Being myself is what got me to where I am.
अपने आप होने के नाते मुझे क्या है मैं कहाँ हूँ?
I somewhat fit this triad , agreeing with the first and third prongs but not the second , where I lean libertarian . This ambiguity led me in 2005 to observe that I could never quite figure out whether or not I am a neoconservative - while noting that others long ago had apparently decided the matter for me . “ Journalists use ‘neoconservative ' to describe me , editors include my writings in a neoconservative anthology , critics plumb my views for insight into neoconservative thinking , and event hosts invite me to represent the neoconservative viewpoint . ”
कुछ हद तक तीनों में पहले तथा तीसरे से सहमत हूँ पर दूसरे से नहीं मैं थोड़ा स्वतन्त्र विचार रखता हूँ । इस तरह की अस्पष्टता के कारण 2005 में मैंने महसूस किया कि इस निर्णय पर नहीं पहुँच पा रहा हूँ कि मै क्या आधुनिक परम्परावादियों की श्रेणी में आता हूँ या नहीं इससे पहले निर्णय ले चुके थे कि मैं आधुनिक परम्परावादी हूँ । पत्रकार मुझे आधुनिक परम्परावादी के रूप में प्रस्तुत करते थे । संपादक मेरे लेखों को आधुनिक परम्परावादी के श्रेणी में रखते थे और आलोचक आधुनिक परम्परावादी के विचार मेरे अन्दर ढूँढते थे । यहाँ तक कि किसी भी गोष्ठी में मुझे इसी विचार पर रखने के लिए बुलाया जाता था ।
less alright island ever did you try to play the game when you get to the school damp didn't go over time will be no problem women but a lot of stock picking on you know they're funny make it easy on yourself yet goes when you get to tell him about middle make a twenty-two you make your own record that any of my resume in his neighborhood watched magazine sorry allotment lebanese set a new poll out you know what nunn treasure island has and i spoke with little fella the robo buoy as it's called about putting up a customized else wrapped up her your did as governor of a poem thoughts might suck not getting bigger and snapped on big enough for the pops out the window hike ethnic huh huh i have the paper i stop an interesting at keokuk are still planning on file at one time ten o'clock am established european on you crazy animals as it is that you are slightly enough business to attend mr he was that we lived a life no where the superintendent over senate ever started a thank you one or old your hotel is what just yeah at a nice trip alone we might as well in the city thailand onlookers things we're learning is respect for the law and those who represented i represent the law who speak more severe on the outcome artist just a minute another thing about it we don't carry to use in here we always look forward to his own telling here if you're just send the papers mister johnson i'll be getting that their own packer garden belong with me we meet some of the boys and see what the cooks coupler they want you to assume valsad any update on what your local airport is there something wrong with the an elderly couple and thinking that would get done that before you wouldn't be here nap you don't like me you guys are all looking at me funny like something don't like neither he conferred on a bed record they think i'm gonna make trouble i want to get rid of it edsel and expected quite and i think at trying to poison ali gonna get away with it and whatnot at trying to take over let's have done a lot private life and are you are now predicate arshad and apocalyptic doll outright i'd uh... i'd athletes just like you know i have twenty seven months later howard mcmillan begins in the office of the superintendent of the state reformatory rodents warns there could be a bit on your parole would be released today that's so you've been a problem loans reminding of that group thanks for that i wasn't even trying uh... in the superintendent of the school loans not award what the difference stella jail domain avid you're wearing and suppose you've learned much injured than impact what you think this is the finest training school i could ask for animal where i am now rome i know how wire around the admission of an automobile anytime i want a car and i get the combination of the fate and just how do you know when they were not even a lock smart reducers beside that and i just i like the soccer game so she won't squawk why you're getting apart and just our display the bread and apple the copies when the document you know what i can and do in there and all that he did almost up costner note a few things when i come here but not much about them or if i'm sort of crime with someone the world owes me prolly as i put in this thing can jointly and all them other times i was in jail but i was a kid i'm gonna get a pro-life and want to get me when you were a kid were within your honor dragon and he is the part of working uh... made me laugh ones that i work it's too we can get along without it i know i've been to the states billy best reformer par on finishing school today gradually iso and your decorate your own you andrew immediately in some penitent for of course of post-graduate work mabye warden at the fair a beating him insert hahahahahaha
