Duality in Degrees
Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau
The Stoic
(or rather the Transcendental)
An American Philosophy
From what I’ve learned, Transcendentalism gives me just as much solace as Stoicism does. I am spellbound by the ideals of self, self-making, self-mastery, self-reliance. The Transcendentalist spoke as if the self was sacrosant, raising up the hidden divinity from the ordinary. In no way did this cheapen the spiritual, rather, it was an elevation of the simple into the sublime. If anything, it was the idea of living with intent, in accordance with natural law, and an inherent goodness.
At least that is my understanding of it. Any of my philosophy studies are highlighter lines that do very little to alter my biases; that plays a large factor. It could be, too, that the answers that come from the good life questions don’t change too much. It is a conundrum that has been figured out enough times, and in enough complex permutations that we forget it, relearn it, over and over again, ad nauseam. For me and my notes in the margins of my books the most important tenets don’t change.
Transcendentalism sprouted from the evangelical and the spiritual. The idea was that the divine was in everything natural and pure. The idea was that certain virtues, like justice and freedom transcended our own logical concerns for them. Abolition was an imperative because it was against the natural law of ideal freedom, even if it was legally permissible at the time (19th Century).
Consider the Transcendentalist pioneers of a wholly American philosophy. Their lessons were incredibly pivotal in the most formative time of American history.
For now, let's ignore the roots of British Romanticism and the German, Immanuel Kant, or the Bhagavad Gita. Those are discussions for another time, and maybe another writer.
For our purposes we will focus or self-reliance and idealistic goal setting.
This Land is Your Land
Walden was in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s backyard. Henry David Thoreau, at times, was a nanny for Emerson. They had an interesting relationship.
Emerson and Thoreau were perfect scribe cuts of each other. They were nearly equal to opposite sides of Transcendental. Like puzzle pieces, they were grooved in to match, but attempt to alter the congruence and layers of paper tear. You realize that jigsaw cuts work when they are matched back up, just so.
Emerson was the prolific writer and speaker, who maybe sometimes didn't live up to his words. Thoreau wasn’t much different at Walden. Thoreau wasn’t the speaker, but he attempted to live what he believed and wrote about.
Between these two men there is a questioned begged: is Emerson the ideal because he wrote and spoke in aid to help others and spread freeing lessons? Is Thoreau the better ideal because he showed that living the words was possible?
For me, they are equal on different levels, and for ourselves, we would do well to emulate with duality in degrees. You must clearly understand who you are or attempt to discover that. You must actively attempt to live out your beliefs. You must be incredibly idealistic that you could equally live out both sides at the same time.
In as simple as I can put it, that is self-reliance: the ability to govern your heart and mind towards the notion that the love and happiness that you seek is within your reach, and under your responsibility.
A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the luster of the firmament of bards and sages. -Emerson, Self Reliance
Your goals should reflect your idealism. You should speak out, write, and discuss what those ideals are. Try your best to be good. You won’t quite reach the ideal, but why should that stop you?
You should still be living for something bigger than yourself and your own self-absorbed life.
Sack the Sage
It is completely American to ruthlessly idealistic. In fact, the only time anything that has happened in American history came from those who dared greatly for an idealistic world they wanted to see. I gravitate towards anything requires my autonomy to live well.
I will always prefer an ethos of effort, a pathos of sincerity, and a logos echoing long forgotten tenets. You don’t have to be a Stoic, or Transcendentalist, or part of any other card-carrying union, or email list to live a good life.
However, you do need a philosophy, even if it isn’t so clearly delineated. Have something that points you in some direction. Don’t try to be the best in any sect, tribe, what have you. That position is saved for the sages. Sack the sages, send them on their way. I am doubtful of how many there ever was.
Any way, are you going to be that monk?
The only one that might have been close was Diogenes. You are welcome to join him.
They say to never meet your heroes, because they can only betray the image you have of them in your head. I wouldn’t invite any figure from history over for dinner. That is unless they have killer beef Wellington recipe up their sleeve. Emerson and Thoreau might not have perfect. No one can really live up to the mystique of their legend can they?
I say your should still reach far and try to win in the long run because that is what I am doing. I may never write all the novels in my brain, all the poetry at my fingertips, sell every book I want to, but I will goddamn try. I also will be perfectly fine if it never happens.
We should all try to be so Stoic, Romantic, Transcendental. My studies have only been surface level, but will continue to grow. I have listened to Walden on audiobook. I know who Emerson is. There was also that Higginson guy doing war stuff and sending letters to Emily Dickinson.