In Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, “Where I lived, and what I lived for”, he begins by discussing how he chose where to live versus the other places he visited, and he described what it looked like and the surrounding area. In this, he describes his privileged of being able to choose where to live, all the places he looked at were larger properties. He also continues the theme of wanting more simplicity in life, by means such as farming, and spending more time in the woods; it sounds like he is trying to live for himself. One statement Thoreau made was “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived” (Thoreau, Page 85). This quote is perfect for summing up what Thoreau’s goal is in Walden, he wants to experience life in a non-systematic and natural way unlike ever before.
In the chapter “Reading”, Thoreau talks about how he was reading Homer Simpsons Iliad. He talks a little bit on Greek and Latin and how only few scholars can read it. He is distraught that not everyone reads classics “The best books are not read even by those who are called good readers” (Thoreau, Page 100). In this he makes it seem that if you are not educated or reading good books, then you are ignorant. The chapter, “Sounds”, is a continuance from “Reading”. He talks about things he sees and hears while out in the woods; Birds, squirrels, fishes in a pond, etc. He also visits a railroad, where he interacts with people, therefore he is not totally cut off from society. There is also a lot of metaphors and poems in this chapter about man in relation to mother nature, and how man does not rule over it.
“Solitude” is about Thoreau submitting himself into nature alone. One special evening showed him romance in nature through the animals and sounds and all the elements making it a beautiful night. He wants to trade out human society for a life in nature because the Earth and its natural settings are more important than those that are man-made. His response to people asking him if he gets lonely is deep, he is saying that how can he be lonely in a planet…a galaxy, with so many inhabitants, what is the separation besides distance and walls? But, another paragraph in this chapter is Thoreau talking about enjoying being alone, especially most of the time.
The chapter “Visitors” is about people visiting him in his cabin. Instead of providing material items such as food or other comforts, he aims to provide spiritually enriching experiences instead. He only has three chairs in his house, so when he has big groups of people over everyone is standing and almost touching, which could potentially be more spiritually connecting for people. He seems to feel a little bad for not being a charitable host, but his perks have reason.
My question is, what are these spiritually enhancing things Thoreau is doing alone and with his visitors, besides being in nature? Him and his guests do not eat or drink alcohol when hanging out at his cabin, which is funny to me because sharing and eating food with others is a very spiritual thing in some cultures. He seems to have the idea of what he wants but hes not fully taking action in terms of growing spiritually, individually and as a collective.
In Thoreau’s chapter “The bean-field” the most striking aspect regarding his attitude towards nature is in how he believes the hungry farmer should view his pest and weed-laden fields. “Shall I
not rejoice also at the abundance of the weeds whose seeds are the
granary of the birds?” In essence, these things typically viewed as plagues of the unsuccessful farmer, could be seen as a bountiful gift to nature and its creatures.
In “The Village” and “The Ponds” we learn that Thoreau would frequently go into the town of Concord to talk with the townspeople and socialize a little bit.
Later we meet the family of Joh Field, who are also living self-sustained on their farm. However, it seems that Thoreau holds some contempt for the family. He even describes the family’s infant as a “poor starveling brat”. He says the wife has a greasy face and is always holding a mop, despite the fact that the farm seems, in his eyes, to be filthy. He even reveals some antiquated racism declaring that the family suffers from “inherited Irish poverty”. He then has the gall to say that John Fields probably won’t read the book (probably because he views the family as uneducated) and that if he did read the book, maybe he could learn a thing or two. To be honest, if I were John Fields, I would track down Thoreau, and throw hands with that smug academic.
We also learn that even in the winter, Thoreau keeps a trail to town clear for an occasional visit, and even takes on quite a few visitors over the winter months.
Question: If Thoreau did not have access to those visits to Concord or his few visitors, then do you think the isolation would have had more of an impression on Thoreau’s mental wellbeing over the course of this experiment?
Throughout Walden, Thoreau discusses what makes a man and when talking about the human experience in society refers to only man. However, when discussing Nature, the word is always capitalized and referred to as “she”. On page 180, Thoreau says, “Nature is hard to be overcome, but she must be overcome.” Throughout Walden so far, he explains how man should live in harmony with nature, but in this statement he contradicts that quite blatantly. A few pages before on page 173, he is saying how society pities the boy who was never taught to shoot a gun or to be a hunter, but never mentions that of a woman.
My question is, why has Thoreau never challenged the views of gender regarding Nature and “her” domination? Even when he claims to have a respect for and live in harmony with nature and wilderness?
In Thoreau’s Walden, specifically in the Chapter, “Where I lived and what I lived for”, I found that some common themes were self-renewal, setting intentions for the day, and reawakening. A few quotes that summoned these themes for me are on pg 87 and 88. “Every morning was a cheerful invitation to make my life of equal simplicity, and I may say innocence with nature her self. I got up early and bathed in the pond, that was a religious exercise, and one of the best things in which I did.” In this chapter, Thoreau would also describe the self-renewal practices of Men during the Heroic ages. “Renew thyself completely each day; do it again and again, and again forever.” In interpreting this section of the chapter It seems that to Thoreau the highest art is to affect the quality of the day.
Is Thoreau suggesting that society does not allow people to adhere to the practice of self-renewal enough, self-renewal in which Thoreau describes as allowing oneself to awaken to his/her fullest potential? What does Thoreau mean by “few are awake for poetic labor”?
Henry David Thoreau has brought forth the ideas of essential human and animal instinct. On page 197 he wrote, “I found in myself, and still find, an instinct toward a higher, or, as it is named, a spiritual life, as do most men, and another toward a primitive rank and savage one, and I reverence them both.” Thoreau has thus stated how he has deep respect for the spiritual life and the savage instincts. Yet, Thoreau seems to have put forth his deepest efforts to overcome his savage instinct, and the two instincts were brought to a friction or even collision of sorts. Thoreau continued, “The repugnance to animal food is not the effect of the experience, but it is an instinct” (201). Therefore, Thoreau portrayed his spiritual and higher instinct to have been overcoming the savage, and in conflict with the other. Yet, what does Thoreau mean by spiritual? He has represented the decision not to carry an organized religion or belief. Thoreau went on to describe how imagination, generative energy, knowledge, and wisdom can be brought forth with purity and chastity. Is the chastity that Thoreau practiced the abstinence of the savage instinct? Then, nearing the end of the chapter he stated, “Nature is hard to overcome, but she must be overcome” (207). What did Thoreau mean by nature, why must it be overcome, and why is nature a “she”? Most importantly, what is so significant about the spiritual instinct?