Onlookers बातें हम सीख रहे हैं कानून के प्रति सम्मान और उन जो प्रतिनिधित्व मैं कानून का प्रतिनिधित्व करते हैं जो अधिक गंभीर बात परिणाम कलाकार बस एक मिनट पर इसके बारे में एक और बात हम यहाँ का उपयोग करने के लिए नहीं ले हम हमेशा अपने के लिए तत्पर हैं यहां बता अगर आप बस भेज रहे हैं कागजात श्रीमान जॉनसन मैं हो रही होगी कि अपने स्वयं के पैकर उद्यान मेरे साथ हैं हम लड़कों में से कुछ को पूरा करने के लिए और क्या देखने के रसोइयों युग्मक वे तुम्हें वलसाड किसी को ग्रहण करने के लिए करना चाहते हैं अद्यतन अपने स्थानीय हवाई अड्डे वहाँ क्या है पर एक बुजुर्ग के साथ कुछ गड़बड़ कुछ और सोच है कि किया जाएगा इससे पहले कि आप झपकी यहाँ नहीं होगा आप मुझे पसंद नहीं है आप लोग सब मुझे देख रहे हैं अजीब जैसा न तो कुछ नहीं पसंद नहीं है वह एक बिस्तर रिकॉर्ड को प्रदत्त उन्हें लगता है कि मैं मुसीबत बनाने वाला हूँ मैं इसे से छुटकारा प्राप्त करना चाहते हैं Edsel और काफी उम्मीद है और मैं कोशिश कर रहा पर लगता है जहर अली दूर इसके साथ मिल वाला और खत्म हो चलो लेने की कोशिश कर रहा whatnot एक बहुत कुछ किया है निजी जीवन और तुम अब कर रहे हैं विधेय अरशद और apocalyptic गुड़िया एकमुश्त मैं उह चाहते हैं ... मैं सिर्फ एथलीटों था जैसे तुम जानते हो मैं बीस सात महीनों के बाद हावर्ड मैकमिलन के कार्यालय में शुरू होता है राज्य सुधारालय के अधीक्षक कृन्तकों चेतावनी दी है वहाँ एक बिट पर हो सकता है अपने पैरोल आज जारी किया जाएगा ताकि आप एक समस्या की याद दिलाने के ऋण किया गया है उस के लिए कि समूह धन्यवाद मैं भी उह नहीं की कोशिश कर रहा था ... में स्कूल नहीं ऋण के अधीक्षक पुरस्कार क्या अंतर स्टेला जेल डोमेन आप avid पहन रहे हैं और लगता है आप सीखा है ज्यादा प्रभाव से घायल क्या आपको लगता है कि मैं इस बेहतरीन प्रशिक्षण स्कूल है के लिए पूछ सकते पशु अब मैं कहाँ हूँ रोम कैसे मैं प्रवेश के आसपास तार पता एक ऑटोमोबाइल कभी भी मैं एक कार चाहते हैं और मैं भाग्य का संयोजन और सिर्फ तुम कैसे जानते हो जब वे थे एक भी ताला नहीं स्मार्ट बगल में है कि reducers और मैं सिर्फ मैं फुटबॉल खेल की तरह वह इतनी पक्षी का कर्कश शब्द आप अलग क्यों नहीं हो रही है और सिर्फ हमारे रोटी प्रदर्शन और सेब प्रतियां जब दस्तावेज़ तुम्हें पता है मैं क्या है और वहाँ में कर सकते हैं और सब किया है कि वह ऊपर लगभग
Emerson said, toward the end of his writing career, "I have taught one doctrine, namely, the infinitude of the private man." That's why we begin our study of American transcendentalism with this essay. His basic philosophical faith (one shared by many Americans) is that the ultimate source of truth is within ourselves. We recognize truth outside ourselves, in nature or in others, and the key word here is "recognize," even if only very dimly. We are often not "in touch" with ourselves or trust ourselves enough to find these truths and so must often depend on others, books, etc. to express it for us, but it is somehow within us. Now, there's no particular empirical evidence for this; Emerson is making a great intuitive leap of faith, and you either believe (because you've experienced it to some degree) or you don't. It is this concept of what some critics call the "imperial self" which lies at the heart of romanticism, both positively and negatively. However, this is not necessarily self-centered, because the truth which lies within is universal, shared and recognized by all (if they only knew it) and generated by Self (God, Over-soul, whatever). All we can really know is within us, but we must assume that other people have the same potential as we do--and assume that they do, in fact, exist (although you really can't prove it!) Presumably, trusting oneself means much more than that; it means trusting that somehow or other we have an innate wisdom which is a projection of the god within, and that every person has that wisdom, although few have much access to it. Those few we often call poets and prophets (but never politicians!) and we cherish the insights into our own truths that we glimpse through them. Theoretically, then, to believe in our selves and our deep capacity to understand and recognize truths is to believe in every self, though we have no access to any other self besides us. Practically it may be another matter, but Emerson is a bit of an idealist and not terribly practical (we can't all be everything!) One characteristic of Emerson's