22 April, 2018

Mr. Emerson,
Not many can be so clever as to notice such details in the human tendencies, and be so
bold as to challenge them. That is just the many, though, which does not apply to yourself,
especially as I am looking over one of your discussions: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin
of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” I interpret this as​saying
that when one doesn’t step out of their box and think in new ways, it can be their downfall and
confine them in stagnant claims. That it is encouraged by politicians and thinkers who think
themselves right to say so when they themselves are stuck in the same box. I do believe that is
the main idea in which you intend to bold for us, and point out to the aristocrats who fool
themselves and others to be confined to one box (one could call it a ‘safety box,’ though not
efficient). Your words give meaning to the thoughts that staying so consistent is the same as
“staring at a shadow on a wall.” So similarly, one can express their strong, clear ideas today, but
expressing the same ideas tomorrow in the same way leaves the message less effective and
stagnant. Stepping outside of one’s box into new ideas can cause them to be misunderstood, but
the greatest minds were once misunderstood; to be misunderstood means taking a chance with
new and unique ideas, which just proves the great effort of an individual. You mention that
Pythagoras, Socrates, Jesus, Luther, Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton were all misunderstood -
solid and prime examples.
After fully examining this discussion you created, I have decided that it is indeed a
perfect motto that one should use in their everyday life. It is a wordy inspiration to be unique in
everything one does, to try new things, to discover more about one’s self, to improve one’s life.
This can be used when trying new methods of organization at work, it can be used by politicians
in trying new bills or campaigns, it can be used by mothers in teaching their children to be
themselves, and it can most certainly be used to express the individualism of each member in a
group setting, such as a school. As it applies to my life, I can say that it would be extremely
helpful to check myself and make sure that I don’t stay in my comfort box for too long, as it
could feed my fear to change, and it could make me more closed-minded. That is a pit I would
rather not visit again, as it instigates problems in my social, mental, and emotional life whereas I
become too afraid to make mistakes. I was once afraid to stumble even a little, as I wanted to be
perfect, something I know now to be unattainable, but it can at the price of stagnancy. In a world
of non-believers and home dwellers, Leif Eriksson believed in something he knew not of, and he
discovered that the world was in fact not flat. I wish, like so many, to have so much courage and
bravery as to step outside of the communal bubble into something unknown and possibly
rewarding.
With the inclusion of the discussed concept, I wish to leave you with my thoughts on this
movement, one of nature and man, man and a higher power named by man as God. It is
rationalism intertwined with spiritualism, something that created such a pleasing balance for
prosperity and growth. I believe it to be a wholesome concept for the most part, but my limits on
this concept lie in that of the belief that God’s veins run completely through and for our actions. I
believe that we are roots of a higher power, of a God we have been created from, but only that
we are set on our own path that serves for nature and ourselves, as we are a part of nature, but
neither are limbs of God. Man and nature are, however, created by God and are truly spiritual,
but God is not always seen in everything we do, as we cannot rely on God to be the receiver of
all of our actions - I believe that we are put here to make impacts on eachother; we are the
receivers of our own work, we are each seen in nature, whether good or bad.

With regards,
A. Levins