In Where I Lived and What I Lived For Thoreau says on page 85 “We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us in our soundest sleep.” What is the sleep which Thoreau is referring? How do we apply these words to our modern lives?
Thoreau leans into his hermit like tendencies in these chapters. Particularly in The Brute Neighbor when he is comparing the hermit and the poet. However, Thoreau does regard the mice of the cabin his housemates and birds of the pond his companions. How does Thoreau use these examples to show us how we should live among and in nature? How does he see the consumers of the cranberries and bison as disconnected from nature?
In Walden’s chapter Visitors, Thoreau tells of a young man who he describes as an “inoffensive simple-minded pauper (142).” He tells Thoreau of his deficient intellect. This man says that he believes himself to be weak in the head because of the Lord’s will. He describes himself as different from the other children growing up, that he never had much mind. The reason he came to Thoreau was to talk with him about how he lives. He came because he has the desire to live as he lives. Earlier on that page, Thoreau states that “there might be men of genius in the lowest grades of life, however permanently humble and illiterate, who take their own view always, or do not pretend to see at all.” Yet, this “simple-minded pauper” is not confined to his own view, he is going out and asking for others. He does not pretend, he knows his ignorance and accepts who he is. He is going out and trying to find a better way for himself. This man’s humility, self-knowledge, and desires to me seem to be simple yet profound and in a way wise.
This section stirred the question in me of what constitutes intelligence? Does simple-mindedness have to mean the same as unintelligence? Just because someone is different from the others in thought, does that mean they are weak in the head? Which is wiser, a man with complex thoughts and little initiative or a man of the opposite? Does any of it matter?
Thoreau has a connection to nature that is different than most people. Throughout Walden we are able to read about his connection to it and how he views his use of nature and the benefits he obtains from it. He also focuses on the importance of being independent and not relying on anyone other than yourself, he then compares the reliance on other people as being imprisoned by an obligation.
My question is this, does Thoreau’s ideal lifestyle have flaws that can be worked around or is he just writing about the ideal lifestyle? Does he seem to be practicing what he preaches or is he simply writing what he believes and stretching his own reality?
In the chapter “The Bean Field,” the end stood out to me where Thoreau was discussing farming, which he calls husbandry, and how it was once a sacred art. He goes on to say “By avarice and selfishness, and a groveling habit, from which none of us is free, of regarding the soil as property, or the means of acquiring property chiefly, the landscape is deformed, husbandry is degraded with us, and the farmer leads the meanest of lives. He knows Nature but as a robber” (pg 156). This quote stood out to me because it resonates with farming today on an even bigger scale due to industrial agriculture. It is also degrading and deforming the land even more then it did in the past. There is a lack of appreciation of nature and it is currently utilized for the most part as a way to make money by the big corporations. In the next chapter, “The Village,” through notes that as he is blindly making his way through the woods helps make you “…appreciate the vastness and strangeness of Nature” (pg 162). Continuing with the theme of exploiting nature due to greed, Thoreau states “I am convinced, that if all men were to live as simply as I then did, thieving and robbery would be unknown.”
How do you think Thoreau would feel about how big industrial agriculture has become? How would Thoreau approach changing the current system? It is easy to state that you should grow what you need to survive but in today’s society, it is not as easy for everyone to have access to land with how big our population has grown. In addition to that, there are a few big corporations such as Monsanto that control a lot of the agriculture.
In Thoreau’s chapter “Brute Neighbors” he talks about his relationship with the living beings surrounding his cabin as well as the animals relationships with one another. He analyzes the battle between red and black ants and compares their battle to that of the battle in the Illiad. Thoreau continually describes how the ants are feeling throughout the battle. He goes into detail about the team work that the red ants use and the strength that the black ants have. Thoreau spends an entire chapter talking in depth about how different animals live. I think the message he is trying to get across is that it is important for us to observe the relationships and systems around us. So my question is, do you think observing these relationships is crucial part of life? How can we observe the natural systems around us in today’s busy world?
I was really surprised reading Thoreau’s chapter when he visits the Baker Farm. He found a small hut, once abandoned is now being occupied by a man named John Field and his family. In his very first descriptions of the family he is not kind. He describes John Field as “shiftless”, his baby as “coneheaded”, and describes the wife as having a “round greasy face and bare breast”. In the time he spends there, he seems to do nothing but judge John Field and his family. He immediately looks at the family with pity and seemingly disgust. He even tries to give unwanted advice to Field explaining how he lives his life so well and simply and how Field can be more prosperous by doing the same. He then asks his host for some water, regards it as the “gruel that sustains life here”, then drinks it so as not to appear rude. Clearly, it has not occurred to Thoreau (but has a occurred to the rest of us) that he had been quite rude to the Field Family. He scarcely even mentions a thing they say and focuses only on what he has to say to them. Thoreau seems very comfortable in his own beliefs and views and now we can see that he is very uncomfortable when others’ views don’t line up with his.
Considering Thoreau’s close-minded and superior mindset when it came to his meeting with this family, do you still think that Thoreau’s time spent alone in nature has truly humbled him?
Throughout the book Thoreau describes many things that happen around us in nature that we probably do not see on a normal basis. This is especially true in the chapter “Brute Neighbors” where Thoreau described the different animals living in and around his cabin. Many of the animals are peaceful like the mice that linger in his cabin. However one day Thoreau witnesses a battle between two different types of ants one black and the other red. “A war between two races of ants, the red always pitted against the black, and frequently two red ones to one black one.” (215). Thoreau describes the battle in great detail using an analogy of Spartans from Greek history. I have not considered these struggles between bugs in such a way before however for the ants it must feel like a massive conflict. It seems the competition in nature goes farther than I had considered. War for people is a pretty common thing however I had not thought of wars being fought between different types of ants. So what does this mean for us if the need to fight a war naturally comes to something as small as an ant? Can it be related to conflict seen throughout human history?
