Essay On Emersons Self Reliance And Kants Autonomy

Throughout history, philosophers have often clashed heads in regards to the definition and understanding of the human self. Many have formulated a myriad of theories that attempt to decipher the true meaning and motivations of the human self. Two of the moist prolific philosophers of the exploration of this aspect were Immanuel Kant and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson was an American philosopher born and raised in Massachusetts. On the other hand, Kant lived in an earlier era and was German by birth. It was Kant’s original transcendental deductions that later acted as an influence to the New England Transcendentalism in Massachusetts, of which Emerson was a key stakeholder. The exploration of the works of Immanuel Kant and Ralph Waldo Emerson reveals a lot of parallelism in their philosophical theories. The most conspicuous deduction from their works is that there is a need for everyone to free himself from the chains of self-doubt and immaturity to achieve self-reliance and enlightenment. The will or desire to free oneself from the chains of self-doubt and immaturity is key to developing what is referred to as “self-trust”. Self-consciousness does not just refer to a unique awareness possessed by every individual. Rather, complete authority over one’s mind is a unique responsibility that an individual takes. For one to be receptive to the natural intuitive process, a person must have trust in him. Kant and Emerson warn that consistency, conformity in an individual’s acting, and thinking permits the society to dictate the being of that individual. This ultimately undermines the concept of an individuals’ being responsible for his own mind. The ultimate result of this is the creation of barriers that significantly hinder an individual from attaining enlightenment and the individual is forced to develop ways of overcoming these barriers. In spite of this striking similarity between Kant’s autonomy and Emerson’s self- reliance, there is however; a difference between the two.
Although Emerson considers himself to be a supporter of Kant’s concepts, there is one thing that completely distinguishes him from his German peer. This difference lies in the two philosopher’s definition of the human self. In his “autonomy” theory, Kant considers the true and innermost self to be pure reason. This reason according to Kant is completely cleansed of every instinctual, physical and emotional element. In this sense, Kant may be seen as standing squarely on the tradition of famous philosophers such as Descartes and Plato, as well as other famous idealist. Emerson in his “self-reliance” theory does not share Kant’s view of reason as the center of one’s self. He is of the view that center of oneself is, intuition, spontaneity and instinct. He trusts the non-traditional human being faculties to be way much more than just any ratiocination or detached analysis form. Although this view may be considered to be partly inspired by Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, Emerson however, seems to have gone a step further in terms of giving more power to creative intuitions (some of which may be completely irrational) and their role in the achievement of self-reliance.
In regards to Emerson’s definition of the human self, he states; what is the aboriginal self, on which a universal reliance may be grounded? What is the nature and power of that science-baffling star, without parallax, without calculable elements, which shoots a ray of beauty even into trivial and impure actions; if the least mark of independence appear? The inquiry leads us to that source, at once the essence of genius, of virtue, and of life, which we call spontaneity or instinct. We denote this primary wisdom as intuition, while all later teachings are tuitions. In that deep force, the last fact behind which analysis cannot go, all things find their common origin (Emerson). Emerson holds the belief that an individual essentially loses a key part of himself when he is not self-sufficient enough to be able to trust his own opinion. He contends “A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from withinIn every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majestyThey teach us to abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility” (Emerson). He particularly stresses on the fact that is not the “rejected thoughts” substance that matters but is rather their greatness or “majesty” quality. According to him, their power is a reflection of the freedom of expression and thought therefore; marking this work as genius. In simple terms, the freedom that this exemplifies is the foundation of its authority. This authority is something that confronts human beings on a regular basis especially in regards to one’s thoughts. For instance, when one is confronted by what another individual can refer to as “genius work”, it is a common trend, for human beings to doubt and not trust themselves about their own ideas. According to Emerson, enlightenment is the opposite of this and involves accepting oneself and not being afraid to speak about one’s thoughts and opinions.
Emerson’s epistemology as observed is deeply rooted in his enormous belief, in the power held by intuition. Intuition can be defined as the pure knowing. It essentially knows with self-verification. Unlike Kant’s assertions, it does not require reason. Everybody in his or her lives has a moment of intuition where one just feels strongly positive or negative about something. Some take intuition seriously while others disregard it altogether. In intuition, one develops strong feelings about something and becomes filled with certainty and consequently, one feels that there is no need for questioning.
It is at this point that Emerson brings the question of society into the equation I his attempt to define the self. He claims that the primary concern of the society is the creation of status wealth, which goes against the individual’s concern, which is self-fulfillment and self-expression. In this sense, it is almost as if the society is an opponent of self-reliance. He then makes a comparison of the society with a joint stock company where he states “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most requests is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.
He progressively draws a portrait of the society’s tendency to deprive its members of some of the freedoms that are key to achieving self-reliance. He is particularly critical of the society’s habit of crushing the concept of intuition by demanding reasons and asking questions, therefore, discouraging a person from pursuing intuition. According to him, the society, acts a governing bully that defines and regulates what is considered to be acceptable thinking and what is unacceptable. He claims that, as a result, individualism acts a threat to the society mainly because the driving force of individualism is intuition, something that the society clearly does not advocate for. A person’s self is achieved as a result of intuition, spontaneity and instinct and clearly, the society does not support these virtues. In a society setting; therefore, Emerson contends that it is quite hard to achieve enlightenment
Kant applies the idea of the intrinsically productive and active nature of the human mind to analyses ethics. In reference to human self, Kant argues that valid ethical standards and rules cannot emanate from outside a person; rather, they originate from one’s active reason. He claims that a person who is truly moral is not capable of passively accepting the values and customs of a society, the decrees and rules of an established authority or even the deeply felt impulses of one’s spontaneous reactions and non-rational intuitions. He claims that the passive acceptance of such directives by an individual in spite of the fact that they come from come from outside his own reason is a sign of immaturity and irresponsibility. Kant contends that a truly moral person is the one that determines rationally and individually what is wrong and what is right. In simple terms, a moral person is supposed to be “autonomous”. Kant’s view although significantly similar to Emerson’s view differs in the aspect of intuition and spontaneity. While the latter is a strong advocate of the two virtues, Kant calls for the incorporation of reason into the entire process.
While Emerson strongly views an individual as being significantly powerless because of the society’s relatively enormous power over one’s life, Kant makes it appear as if it is not that hard to break from the bonds of society and achieve “autonomy”. In fact, he contends that it is only when is a minor and totally dependent on the society that he is unable to attain the desired self. One the child matures, however, he or she slowly comes to break free and adopt a self-autonomy in terms of thinking, acting and believing.
In terms of Enlightenment, Kant states, “Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own reason! --that is the motto of enlightenment” (Kant).