essays is the gaps he leaves the reader to fill (or to flounder in); it is probably their greatest strength (because you may personalize what you read) and greatest weakness (it can be confusing). For example, at the beginning of the essay he speaks of verses he has read which are original, but he does not tell you what those verses are. You have to imagine what "original" might be. His emphasis is not on these particular verses, or even the definition of originality in poetry, but a discussion on originality and recognizing your own ability to be original and not imitative. After all, he can't say what would be original for you, could he? But he wants you to imagine what that might be. This will happen repeatedly through the essay. Try your best to fill those blanks in ways that make sense to you and your experience, and if you can't, ignore them and keep going. One problem you may find with this essay is that you feel that he is hitting you over the head with the same idea over and over, like a big hammer labeled "believe in yourself." I'm sure you wished to cry out, "ok Ralphie, I've got it, I've got it!" He makes sure that you consider the implications of this idea in every way possible. It doesn't matter if there are gaps in what you understand; he'll catch up with you somewhere or other in the essay. A little overkill, perhaps. Why? Whom is he trying to convince? Perhaps himself as well as his reader. But the message seems to be one that we all need, especially today when the ever-present media assaults us with ideas and images of how we should live and what we should believe. Remember that we are reading this 150 years later or so. What seemed like a rather novel idea then has deteriorated into a cliche, embedded in just about every self-help "psychology" book in the local mall bookstore that you can find. It is hard for us to see the original force of this in 1838, when people felt far less secure about themselves, as individuals and as Americans (whatever that was). In many ways, this is as much a cultural/intellectual declaration of independence as it is an exhortation to believe in yourself. Its major power today is probably directed toward the younger reader, struggling with the very powerful forces toward conformity that seem endemic in American high schools. However, it also works in a class like this, where I am, in a sense, forcing you to express your ideas and not giving you such an easy way out as taking notes on what wisdom I might have to impart. Emerson had his own personal reasons for writing this. He was deeply insecure in many ways (aren't we all?), and a rather revolutionary speech about religion that he delivered at the Harvard Divinity School about this time (asserting the doctrine of the God within) caused a tremendous uproar and criticism from people he respected. There would be no job for him at Harvard! He had left the ministry a few years earlier and had lost his young wife to tuberculosis after 18 months of marriage. He didn't really have a career at that point; he just had the ideas he believed passionately and thought needed to be heard. He was involved in a very deep career crisis (which many of us can relate to). There simply was no way to earn a living doing what his heart told him that he must do--to write and to speak. Except, as it turned out, there were ways to realize his dream, as long as he didn't lose his faith in himself. The rhetoric of this essay shows signs of his years in the pulpit; it's like he's demanding you to listen and to go out and act. But he may well be exhorting himself just as much as, if not more than, his readers. What he wanted to do--to establish himself a place as a writer and thinker--was extraordinarily difficult to do outside of an institution like the church or the university (so what else has changed!), and it would take all the nerve he could summon. And after all, he was no kid; he was 35 years old and counting. It all sounds so simple: just make up your mind to trust your deepest instincts and go for it! I know it isn't that simple--and in fact, so did Emerson, and seeing the problems inherent in such a personally energizing idea kept him busy writing for some time. If you look carefully, you can see some awareness of this conflict in the essay, but it doesn't really blossom forth for a while. For one thing, he gives a lot of credit to innate goodness, and almost totally ignores the very crucial environmental shaping factors. He and his readers were raised in an extremely "moral" environment, and though