We have all likely become familiar with the concept of distancing from a “free mind” and the issues surrounding this due to institutionalized thought and processes. For example, in “Visitors” he describes those that have subscribed to the common attributes of the “developed” human who have a “grovelling habit, from which none of us is free, of regarding the soil as property” (88). Such is the dichotomy between nature and culture, and between culture and the individual. To mend these relationships, he states that we must get “lost” or have “lost the world” to “begin to find ourselves” (91). This mental journey is one taken alone, according to Thoreau.
Throughout these chapters Thoreau has decidedly separated himself from these institutions physically and spiritually. However, this experiment has been one of solitude and further distancing. I want to believe that these journeys do not, in fact, have to be ones of complete solitude within the natural landscapes, unscathed by humans. Could we, perhaps, see this journey as simply spiritual and not just physical? Similarly, could a freed mind, awoken, “whether from sleep or any abstraction”, actually change our culture? Should this way of thinking be treated as a religion, or simply as just a way of living with non humans around us?
For this weeks question, it brings back some components from SD theory. Primarily, the colonialism mindset. At Baker Farm Thoreau finds himself fishing and needing shelter from the rain and stumbles upon a man named John Field who is living in this hut with this family. What is disturbing to me is how prevalent this mindset is still used today and by Thoreau. “I had sat there many times of old before the ship was built that floated this family to America. (Pg. 204)” I find this assumption Thoreau has made here and later at the end to be extremely uncaring, he has not provided any critical thought process to this situation at all. “With his horizon all his own, yet he a poor man, born to be poor, with his inherited Irish poverty or poor life, (Pg. 209)” Apart from his assumptions of this man and his family, I don’t think Thoreau handled the rest of the situation well at all, apart from drinking the “dirty water”. Thoreau in my mind wrongly assumes much about this man and then “gives advice” but he does so in a very demeaning and insulting way. My question is do you think Thoreau is exhibiting a colonialist mindset towards this family or does he honestly care and want to help them out of poverty? Is there a difference?
In “The Village” the chapter begins with Thoreau bathing himself in Walden pond after a day’s work of study and labor, cleansing himself both physically and mentally is what I gather from this. I was surprised when he mentioned that he goes to hear the village gossip every day or so, taking it in “homoeopathic doses”, as it was refreshing to do so. He critiques the people that become consumed by the gossip, “it only produces numbness and insensibility to pain, —otherwise it would often be painful to hear,—without affecting the consciousness” (109), which is a critique that can certainly be made today, as are many of his other observations and critiques, even if he himself partakes in these acts at time. As he was walking to the village he described busy men, comparing them to the prairie dogs he had just seen; “under the grove of elms and buttonwoods in the other horizon was a village of busy men, as curious to me as if they had been prairie dogs”, this imagery reminding me of the scenes we viewed in class from Baraka. I was also surprised at how welcoming he was to guest, this part, in a way, humanizing himself, as these readings tend to show him in an isolated form where a level of superiority is expressed. Towards the end of this chapter he reiterates once more how living simply, in “voluntary poverty”, as he has referred to it before, is beneficial. This time not only to detach oneself from the toxicity of materialism and excess, but to not become affected by a robbery; “I am convinced, that if all men were to live as simply as I then did, thieving and robbery would be unknown. These take place only in communities where some have got more than is sufficient while others have not enough” (112).
This quote leads me to some of my own conflicting thoughts; Throughout this book it could be interpreted that Thoreau cares little about other people and humanity, only focusing on his experience, as it is after all an experiment. Sometimes I believe that he wants humanity to better itself, for each individual to decide how to best go towards that, if it does not infringe the livelihood of others I am assuming. With this quote I even thought, for a second, that Thoreau would, in this time, have socialist sentiments. This however quickly faded away as I was reminded of his individualistic ways and his rather disgusting and discriminatory views of not caring about other people’s social circumstances, such as with John Field’s poverty due to him being Irish. I ask myself now; Should Thoreau’s problematic views affect how I see some of his positive and eye-opening ones? Some could say that that’s just how people were back then but his whole experiment is him in his efforts of going against that grain.
In the beginning of “Where I Lived,” Thoreau talks about the morning, or “the awakening hour.” He says the morning is a time to rejoice with our aspirations and find a sort of spiritual grounding in it. Then he says, “Why is it that men give so poor an account of their day if they have not been slumbering? They are not such poor calculators. If they had not been overcome with drowsiness they would have performed some thing…I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. How could I have looked him in the eye?” (84-85). Reading this confused me as Thoreau has not previously been so dismissive of the faults of man. Instead he excuses them for not being awake for “effective intellectual exertion” or poetic or divine life, only physical labor, attributing it to a lack of adequate sleep. I read Thoreau with a grain of salt as I find him to often be contradictory, but I was surprised to see him defending the men that he usually speaks of with disgust and no openness to understanding any deeper reason for their lifestyle. Additionally, if I’m interpreting the last part correctly, he is even humbling himself in saying that he is not the most awake himself. I’m wondering, did Thoreau do this on purpose, perhaps to excuse some of his own hypocritical actions? But then is he even aware that he contradicts himself so often?
In “The Bean-Field”, Thoreau acknowledges that, along with planting, hoeing, harvesting, threshing, and picking over, he sold some of his beans (152). He took several pages to describe his experience growing beans and it seems to me that he found it to be pleasant, rewarding, and, most importantly, outside. I was surprised, however, to read that he sold them. Knowing already that he is not completely self-sufficient (rice, molasses, flour, sugar, and more), I was surprised to see him participating in the economy he criticizes so harshly. Similarly, in “The Village,” Thoreau describes his walk into the village “every day or two” (that in itself is, I think, pretty often for someone who claims to have been living in solitude), particularly commenting on the town gossip. He says the gossip, “taken in homeopathic doses, was really as refreshing in its way as the rustle of leaves and the peeping of frogs” (158). This quote surprises me for two reasons: one, that Thoreau enjoys gossip in itself, and two, that he compares it to happenings in nature, something he holds much higher than society. And, yet again, he contradicts himself in claiming that he lived in solitude for a lengthy time. How much truth can we find in Thoreau’s ideals when he does not truly practice them himself? Or, are we not meant to read into his writing so literally, but rather take away that we could have the option to do so if we choose?
