No, Mr. Emerson, they are not. But it does lead to an interesting question, don't you think? If not yours, then whose? Your guess is as good as mine, but seeing as how you're dead, I think I'll take a stab at it. The poor belong to themselves, just as you and I belong to ourselves. People don't really own other people anymore, and I'm sure that would make you happy, seeing as you were an abolitionist. So, it's true, it's not your obligation or your responsibility to help those people. You are quite free to leave those people to their depressing lives and go on your merry way. No worries Ralph, someone else has it covered. Your "wicked dollar" can get spent on something else so that it becomes a good dollar. However, just to play the devil's advocate, I'll ask another question: what if no one else is taking care of them? Does that bother you? I'm guessing not, having read that paragraph, but I kind of think it should. If you have "wicked dollars" to spare, why not help someone else out? I know, I know, you regret every dollar you've ever given becuase most of them end in not really mattering, or at least not doing what you wanted, but I'm thinking that you can't really go wrong by simply reaching down a hand to pull up your neighbors. To you, it may feel like a waste, but to that person, it could be all the difference. Don't want to give them money? Fine, maybe you could at least be nice to them or offer them something else. A blanket? Some stale bread? I'm sure you've got something you don't need. Maybe I took your statemtent the wrong way, and if so, I apologize profusely. But if it is, in fact, how I understood it to be, I'd like to close with one remark: while they may not be your poor, they are people and you should do what you can to help them.
Humbly Yours,
Elise
P.S. While I may share different views from you on some subjects, I did enjoy reading your essay and thought you made some wise points and obsevations. Just try to be a little more understanding, okay?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was on the same boat (at least I think) in that I find transendentalism quite awesome, but Emerson to be a mediocre writer. He came across to me as angsty, though learning some background made it a bit more understandable. He went out of his way to be profound in my opinion, and that quote you pointed out was a prime example. I think he may have been figurative there, but I must agree that that quote very much turned me off. Luckily, I found Thoreau to be much more tolerable as a writer.
ReplyDeleteDear Elise,
ReplyDeleteYou're such a good person, you know? Or, at least, a better person than Emerson when it comes to the poor. Go you.
Like you said, perhaps Mr. Emerson should take his own advice and DO something. I mean, dear lord, man, if Emerson doesn't want to waste his "wicked dollar" because he thinks it'll do no good, then he should get off his rump and act! Share some blankets and food, build a free clinic, volunteer--something! Then he won't have to delve into such emo-rhetoric.
I really, really liked his essay, but some parts got to me too, Elise. I enjoyed your post as well, especially how it was in letter format. ;) Creative.
My semi-coherent ranting end here,
Stefanie