Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:06:45 — 116.1MB)
On Ralph Waldo Emerson's "The American Scholar" lecture (1837) and his essays "Self-Reliance" and "Circles" (1841).
How should we live? Emerson thinks that conformity, which includes most of what passes for ethics, jobs, and scholarship, makes us less than truly human. Be true to yourself! But since we're all ever-changing, that's a moving target, right? But Emerson thinks that when you get really truly honest about what you think and feel, it turns out that you've tapped into something universal, something beyond just you, something eternal.
But don't expect Emerson to really explain that part; the upshot of these essays is primarily social, not religious, much less metaphysical. Trust yourself, stop bullshitting, stop living according to others' expectations! Mark, Wes, and Dylan argue over whether this is tired cliche or acutely perceptive, and whether Emerson's poetic language provides helps or distracts. Read more about the topic and get the essays.
End song: "Idiot, Listen" by Mark Lint, recorded mostly in 1997, newly completed and mixed.
Please support the podcast by becoming a PEL Citizen or making a donation.
Also, please support our sponsor, Squarespace for your web-site creation needs. Use the checkout code "Examined" for a free trial and 10% off.
The picture is by Corey Mohler for PEL.
Wonderful!!! I haven’t listened yet but I have been excruciatingly impatient for a new show! My Saturday at work is now bearable, Thank you guys!!
Great episode …your continual reference to Nietzsche reminded me that Nietzsche’s heavily annotated copy of Emerson’s Essays survives and was translated in a recent article by Mason Golden in the Journal of Nietzsche Studies..the annotations give amazing insight into what Nietzsche took from Emerson and how he read…
Thank you guys for another great show and for spending some time with the transcendentalists. Mark asks at the end about an expert on Brahmanism–I am not. Alan Watts may not be either but wrote and spoke about it a lot. Not a traditional philosopher at all–although a decent scholar insofar as did a lot of good work to make Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and Zen concepts accessible to a Western audience. Anyhow, he gave lectures at Unitarian churches so maybe that is a link to Emmerson.
Hearing this elisode and contrasting it with the Ayn Rand and New Atheist episodes it makes me think maybe it is OK to be a less than super exact an analytical thinker so long as you are coming from a nice person place and not a super mean, arrogant and pretentious place. Watts comes from nice person place.
I never cared for Emerson or transcendentalism, but this was a great episode. The rules were tossed out the window, however. Name drops galore. Niezche, Rand, Schopenhauer, Brin, Sartre. ..I lost count.
They break that rule every episode. I’m not even sure why they still have it, but on the other hand, they have done past episodes on everyone they mentioned (I think) so I don’t mind too much.
Thank you for the episode; I thought it was quite informative (even though Mark obviously disliked the reading). I also second the request for a few Hindu philosophy episodes. I would really love you guys to actually ‘branch out’ and just take a look at more different regional and cultural philosophical pursuits. So many rich avenues: pakistani, indian, chinese, african, hasidic, islamic, etc. Obviously most westerners (myself included) still feel more ‘at home’ with our greco-roman-euro trinity of philosophy, but still branching out has its benefits, if not by expanding your insights then at the very least to re-affirming your attachment to your current greco-roman-western tradition.
Perhaps do it this way: 2-3 episodes of ‘traditional’ western philosophy and then 1 episode of something ‘exotic’ or ‘whacked out’ like a random work from an african philosopher or hasidic mystic/philosopher. I really enjoyed the Buddhist and Daoist episodes as well, those are of course very fertile philosophical grounds.
Thanks again for the podcast gents, it is appreciated.
Great episode. I read then listened to The American Scholar and the flow was better listening.
I didn’t make the preacher connection but as soon as that was mentioned I could totally see his style as a U.U. sermon.
It was interesting also because I had recently listened to:
The Making of Indebted Man
http://dietsoap.podomatic.com/
http://dietsoap.podomatic.com/entry/2014-09-07T22_37_25-07_00
and
http://sweetpeaspodcast.com/2011/03/15/episode-88-daniel-vitalis-rewilds-himself-part-1-of-2/
much respect
http://www.emersoncentral.com/divaddr.htm
I haven’t yet listend to your Buddhism episodes – but since the question for more eastern philosophy arose and I just remembered Hua-Yen Buddhism: It seems to me that the sheer variety of schools and the amount of texts makes it often hard to approach buddhism. I found the book “Hua-Yen Buddhism – The Jewel Net of Indra by Francis H. Cook” (less 200 pages) a rather precise and consistent reflection on a school that often is considered one of the philosophically most advanced in buddhism. Might be a good basis for a two hour podcast.
Great podcast on Emerson though – I haven’t heard of him before and I’m looking forward to the next show on Thoreau.
Since Emerson is adamant about self-reliance and trusting your own instinct, I wonder what he would have to say about choosing your next movie or book based off an expert review or even online consumer review. If I only look at books that have 5 star ratings am I limiting myself to only read what the masses have read? If so, should I avoid ever looking at a review or a rating system and only read descriptions of books and movies. In this way I can be sure that I am fully making the decision. There’s the risk that some of these movies and books will suck, but maybe that’s a small price for a little self-reliance. What are your thoughts?
I loved Wes’s rant about morality not being masochism. It is given me a different perspective on morality as the ‘pro-social’. Thanks Wes!
This episode and the Schopenhauer one that was on a similar topic are two of my favorites!
I hope this thought makes sense…
At around the 55-60 minute mark you guys talk about how students will struggle with footnotes and the constant reference to some other source bc heaven forbid you pretend like you are the first person who ever thought a thing or that you could possibly be thinking something original. It seems sort of ridiculous at some point to trace influence in any sort of accurate way. It would be like trying to ascribe all of my personal idosyncracies to characteristics of my mother and grandmother etc.
HOWEVER – what about people like Sam Harris? Perhaps the academic world has a sort of fear of being taken in by these slick rhetoricians. I am a little belwildered by his ability to take in people who I respect and think of as rational and intelligent people. Professor Blume at Yale even included him in a mooc that I took concerning morality. But the more I listen to him the more I see that he takes information in an almost snake oil salesman way and presents it in a very compelling and neatly wrapped product. Often times it is difficult (for me) to pull out the assumptions and find the argument and it seems many never do. In that way, I think massive footnotes and citations backing up every statement may be the opposite and too far but nevertheless it seems better than the kind of baseless ideas that are perpetuated by people like Sam Harris who are really selling themselves more than anything else. I could be really wrong about him, but he reads as sort of intellectually dishonest to me. I’ll take a timid and unconfident grad student who has a heavy helping of imposter syndrome any day of the week!