When something is sacred it is said to be “regarded with reverence” and “properly immune to interference.”  We all consider certain things in our lives to be sacred; from the objectively frivolous but subjectively important to relationships with our children, to the hallowed promises of God.

I recently heard Emerson misquoted “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…”  but as we know the actual quote is “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…”  and it inspired me to go back and re-read the essay from which it comes. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds…” was the lead sentence of the closing paragraph from Emerson’s brilliant essay entitled “Self Reliance”.  The rest of the paragraph is as prosaic and well summarizes Emerson’s philosophy.  The full concluding paragraph is this:

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.—“Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.”—Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood…”

It’s something I’ve come back to and read many times since the first time I was exposed to it in High School. Oddly though, it wasn’t the now famous and oft mis-credited hobgoblin quote that struck me, but rather a favorite quote of my favorite armchair philosopher – my dad.  He used to abbreviate it as “nothing is sacred” but the full quote is:

“Nothing is sacred but the integrity of your own mind”.

When my dad said “nothing is sacred” he meant that anything in your life can be invaded. I think Emerson had a similar meaning but went on to carve out the exception of what we hold in our own minds; that he said could not be invaded. True? With strength I think it is, but what of Emerson’s little minds – the ones he identified as blindly repeating a foolish consistency, walking their grids for the sake of the grids themselves never challenging them or themselves. Could those minds be invaded? I think that was part of Emerson’s point; think for yourself, grasp beauty and truth by tuning in to your intellect but also, on equal footing, your emotions. Be of sound mind.

Emerson was the voice of Transcendentalism, which began as a protest against the general state of American culture in the mid 19th century, and in particular, the state of intellectualism at Harvard which was driven by the doctrine of the Unitarian Church – the doctrines which were taught at Harvard, then a divinity school. Among Transcendentalists’ core beliefs was an ideal spiritual state that ‘transcends’ the physical and empirical and is only realized through the individual’s intuition, rather than through the doctrines of established religions or institutions. I like this summary best: “Transcendentalism defined “reason” as the highest human faculty, the individual’s innate capacity to grasp beauty and truth by allowing full play to the intellect and emotions.” Transcendentalism was decidedly less than religious (notice that a foolish consistency is adored by among others Divines); in fact it was a movement that spoke out against the Puritan doctrines of colonial America. It was, therefore, a doctrine that my dad would eschew. But I loved the way my dad could adapt even the most secular philosophy and put his own spin on it, take the value of its message and leave the rest that wasn’t for him.

Is it really true what my dad said, that nothing is sacred? I’m not convinced. Certain things are sacred, but to make them truly sacred requires something more than a little mind, something transcendental – it requires that we recognize what is sacred then participate in keeping it immune from invasion – even Emerson’s exception requires this. So, what things are sacred?

“A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his. In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.” (emphasis added)

Transcendentalism I think turned out to be in the greater context of History an over-reaction or over-application of the colonists’ new-found freedom. In other words, it was a little exaggerated, much like the doctrine of Humanism centuries before it. But it definitely had some very valid tenets and the one above is one we can all learn from. Don’t discount your thoughts or instincts because they are yours, elevate them because they are, not with ego, but with the notion that they are uniquely yours.

By Clay Konnor