Scan barcode
abbycel3's review
3.0
Read this for free on my books app bc I wanted to get more into older poets and I enjoyed this. At times some of the wording was over my head and difficult to understand, but other times some of the passages really resonated with me. The basic moral of the story is that the only place you’ll ever find true peace is from yourself, don’t try to imitate anyone else, material assets mean nothing as long as you stand firm in your own self and realize you are uniquely powerful. That’s what I got from it, good messages
cryo_guy's review against another edition
3.0
“Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.” (This is the last line and boy is it a great closer.)
I don't remember reading much of Emerson, but I must have in high school at some point. Or it could be that I was forced to read parts of Walden or Civil Disobedience instead. At any rate, I found this slim volume, featuring woodcuts by Stanley Clough (google him, he did some neat depression era environmental ones funded by the WPA), at my library's used book store. I would have bought it just for the woodcuts, but there was something alluring about 19th century America. I've been reading some early Frost and besides that I've got Walden and Whitman on my long queue. And it's such a short book, I thought I would give it a quick read.
Alrighty so what do I think? Well in one way it's great. Transcendentalism is sometimes cited as America's first intellectual movement. Self-Reliance is an excellent entry into transcendentalism without going too far (or, perhaps regrettably, getting to the meat of things). Transcendentalism itself is not my favorite philosophy, but I find it compelling for being inspired by idealism. I do so love the fervent commitment to ideas. The fundamental principle of divine providence has the opposite effect on me; although, I'll say that I wasn't overly put off by its appearance in Self-Reliance. In another way, it's very much a simple pamphlet meant to grab peoples' attention. it only scratches the surface of a much more complicated philosophy (not to mention applying it to the context of one's life). Some of it is very obviously vague and rhetorical in function. But I think that's appropriate considering what this book is. I could criticize it for being simple, but that would be to ignore the length or apparent purpose of the book.
So what are the worthwhile things? Trust in yourself, take guidance from what serves your own will and not just society's, principles are more important than material gains. There's a generally well-developed sense of self-reliance (heh) that I would think is beneficial to people whether they have never encountered the idea, they exist to serve the norms and standards of society, or they struggle satisfying what they think is good for themselves and what they think society deems they should do. There's a Socratic element here when Emerson says something like:
“He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.”
The unexamined life is not worth living. Yes, please, let's encourage people to be self-critical particularly when it comes to whatever "good" or "sacred" means.
Or even:
“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.”
Clearly transcendentalist in pointing to one's constitution, but that there is a certain degree of relativism when it comes to "good" and "bad" I might argue is Socratic.
And then let's culminate this connection with:
“…but truth is handsomer than the affectation of love. Your goodness must have some edge to it, – else it is none.”
Truly. I love the use of the word edge here for its connotation. The edge means that it must stop; a line must be drawn. Edge also implies a sharpness to me, a sharpness set against others. Emerson's exhortation to truth may mean conflict with others not so committed. How often does Socrates encourage us to the truth?
I think there are a lot of good lines like these thrown around. There are just as many bland words of rhetoric about believing in your intuition. Don't get me wrong, I don't think intuition is useless. It is useful in the way Emerson is talking, but it can also be a platitude for a more serious and complicated socio-cultural problem. Transcendentalism was born out of an opposition to rationalism and now we of the 21st century get to wrestle with both.
Other quotes worth mentioning:
“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.”
This one is in the first paragraph. Encapsulating of what follows.
“I would write on the lintels of the doorpost, Whim. I hope it is somewhat better than whim at last, but we cannot spend the day in explanation. Expect me not to show cause why I seek or why I exclude company.”
I like Emerson's prose. It has a lyrical/poetic quality to it, like the use of edge I commented on. Oh and then the last sentence here I love. Put that one on my tombstone.
“Another sort of false prayers are our regrets. Discontent is the want of self-reliance: it is infirmity of will. Regret calamities if you can thereby help the sufferer; if not, attend your own work and already the evil begins to be repaired. Our sympathy is just as base.”
Ah regret. I love to dwell on what regret means and what we regret in our lives. I personally don't indulge in it all that much, but feelings aren't always a matter of deciding what to indulge in. I love this one for the last sentence as well--and that's probably worth commenting on too, that Emerson's rhetoric is effective. I loathe when people proselytize to me about sympathy. Maybe that means I'm a sociopath! Or maybe you're all a bunch of altruistic ninnies!
I don't remember reading much of Emerson, but I must have in high school at some point. Or it could be that I was forced to read parts of Walden or Civil Disobedience instead. At any rate, I found this slim volume, featuring woodcuts by Stanley Clough (google him, he did some neat depression era environmental ones funded by the WPA), at my library's used book store. I would have bought it just for the woodcuts, but there was something alluring about 19th century America. I've been reading some early Frost and besides that I've got Walden and Whitman on my long queue. And it's such a short book, I thought I would give it a quick read.