they might rebel against church doctrine, they were deeply "indoctrinated" with those moral codes. This is not necessarily the case in the "murder capital of the world"! Another problem is the extreme "masculinity" of the essay--one of his favorite words is "manliness." I can just visualize this very assertive and muscular male as an underlying ideal (was Emerson insecure about that too? Probably, since writers/thinkers/preachers were considered rather feminized by his society, unlike those competitive, money-making businessmen so idealized by his compatriots.) I don't believe that self-trust is a male-marked trait, although I suspect that he does believe it (though, bless his heart, he doesn't really know it!). I know, I'm reading this from my own perspective, but as Emerson would say, isn't that the only way you can read? Actually, I think you can try to place yourself in another context, but that must be a work of imagination to some degree (I can try, anyhow; I'll just substitute woman for man and you can do whatever you like!) Emerson doesn't just keep preaching the same doctrine though, you may be relieved to hear, or at least not with the same simplistic fervour. There is a flip side to this: as exciting and energizing it may be to follow your deepest instincts and do/say what you think is right, it's also depressing to think that maybe all we can know is what is within us. In a sense, we may be imprisoned within our own perceptions and experiences, and can never really know what might be true. We can't even be sure if anyone or anything else exists, because all we can know is what's in our little individual heads. Emerson will come to see this, as well as the many limitations on our power that are imposed by circumstances and environment, which he calls Fate. He gets a lot more interesting when he confronts these conflicting forces. Wouldn't it be nice if all we had to do is "trust ourselves" and follow our own stars? Actually, it's rather amazing what people can accomplish if they do just that. However, that's not the whole story, and Emerson knew it, especially after life dealt him a few more tough blows--like his beloved 5 year old son dying of scarlet fever. Self-reliance can look like a pretty puny doctrine in light of a tragedy like that, but it did sustain him (although perhaps in a modified form).. So the important thing is not whether Emerson is right or wrong here. He's both--and we are to draw from the essay what means the most to us. That's one reason it's written as it is. Buried in there are sentences which strike right to the heart of readers, and suggest all kinds of possibilities for them. For example, many students trying to see their way ahead in life have found great comfort in this metaphor: The voyage of the best ship is a zigzag line of a hundred tacks. See the line from a sufficient distance, and it straightens itself to the average tendency. Your genuine action will explain itself, and will explain your other genuine actions. You could interpret this in several ways. When you look at your life, especially when you are young, if you follow your "inner gyroscope" and do things and take courses that just "feel right," it might look to others (parents in particular) as if you just can't make up your mind and are zigzagging all over the place. The coherence will be an inner one, perhaps not even visible to you, but over time, it will probably make sense, just as you have to zigzag when sailing to reach a point most directly. One difference, of course, is that you (unlike the sailor) often haven't a clue where or what that "point" might be, and have to trust that by following your instincts and strengths, you'll actually reach some kind of point. I find that rather profound, as I look at my own life, and the decisions that I made that didn't make a lot of sense, perhaps, to others and seemed inconsistent, but that were in fact quite consistent with who I was and what I wanted to be, although I hadn't a clue what that might be (I never dreamed I'd end up teaching, etc.!) OK, that's my personal testimony (although I'll admit, I cruised past that passage when I was in college and needed to read it most)--you'll have your own, I imagine. If you'll be patient with Emerson (and his vocabulary and greater reading knowledge), he is likely to speak very personally to you, if not on this reading then maybe on another. Besides, just think of all the money you can save on those self-help books and therapy groups by going right to the source! ;
आत्म स्वतंत्रता निबंध