Thoreau is interested in the good and evil of human nature. He acknowledges the tendency for humanity to become corrupted and overcome by immorality. “We are conscious of an animal within us, which awakens in proportion as our higher nature slumbers” (205). In the chapter “Higher Laws”, Thoreau compares the human tendency to indulge in “bad” behavior with eating habits. This comparison of working to get good tasting food, is similar to his belief that people are slaves to the land. We are slaves to our senses, and therefore we work to temporarily relieve those senses. Thoreau has concluded that our need and desire to eat foods that are savory and rich is enforcing a bond that is attached to impurity. “If I knew so wise a man as could teach me purity I would go seek him forthwith”( 206). The ultimate goal that Thoreau seems to be looking for, is how to divorce beastiality within humanity and attain an elevated standard of living.
“Nature is hard to overcome, but she must be overcome” (207). Thoreau is seeking a way for humanity to reach a stage of purity by overcoming nature and submitting ourselves to strict and simple modes of living. However, he is also contradicting in his belief that Nature itself is pure by claiming that human nature ought to be overcome or subdued. Is it possible to live both in communion with nature and to overcome it? Where is the line drawn between that which is Natural and that which is considered Human Nature? In other words, should human nature be considered as part of Nature, or separate from nature?
The chapter “The Bean Field” really spoke to me as Thoreau compared his approach to farming to how most of the farmers in Massachusetts operated during the time. To me, farming is one of the most intimate ways humans can connect directly with nature; however, it requires more reflection and care on the farmer’s part as it can easily be transformed into an unbalanced relationship (where man is the conqueror and nature has been beaten into submission). This imbalance is best described on page 114, when Thoreau writes, “By avarice and selfishness, and a grovelling habit, from which none of us is free, of regarding the soil as property,…the landscape is deformed, husbandry is degraded with us, and the farmer leads the meanest of lives. He knows nature but as a robber.” It’s interesting that Thoreau’s words, though over 150 years old, still sound eerily familiar, especially given the prevalence of industrial agriculture today.
My one concern with this chapter is that Thoreau has talked often about how we should aim to provide for ourselves and not pursue other extravagances that only complicate our lives, which is why I initially thought the bean-field would be completely for subsistence purposes only. I was surprised when he described his investment and profit from the beans as if it were any other business venture. While I understand that his talk of money is probably more of a practical addition to the book, my question is: Does cultivation of a crop for profit take away any of the magic of farming? Thoreau clearly expressed that he isn’t even much of a fan of beans. Does viewing his beans as a product to be sold and less as a resource for him to eat make them lose some of their emotional value?
When Thoreau discusses being in solitude and away from the nature of society. He talks about enjoying the sounds of nature and what it truly has to offer. The idea that he is alone in nature. Taking in what Walden Pond truly has to offer. Having the land provide what he needs. I find this interesting that he discusses this because he does spend a large amount of time with people, from having visitors to going into Concord.
My question then is, if Thoreau would have fully fallen into the idea of being alone in nature and not letting society impact him at all would he of had a different mindset of society and appreciated the human connection that society bring to us? Did having the idea of being in solitude but still being connected to everyone make him more cynical of society?
Thoreau often describes the beauty and importance of solitude, but frequently references writers and thinkers. In the Brute Neighbors chapter he spends a lot of time describing a battle between ants and goes on to talk about writers who also write about ant battles. I have a hard time reading Thoreau because his purposes are not clear to me with each topic he describes in great detail, so when I see him referencing well known thinkers, I recognize that he is cuing us in to a larger conversation, but then I don’t know what that conversation is because I haven’t read nearly as much as him. The ant battle section made me question more what exactly his purpose was because it was so specific. He also Is writing to an audience, which to me, is inherently a form of community as the reader becomes part of a conversation with Thoreau and those he references. I greatly value community and see it as necessary for a healthy and fulfilling life, but when I read Thoreau I do find myself wishing I could have that solitude and simplicity. Of course he doesn’t believe that his way of life is for everyone, but only some people can choose to participate in this romanticized way of living.
Does Thoreau believe in true solitude, or that it is possible to live in true solitude? Give examples from the text to support your answer. What does true solitude even look like? If he does believe in the value of community through literature, why does he make it so inaccessible? What kind of person can afford to live in solitude?
Throughout Walden,Thoreau is adamant that nothing is required other than himself in order to thrive. Thoreau often considers food, drink (other than what is absolutely necessary), family, and community not only dispensable, but hindrances to true living. He even writes, in ‘Higher Laws,’ “The wonder is how they, how you and I, can live this slimy, beastly life, eating and drinking.” Thoreau seems to demand that we live in the exact way in which he has found “fulfillment.” He writes as if his path to “true living” is the only path. Thoreau writes that he, “wanted to live deep and such our all the marrow of life, to live to sturdily and Spartan-life as to pout and rout all that was not life.” This quote in particular seems to give Thoreau the power to distinguish exactly what counts as “life” and what does not.
Is Thoreau’s way of life simplistic or a determined journey to a moral high ground? Is denying ourselves “luxuries” – such as connection, tradition, and work – essential to our lives or are these aspects to life that should be enjoyed and are essential to our quality of life and happiness?
In “The Bean Field” Henry begins farming a small plot of land to sustain himself. Even though through previous writing he condemns such a lifestyle as slavery to the land. The need to sustain himself is an inevitability and it brings me to weird train of thought.
Where do you feel the line is between freedom and sustaining yourself is? Is existence just the labor of keeping yourself alive? So could you ever be “free” of responsibilities sense you can never be free of yourself?
When I was reading Walden, I came across a line that just particularly struck me – in the beginning lines of “Solitude” he says “I go and come with a strange liberty in Nature, a part of herself.” (89). This got me thinking about how Thoreau is approaching his environment and understanding his place at Walden Pond. Here he claims that he is a part of Nature, and then goes on to describe how he has “friendship in the seasons,” and “society in Nature.” However, he does note that “With thinking we may be besides ourselves in a sane sense…. We are not wholly involved in Nature,” displaying what seems to be a perceived separation between man and the “natural world”. He then goes on to describe that he feels like merely a spectator in life, one who can view himself as a human entity and choose what to be affected by (93). What does this mean for Thoreau’s views of solitude and natural companionship? How does this play into the themes of self-making, simplicity, and living in the present that we’ve seen in Walden? How does Thoreau position himself in regard to his natural environment and how does this change his self and his thinking?