Alrighty so what do I think? Well in one way it's great. Transcendentalism is sometimes cited as America's first intellectual movement. Self-Reliance is an excellent entry into transcendentalism without going too far (or, perhaps regrettably, getting to the meat of things). Transcendentalism itself is not my favorite philosophy, but I find it compelling for being inspired by idealism. I do so love the fervent commitment to ideas. The fundamental principle of divine providence has the opposite effect on me; although, I'll say that I wasn't overly put off by its appearance in Self-Reliance. In another way, it's very much a simple pamphlet meant to grab peoples' attention. it only scratches the surface of a much more complicated philosophy (not to mention applying it to the context of one's life). Some of it is very obviously vague and rhetorical in function. But I think that's appropriate considering what this book is. I could criticize it for being simple, but that would be to ignore the length or apparent purpose of the book.
So what are the worthwhile things? Trust in yourself, take guidance from what serves your own will and not just society's, principles are more important than material gains. There's a generally well-developed sense of self-reliance (heh) that I would think is beneficial to people whether they have never encountered the idea, they exist to serve the norms and standards of society, or they struggle satisfying what they think is good for themselves and what they think society deems they should do. There's a Socratic element here when Emerson says something like:
“He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.”
The unexamined life is not worth living. Yes, please, let's encourage people to be self-critical particularly when it comes to whatever "good" or "sacred" means.
Or even:
“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.”
Clearly transcendentalist in pointing to one's constitution, but that there is a certain degree of relativism when it comes to "good" and "bad" I might argue is Socratic.
And then let's culminate this connection with:
“…but truth is handsomer than the affectation of love. Your goodness must have some edge to it, – else it is none.”
Truly. I love the use of the word edge here for its connotation. The edge means that it must stop; a line must be drawn. Edge also implies a sharpness to me, a sharpness set against others. Emerson's exhortation to truth may mean conflict with others not so committed. How often does Socrates encourage us to the truth?
I think there are a lot of good lines like these thrown around. There are just as many bland words of rhetoric about believing in your intuition. Don't get me wrong, I don't think intuition is useless. It is useful in the way Emerson is talking, but it can also be a platitude for a more serious and complicated socio-cultural problem. Transcendentalism was born out of an opposition to rationalism and now we of the 21st century get to wrestle with both.
Other quotes worth mentioning:
“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.”
This one is in the first paragraph. Encapsulating of what follows.
“I would write on the lintels of the doorpost, Whim. I hope it is somewhat better than whim at last, but we cannot spend the day in explanation. Expect me not to show cause why I seek or why I exclude company.”
I like Emerson's prose. It has a lyrical/poetic quality to it, like the use of edge I commented on. Oh and then the last sentence here I love. Put that one on my tombstone.
“Another sort of false prayers are our regrets. Discontent is the want of self-reliance: it is infirmity of will. Regret calamities if you can thereby help the sufferer; if not, attend your own work and already the evil begins to be repaired. Our sympathy is just as base.”
Ah regret. I love to dwell on what regret means and what we regret in our lives. I personally don't indulge in it all that much, but feelings aren't always a matter of deciding what to indulge in. I love this one for the last sentence as well--and that's probably worth commenting on too, that Emerson's rhetoric is effective. I loathe when people proselytize to me about sympathy. Maybe that means I'm a sociopath! Or maybe you're all a bunch of altruistic ninnies!
rebeccazh's review
Very positive and very focused on self-empowerment. Trust yourself and good things will happen.
fmrc123's review
5.0
'A political victory, a rise of rents, the recovery of your sick, or the return of your absent friend, or some other quite external event, raises your spirits, and you think good days are preparing for you. Do not believe it. It can never be so. Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles'.
Love this.
Love this.
studydniowka's review
informative
reflective
slow-paced
1.0
Boring af
Content Warnings
Moderate: Racism
topbob's review
3.0
I'm not great with philosophy. Nature is more engaging with its imagery. An important piece to understand American culture (and for that, it is well deserving of 5 stars) but I am rating texts on literary merit, and in regards to that it is quite bare.
arirene's review
2.0
To be honest I read this at 8 am for a school assignment. I don't really deeply understand half of the complex intellectual knowledge that he bestowed upon this essay.
But for the parts I did understand, it hit.
Or at the very least, it was a more enjoyable and mystifying read then half the other assigned books I've had to read.
But for the parts I did understand, it hit.
Or at the very least, it was a more enjoyable and mystifying read then half the other assigned books I've had to read.