Being an Emersonian friend was weird. Some aspects of his take on friendship were easy to comply with, but there was also some stuff that I didn't want to take part in. For example, it was easy to be thankful for my friends (esp. on Thanksgiving) because I can easily say that they do indeed, "enlarge the meaning of all my thoughts," (203). But I wasn't really comfortable with "guarding him as thy counterpart," (211). Although it's important to maintain friendships, breathing room is important too. If I were to smother my friends because I didn't want them to leave me, that would be just weird and would probably freak them out. In result, that person wouldn't be my friend. So to guard someone as if they are a part of you seems a little extreme. Rather than the quantity of time spent together, it should be the quality of time spend together that's more important.
Emerson's paradox of friendship is basically that you need to know yourself first before you are someone's good friend (208). Knowing this, you will know your own personal limits with people, your goals for potential friendships, how far you are willing to go in a friendship, etc. Taking it a step even further, all of this knowledge will allow you to maintain your friendships with ease. Right now I'm pretty stable in terms of friends, and that's because I've learned a lot about myself along the way. I didn't wake up one morning just knowing everything about myself, but through past experiences (bad and good) I've been able to get a good grasp of my friendship attributes, I guess (sorry I don't really know how to put that part into words well).
"Vulgarity, ignorance, misapprehension are old acquaintances. Now, when he comes, he may get the order, the dress and the dinner - but the throbbing of the heart and the communications of the soul, no more." This quote really hit me because it was easy to relate to (202). Emerson is talking about when someone blows a first impression, but this applies to a situation in my life almost exactly. Someone can be a really good friend for the most part or for a really long time, but once they bring constant ignorance and vulgarity into your interactions there's a point where it's kind of unbearable. People change, and one day it will just hit you that you are not friends with the person you thought you were before. There's no more of being with that person without wanting to cut your head off. There's no more good talks or recognition of each other's emotions. There's no more fun in the friendship, just the obligation that you feel like you "have" to be friends. With this realization comes effort to try and fix things, but the fact that that person is ignorant causes you to fail sending any honest message to that person whatsoever. There's really no point in trying to tell them something again that they won't even try to open their ears to. Because they just won't listen and they will just shut you down. Because of this you lose "the throbbing of the heart and the communications of the soul," and it sucks, but after a certain point there is nothing you can do anymore. So Emerson's analysis of what vulgarity and ignorance can do to someone goes beyond just their first impression, but in true friendships as well.
4 comments:
Yo. I'm really into that last paragraph.
I totally agree with the ignorance thing. It's really hard to communicate with someone when they are so closed off to other ideas. I know that, according to self reliance, you should depend on yourself and only yourself when you are making up your mind, but that's such B.S. and it's impossible to live that way. You still have to take other people's opinions into account and you still have to try and see where they are coming from instead of just closing your ears, like you said.
What I wonder is how long until there are really no more connections of the "heart" and "soul", like Emerson alluded to. I feel like strong friendships take a lot more than one happening of vulgarity and/or ignorance and/or misapprehension to completely shatter it. But I wonder how many more than one it would take. Once=shame on you, twice=shame on me? Something like that? I'm really curious about that because I've had pretty serious fights with some of my best friends and it ended up making us stronger really, because we knew that we could endure anything. So if some... lack of maturity or whatever, you know, has the ability to completely ruin a strong friendship... would Emerson just say that the aforementioned friendship was never strong to begin with? Interesting speculation :-)
Good writing. Fantabulous.
ps. niceeee rebuttalllll
hahahaha
camilla says:
i agree with everything that jess and elaina have previously stated. there is no way that a friendship can exist and survive when there is one and only one point of view allowed. and blame must always be accepted and taken without the fear of being wrong. being wrong is a way to grow and thrive.
xoxo camilla
Wow. that xoxo rivaled Gossip Girl's.
Post a Comment