Also in “Solitude,” he faces a question from his neighbor about loneliness – does he not desire to be closer to other human beings, especially on snowy and rainy nights? Thoreau answers “This whole earth which we inhabit is but a point in space…. Why should I feel lonely? is not our planet in the Milky Way?” (92) (This might be a goofy question, but did/would Thoreau believe in aliens?) He seems to render space imagined as distance irrelevant when he says “What sort of space is that which separates a man from his fellows and makes him solitary? I have found that no exertion of the legs can bring two mind much nearer to one another.” He also goes on to say that “For the most part we allow only outlying and transient circumstances to make our occasions.” (93) What do these speculations about space, time, and positioning bring to the table in a discussion about society and solitude?
I’ll admit, I got a little bit lost in his writing after that last quote, where he begins “Nearest to all things is that power which fashions their being,” and continues with a series of quotes like “We seek to perceive them, and we do not see them; we seek to hear them, and we do not hear them; identified with the substance of things, they cannot be separated from themselves.” (93). While I understand bits and pieces, I’m not sure what Thoreau is getting at overall in this section midway through “Solitude.” What does he mean when he says “We are the subjects of an experiment which is not a little interesting to me,”? (93)
In Brute Neighbors, Thoreau sets himself up in a hypothetical conversation between a poet, and a hermit–the hermit being who Thoreau saw himself as in the situation. The Poet was always alluding back to previous readings or adventures, while the hermit kept to more practical tasks and was aware of the things around him (like the right size worms to use for fishing, the fact that his bread needed eating soon, etc) (Walden, 210-212). I believe Thoreau sets himself up as the hermit due to his constant assurance of his own pragmatism, but at the same time I had hesitations. Would he not be the poet, especially based on the entirety of this book thus far, where comparisons are made every page or so to some contextually-relevant but still seemingly unrelated philosophy or story?
Then again, later on he admits himself a poet after all (Walden 219) when talking about the “winged” cat he should so fancy as to own. So maybe the conversation could be read more as his own internal dialogue? The practical man aware of how to feed himself versus the bubbly scholar who’s absorbed enough in his own world to disenfranchise himself from reality? Not that I’d say he’s as bad as his hypothetical poet, Thoreau’s been keeping a fairly regimented account on his food and how he acquires it, and while he does often take the time to ruminate over old wisdoms and stories, its in his ample amount of free time in communion with nature.
Later on in Former Inhabitants, Thoreau spends a time noting the fact that he’s not the first to settle in his neck of the woods, and in fact can easily find traces of a more bustling settlement through the grave-ish remains of house cellars and foundations. He notes that the state of the soil could have also just as easily told him that it had been freely used, and fallowed, and used again. He wonders why settlements in such a good location could be left to waste, while Concord continued on fine. “Alas! How little does the memory of these human inhabitants enhance the beauty of the landscape!”, he says, and “Deliver me from a city built on the site of a more ancient city, whose materials are ruins, whose gardens cemeteries.” (Walden 248-249) How often is it that we too, take a few minutes to look for the signs of those who came and lived before us, even on what could initially seem like freshly settled lands? And how often does the notion strike us that we are indeed settled where others once lived, but without noticing a trace of their ever existing?
Within “The Bean Field” Thoreau points out an inherent flaw in our economic/market systems that has remained an issue, even in contemporary times. He raises the question, “Who estimates the value of the crop which nature yields?”
The answer was and still is the markets, the consumers, and the businessmen. Due to ill-enforced (and sometimes lack of) labor laws and regulations the prices set on the food consumers purchase tend to not reflect their true value when the labor and transportation costs are considered. This is true within all types of extraction practices. The thought of humans putting a value on natural services and products makes little sense.
When people do not understand the value of their food, it is then taken for granted. This results in food waste, excessive eating, etc. How can we re-evaluate how food is considered and treated within our markets to more realistically portray its value? Can you think of other consequences that come along with the unrealistic cost of our food and other products/resources?
(Side note/question: Why is there an emphasis on Thoreau selling his beans for a profit when he constantly critiques and suggests avoiding our market system? This confused me.)
Throughout the beginning and now towards the middle of Walden, Thoreau references “freedom” and living “freely”. He complains that the common man is a slave to himself and to society. In the chapter “Baker Farms”, he says, “But the only true America is that country where you are at liberty to pursue such a node of life as may enable you to do without these, and where the state does not endeavor to compel you to sustain the slavery and war and other superfluous expenses which directly or indirectly result from the use of such things” (193). Following, on page 196, he says, “Men come tamely home at night only from the next field or street…We should come home from far, from adventures, and perils, and discoveries every day, with new experience and character.”
Both of these quotes highlight what Thoreau is trying to get across– experience in nature is the only valuable thing in life, and we should not succumb ourselves to conventional ways of living. To him, we are waging a war within ourselves in regards to this conventional life, but we are our own prisoner (hence, the slavery comments). Both society and ourselves have made us prisoner to our own lives. I think Walden, for Thoreau, is really more about him rejecting conventional lifestyles than it is about him trying to live sustainably or eco-friendly, like many of us have already figured out and discussed. Most of us probably struggle with this internal war, or cognitive dissonance, about whether we should continue our American, consumer-driven lives or reject that and live sustainably. However, it can be extremely difficult, and one may need to come from a place of privilege like Thoreau, to truly do that.
What is it that holds us back? Why can’t we give up this cognitive dissonance? Is convenience, consumerism, technology, the strive for higher education what holds us back? Or is this lifestyle just not accessible or possible for some? Is it a privileged lifestyle to essentially give up all the ways of a consumer-driven, capitalist society?
Thoreau offers many different viewpoints on the people of his time; statements about men that work on the railroads every day with courage. He notes that these men are seemingly content in their work (pg 115). He also speaks on the reaction that he has from the mere smells that the train cars bring along with it, sparking positive and worldly memories and feelings, of which he can thank the men that spent their time and labor keeping it running. Yet he also makes claims that the people of this time require more education, and the importance of it (pg 106), “It is time that we had uncommon schools, that we did not leave off our education when we begin to be men and women. It is time that villages were universities…if they are indeed so well off- to pursue liberal studies the rest of their lives”. Here he is really just advocating higher education for everyone in an optimal world, but for everyone? If there are parts of these general men/people that are content, is higher education what is best for them in their lives? How does thoreau make the claim that everyone needs higher education, when he observes content, and already useful, productive citizens of society hard at work?
