to  oso
13 years ago

Oso, no offense to any Christians, yourself included, but that is utter defamation of Character. Hmmm, or is it libel, or slander? I think its utter libel, but that just sounds funny.

oso
Reply to  John Myste
13 years ago

Might have been Abilene Agnostic U. or Austin Atheist U. and I just read the news release wrong!

lazersedge
13 years ago

Very well done sir. I do agree with you on the fact that our behavior over the last 60+ years has created the terrorists and caused many people around the world to dislike us.

I also agree that imitation married with individuality may well create greatness. The trick here, I believe, is whether it truly becomes a unique force of a new individual or lends more to the imitation. The freedom to think on an individual level here is paramount. To compare and and contrast the views of others with those of self and to arrive at a conclusive thought is the ideal creation of the human mind.

Reply to  lazersedge
13 years ago

You sound like an instructor at a university!

Anyway, if I could take the best of Emerson, his individualistic tendencies and self-expression, of the Apostle Paul, his political prowess, of Barach Obama, his intellectual serenity, of FDR, his stick-to-itiveness and vision, of Tony Blair, his quick-on-his-feet slipperiness, of Sun Tzu his strategic ability, and Stephen Hawking, his scientific and mathematical thinking ability of and bring them all in as a part of me, I may still want to keep the individual that is me also. I am not sure, though, as keeping it would certainly dummy me up a bit.

And yes, I said Tony Blair. Get over it. Emerson convinced me that I should include him. Take any disputes you have with his inclusion to your local library.

lazersedge
Reply to  John Myste
13 years ago

My apologies John M. It is hard to break 36 years of habits friend. I did not mean to sound that way.

Reply to  lazersedge
13 years ago

It was an observation, not a criticism. It is quite delightful.

oso
13 years ago

Great post, great premise! I did one with Snoop Dogg coaching the Raiders, for some odd reason yours seems somewhat deeper!

No shame in expressing the same opinion when it’s the same as yours (expressed) would have been.

I like “Imitation is suicide”.

Reply to  oso
13 years ago

It puts one in a bad position. When you have an unconventional opinion about a terrorist while everyone is still reeling from attempted terrorist attacks and then someone you are with summarizes your opinion. It ticked me off! There was no way I could have gone into my soapbox on this issue without him believing he had just inspired it and that I was now plagiarizing it.

And I don’t care what Emerson says, it is human nature to care what others think. No offense to Emerson. He is one of my heroes. I quote him often. I just felt like debating him in the library that day, because I just had an experience that he would have thought was impossible unless one is worrying too much about what other people think. I kind of agree with him in theory, but I think I disagree in principle that one “should not care what others think.” If you accept that caring what others think is part of human nature and part of how we survive, then Emerson should also care. He said right or wrong was only that which followed his own nature, so he has to care what others think.

Moreover, I am certain that Emerson cared deeply what others thought. He wanted to be perceived as intelligent, non-conformist and individualistic. Above all, he wanted people to think he was too enlightened to care what others think. (This would place him above the nature of a human).

I am getting worked up again. I may have to go back to the library and finish this (assuming he is still there).

oso
Reply to  John Myste
13 years ago

Similar experiences watching Jeopardy with my daughters:

“No,I really knew that. I was gonna say that!”

“Dad”.

“No really, I knew that”.

“Dad I’m so sure”.

Reply to  oso
13 years ago

One more thing. Though I do think that caring what others think is human nature, and despite what Emerson would have me believe, he is not above it, I also agree that he was right in that I should act as if I did not care what others think, even though I do. That is the lesson he taught me, which may not be exact one he intended, but it is a good one. Speak your mind and do not worry how others will perceive you.

He also said: “God will not have His work made manifest by cowards,” which I think is an exceeding wise thought, despite the fact that he invoked the name of Almighty to make it.

Bee
Reply to  John Myste
13 years ago

I think maybe that depends on what the others think, compared to what you think.

Great post, John 🙂

13 years ago

Remarkable. You have conversations with the nicest people. I guess imitation is fine if you don’t care about originality and recognizing the quality of your own thoughts.

Admin
13 years ago

I agree with Teeluck. Eloquent and insightful, although I once read that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Thanks John.

Reply to  Professor Mike
13 years ago

Mike, I wanted to tell Emerson that imitation can produce greatness. I think thought: “Imitation is suicide,” if very profound. However, Imitation is one main method we use to become greater.

You don’t understand how he is. He was not going to argue his case without having me look up a bunch of stuff with each sentence. Debating him is very frustrating.

13 years ago

Bravo!! Such an eloquent and insightful post. The Bad news Dear Sir, is You, whether willingly or not, have now replaced Emerson in my world…and it is a pleasure and an honor to meet you 🙂 I guess we all do have suicidal tendencies of varying degrees.
I also must agree with your thoughts on Terrorists, they do not just fall out of trees but are indeed created by us, as/if we are the ones considering them in this light.

Reply to  Teeluck
13 years ago

Bless, you Tee.

Previous post Brand New Diet Advice-Bring on the Carbs
brazilian female president dilma rousseff Next post Ex-con becomes president of Brazil
23
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x