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived”(88).
From the beginning of reading Walden I was irritated with Thoreau in his what sounded like an aggressive tone towards those who decided to follow the path of the traditional society, but as I have continued to read I have found Thoreau’s writing to be free flowing and poetic. I think through school and the way we are raised in our society we often undermine the humanness of writing and are taught to harshly critique. Although critiquing can be beneficial I think with Thoreau’s writing and based off what we have discussed in class, it is harder to understand his position when we get caught up in critiquing. When we look towards the way he writes without much structure and it seems like a random bundle of words, I think it shows the authenticity of his position at the time. With that being said in Reading he kind of guides us through on how to read his text, he says “To read well, that is, to read true books in a true spirit, is a noble exercise, and one that will task the reader more than any exercise which that customs of the day esteem”(99) From this I am left thinking Thoreau wanted us to be confused about the text and to be the discussing the things that we are, and to read “in true spirit”.
Do you think writers like Thoreau write with an intention to leave the readers with one lasting thought or to leave their writings up to interpretation? and how through the education system how is this interpretation steered?
I skipped ahead to the bean-field chapter because I was excited about it. I appreciate some of the points that Thoreau makes about nature and our relationship with her. The first being that he acknowledges in some ways that growing his crops does mean the clearing out of another wild plant /ecosystem. (146) This is similar to his point in Economy about borrowing from trees from nature in order to have timber. We always have to start with borrowing or you could even say violence against another living being to start our projects. Although he was growing food for himself, other plants had to die for him to be able to do that.
On the other hand, I like the way he describes his living relationship with the beans. Not only does he claim them to be a source of his livelihood, he also describes getting to know them as if they were human. He references Evelyn’s knowledge on the soil who says that there is nothing more useful to the growth of crops than the turning of the earth with a spade. (153) I interpret this as there may be nothing more powerful than having a direct relationship with a crop and it will bring forth growth in both the grower and the crop.
Since violence is inevitable in the means of all production- even small scale, sustainable agriculture, how do we determine what is actually ethical or not? And is it more about minimizing violence? How do we determine what living creatures are worth preserving (ie an animal, tree, or weed)?
Thoreau frequently discusses man’s desire for excess and an unnatural dependency on the free market. He spends his day living off of the land, cultivating all that he needs and nothing else. Is the way that Thoreau lived really ‘freedom’ if he was so heavily dependent on the earth for sustenance? Or is it his own construct of freedom from what he considers to be shackling society? Thoreau felt that the day was wasted if he had not taken a three to four hour walk that day. My ultimate question is, was Thoreau truly living the good life or what his own version of the good life was? Can there be one ultimate version of the good life?
For this week’s question I’m focusing on Thoreau’s chapter “Brute Neighbors”. He starts the chapter by having a discussion with his friend while they are fishing. He refers to himself as a hermit, and his friend a poet. the Hermit seems much more concerned with practical things such as, if hes’s caught any fish, and his brown bread. While the Poet seems more concerned with nonpractical things such as how beautiful the clouds are in the sky. I don’t believe the question that came to my mind is as profound as some of my fellow student’s but this conversation between Thoreau and his friend made me wonder what most Sustainable Development students would consider themselves more like; hermits, or poets? Though perhaps we consider ourselves a good mix of both, like a loon playing on the lake because at that moment survival or success is not the focus.
In Bean Field Thoreau talks about working in his bean field. He mentions that because he has no animal assistance. He says “I was much slower, and became more intimate with my beans than usual (148). He also discusses later in the page the different criticisms he received from travelers on the techniques he used. Criticism that he writes off ignoring them. It seems that he writes off the experienced farmers for doing what he wants to do. My question is do Thoreau have the authority to comment on making a living off of farming when he himself isn’t relying on it for a living? He is not going to loose the land he is on if he doesn’t succeed or make a good crop, he’s not going to not be able to feed a family because his crops don’t succeed. So how can he judge a lifestyle without a full perspective of that lifestyle? It almost feels like hes saying I grew some beans and it didn’t turnout well for me so I think its a waste of time that farmers grow beans. Does Thoreau have authority to judge a lifestyle of others when he himself isn’t truly living that lifestyle?
“…- better if a country seat.” In the chapter ‘where i lived and what i lived for’ Thoreau identifies a house in his words as a seat. And this seat is better if it is a country seat, which i think particularly refers to the trade that simplifying a home tk seat requires. You may lose space, material comfort but you actively create an air of inclusivity wherein a calm mind can find room for the wonder of life.
Does Thoreau weave words relevant today when he speaks to the country as a place of worthy simplicity, as in there can be found an abundance of life, particularly in an era of recovering eastern American forest and simultaneous coexistence of near total farm infertility?
In the second half of Walden, there is a tone shift in Thoreau. Throughout the chapter of Economy there was a dense critique of the way the farmers of Concord lived and how the laborers spent their days living a “fools life”. As Thoreau progresses throughout the book, the lens turns inward. Thoreau is adamant on self renewal, quieting one’s mind through nature and the benefits of alone time.
In the Brute Neighbor chapter, his inner dialogue reminds me so much of what it is like to be in nature, alone, for a prolonged amount of time. The mind chatters and dives deeper into thoughts and the physical world around you. For example, Thoreau’s observations of the ants on the wood pile. (p. 215) When is the last time the average person was so observant or present that they notice the action of an ant?
I see this as the purpose of Walden. Thoreau’s descriptive writings of what it looks like to not be a component of the marketplace or even an obedient member of one’s community.
In this perspective, should the reader interpret Walden as a self help genre? Is Thoreau speaking to micro politics and is his goal of chapters like “House Warming” to inspire individual awareness. If so, is this the end goal? Or does he see that self renewal and introspection will benefit the world as a whole?
Solitude:
As a SD major focusing on community regional and global development, the role of community has been a recurrent theme throughout most of my courses. We have discussed in depth the importance of building a network of resilient and diverse communities to achieve the goals of sustainability and social justice. I believe this is why I found the chapter Solitude so impactful.
“..I doubted if the near neighborhood of man was not essential to a serene and healthy life. To be alone was something unpleasant, But I was at the same time conscious of a slight insanity in my mood, and seemed to forsee my recovery. In the midst of a gentle rain while these thoughts prevailed, I was suddenly sensible of such sweet and beneficent society in Nature, in the very pattering of the drops, and in every sound and sight around my house, an infinite and unaccountable friendliness all at once like an atmosphere sustaining me, as made the fancied advantages of human neighborhood insignificant and I have never thought of them since.”
This passage and others in the chapter, lead me to believe that to Thoreau simply existing in the presence of and acknowledging the validity of all non human forms of life fulfilled his desire for community. However, I feel this method is by no means universal. For many people, a network of support provided within ones community is a necessity for the good life. Thoreau was an able bodied man who came from a place of relative privilege, for others with different life experiences, community may be essential to meet their daily needs. But even for people like Thoreau, can one truly construct ones own community from the pages of books and birds in the trees? Or is human contact, in one way or another, a necessity for living well? If so, does this human interaction have to be in the form of the neighborhood life Thoreau is so critical of? Could there be some middle ground, a way to exist in a space never feeling alone because of your awareness of the life all around you, yet fostering the human connections that make life so wonderful and worth living.
In Baker farm, Thoreau meets a man named John Field and lectures him on his own personal way of life. “and how, if he chose, he might in a month or two build himself a palace of his own” is what he states. My question is this: Thoreau spends time emphasizing that people have to find their own way and path, and that no one person should copy him. Why does Thoreau press his ideas upon John and his family? Isn’t this directly hypocritical of his own philosophy?
In class on Tuesday, Sept 4, we discussed in great detail the idea proposed by Thoreau of living a life of “voluntary poverty” in order to be “an impartial or wise observer of human life.” (16). He also makes claims to the lack of present day “philosophers” and looks to and reveres those ancient philosophers of “Chinese, Hindoo, Persian, and Greek” eras, claiming they “were [from] a class than none has been poorer in outward riches, none so rich in inward.” The factual inaccuracies of that statement aside, what constitutes “outward riches” as opposed to those “rich in inward”? Thoreau raves against monetary wealth and capitalistic materialism, and glorifies living simply off the land and what it provides, however he, and many if, not all of those “wisest” philosophers of ancient times, were given that which many others could view as the “wealth” and opportunity of education, access to all types of books and ways of thinking, and, most importantly, the time and space to read and think without the economic or environmental pressures that so many who live in “involuntary poverty” do not have. What is more desirable? Living a life of well-educated unhappiness? Constantly seeking some higher truth, looking for a way to live life with a sense of purpose, only to almost never be fully satisfied, as we see with the cantankerous writings of Thoreau and other philosophers, and as well among many of us, our peers and those around us? Or to live a life of ignorant contentment, fulfilled only by those vital activities that are necessary to provide for you and your family, never given time to question your realities, but still happy nonetheless? Who is truly the impoverished?
In The Bean Field, Thoreau seems like he is flourishing along side the lands he has called his new home; he makes a large profit from the vegetables he has been able to grow himself, and he speaks of the “inexhaustible entertainment” he gets from the outdoors. Thoreau speaks as if he is on a spiritual journey. Today in class we viewed the film No Impact Man directed and narrated by Colin Beavan. This movie about Colin and his family’s mission to have little to no environmental impact as possible is a beautiful story about how living closer to the Earth can actually be healthier for our bodies and minds. The movie was really eye-opening, and I was taken away by how committed the Beavan’s were to making no environmental impact. They washed their clothes in a bathtub and hung them up to dry in their tiny New York City Apartment. I wonder what Thoreau would think about the concept of having no environmental impact amidst the hustle and bustle of a city like New York? Certainly he could have been overlooked, no one would have known what the Beavan’s were up to had they not documented it all. Just like no one would have known where Thoreau went had he not told his family or wrote a book. The Beavan’s shut off their power and went without a refrigerator, television, and lights for the better course of a year. They did not use paper products like toilet paper, paper towels, or even baby diapers. Everything they used, they reused. People like Colin and his family are the ones that really live by “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” Thoreau would probably embrace their new simplistic way of life and see it much more sustainable than the streets littered with trash and half eaten takeout trays. Thoreau, I believe would be proud of what this family is doing and encourage every one else to do as Colin said in one of his many interviews, everyone should just do what they can to help the problem.
Why does Thoreau in Higher Laws talk about the mind descending into the body? What does this mean?
After viewing No Impact Man, Walden could be viewed in a new light. There are very easy parallels to be made between Thoreau’s and Beavan’s experiments. While both could be argued as being equally obnoxious and pompous, I still admire the effort made by both men and bringing to light certain issues that more times than not make the general population angry and defensive. It’s to my understanding that Thoreau never married, never had children, and went about his experiment at Walden Pond solo. What immediately came to mind when viewing No Impact Man was the strong family dynamic central to the film. This leads me to my late question which is how would Thoreau’s experiment differed at all if he were married or had children and had taken their wants/needs into account?
Thoreau’s musings in the section “solitude” could perhaps suggest that his distance from human society does not remove him from the sense of society which is evident in nature. The way that he personifies different organisms provides a fresh perspective for those who worry if he was lonely. My question in regards to this section is, how can we as a society reintegrate nature into our definition of society? As SD students we can most likely agree that viewing humans as superior to nature is problematic, but what other ways could we envision an integrated society between the Anthropocene and nature…other than the one that Henry Thoreau described in this portion of the novel?
The documentary No Impact Man really showed how people (specifically those in developed nations) depend on fossil fuels and many modern conveniences to live ‘normal’ lives. I think that Thoreau would have agreed with the Beavans on many things, but would have issue with others. I feel that Thoreau would have an issue with the fact that the family stayed in the city, removed from the nature that he felt was crucial to this type of ‘experiment’. However, Thoreau would likely understand and relate to some of the casual omissions of the documentary. For example, I noticed that the family had a dog, and this dog has to eat, but what? The family vowed to not buy meat, and they probably didn’t feed the dog a vegetarian diet. I suspect (I could be wrong) that the family broke one of their ‘rules’ to feed the dog, so Collin chose to leave it out of the documentary. This parallels to Thoreau’s omission of the social interactions and outside help he had during his experiment. My question is, would Thoreau consider what the Beavans did a modern version of his own experiment? And, would he have issues with the fact that Collin started this experiment partially as a way to make money?
When watching the film ‘No Impact Man’, I thought to myself, would Thoreau approve the Beavan family’s new way of life? At first thought, it seemed for me it would that yes, Henry would approve. Yet, upon further reflection, I am now skeptical. Although the two ‘experiments’ seem to have the similar goals of going against the norms of society to achieve a more meaningful and intentional life, a closer glance reveals that these goals were reached in notably different manners.
Thoreau was not interested in being a part of a market based economy, he preferred to consume mostly only what he cultivated. To have others grow food for him would have been to disconnect him from the land it came from and the process that it takes. He desired an intimate relationship with nature, so planting, raising, and taking care of his crops was essential to owning a close relationship with the sustenance that came from nature. The Beavan family, however, also did not want to be a part of the regular consumer society, and opted to go to the farmer’s market instead. Is this a modern alternative for someone living in a big city? Or is it something completely different? Would HDT’s version in the present day be to get out of NY in the first place, to find a secluded forest somewhere? But is even this alternative somewhat unreachable in today’s world? The Beavan family tried to have a garden, but their only option was the small community garden with a 2 year waiting list.
Another possible disagreement between the two ‘methods’ of pursuing a deliberately lived life, would be the Beavan’s family continuation of labor. Thoreau made it very clear in Economy that working to make money is a ‘factitious care’ and that labor prohibits people from being able to pluck the finer fruits of life. What would Thoreau ‘s thoughts be on the Collin’s posting of his journey on social media? Would Thoreau be judgmental about this process? Collin and his wife started to get really upset and question their decisions when people (whom they didn’t even know personally) were hating on their lifestyle, and to this I think Henry would suggest to them, “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” But, is the forming of a documentary and blog as Collin did just a modern version of HDT’s writing of Walden? For he was judged too, and he was seeking an audience for his thoughts and experiences too. But, in Collin’s case, it was a live audience that could judge him immediately, and for Thoreau, his writing allowed him to escape immediate criticism, other than from his neighbors or others, but he seemed to not care too much about what others thought, and did as he wanted to anyway.
My final debate between the two modes of living would be about the location of the ‘projects’. Would Henry disapprove of the Beavan families’ decision to stay sort of ‘separate’ from nature in their apartment? HDT saw the deep connection and relationship with nature as paramount to his goals in Walden. Would he disapprove of the family structure because of his emphasis on solitude, and a quiet, and intimate relationship with nature and oneself? “I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude.” Was Henry anti-family, or did he just not want that for himself?
HDT wrote of how he did not want others to follow in his exact footsteps, but to find their own ways of achieving a deliberate life. So, in conclusion, would you see the Beavan family’s experience in Manhattan as a possible ‘modern day Walden? Because in a different world, a different setting, and different lives, they were still trying to find a way to escape the traps of a consuming and ignorant society, even though they still lived in it in a large sense. Thoreau professes that, “…if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.” Is this what the Beavan family was doing?
After watching “No Impact Man”, I was left wondering how much projects like Colin Beavan’s make a difference in the world. The film expressed moments of extremism that provoked many to disregard the project, but rather jump to disagreement and anger. The complexity of living in NYC while mindfully producing zero waste creates personal and external relationship issues between Beavan, his friends, and family. This is where I relate to Colin Beavan’s complexity issue. How is it and why is it that lifestyle choices of a modern person trying to live sustainably are rejected and treated as if it belittles those whom don’t choice to make similar actions in their lifestyle? I do not think it is out of the norm to bring about awareness and make suggestions. Does our societies popular belief lye within the realm of mythology? Or are people at large in a huge state of denial?
Up until this point, Walden has read much like a typical memoir; that is it is mostly focused around details and the facts about Thoreau’s experiment. But there is a clear tone shift upon reaching Sounds that transitions the book into more of a thoughtful, reflective scope. While Economy focuses on the connections between individuals and society, Sounds and Solitude in particular look more introspectively to the individual. Despite the occasional church bells or sound of a train passing by in the distance, Thoreau is mostly left with the ambience of nature, and in this tranquility he reflects on how one can find value when they are secluded from the hustle and pace of society. By removing himself from it all, Thoreau is able to truly think about the bigger picture, speculating that the activities of mankind are trivial in comparison to the greater force that is the natural world. He critically examines how society views their own sphere as an all important system with little regard to the environment, much to Thoreau’s displeasure. Although he isn;t that far removed from the rest of humanity, as is his closest neighbor is still roughly a mile away, he speculates that solitude is more of a state of mind rather than a physical isolation, and that its more about closing yourself off to the tribulations of the world in order to find transcendence from material wants.
My question is, how does one effectively become secluded and internally reflective without considering the state of society? in order to truly move beyond such desires, doesn’t one have to have a certain degree of understanding and experience within the market conditions Thoreau critiques?
After seeing “No Impact Man”, I thought immediately of the differences between the Beavan’s family and Thoreau. Thoreau might appreciate the efforts made by Colin Beavan to have no impact on the environment, but would probably be critical that Colin and his family still lived in the city and continued to buy food and products that he did not grow or make himself. I think both of them had similar ideas, but the time period and the situations they were in determined how far they could take the experiment. Thoreau was never married during his time at Walden and he never had kids to take care of. He also lived in a more simple time. I think maybe if Colin Beavan had lived during Thoreau’s time, he might have ended up at Walden pond too.
Question: Is it possible for someone like Colin Beavan to do something like Thoreau did in todays time? How would having a family alter this experience?
Screening No Impact Man was a great parallel with reading Walden, as the same idea was presented but with very different executions. No Impact Man had good intentions, and I think the actions Colin took to addressing the consumption patterns and wasteful excretions of man’s energy usage was neat and informative. I was really inspired by the ways they committed to changing their lifestyles to reduce their impact on the planet, despite being in the most consumptive nation and living in such an energy intensive city.
Thoreau would definitely criticize Colin and his family for the lack of change they made however, as he would have addressed and changed more than they had chosen to. He would have first been appalled at the norm of consumption in modern time, but he would have then addressed that the Beavan family was not going far enough to truly represent a life with less. But on the other hand, I could see Thoreau being supportive and understanding that the decisions they made to change were big and created something more for their moral and emotional self. “Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live…I did not wish to take a cabin passage, but rather to go before the mast and on the deck of the world, for there I could best see the moonlight amid the mountains. I do not wish to go below now” (302). This shows how the time spent at Walden created a lasting impact that could never leave Thoreau after all he had seen and learned and experienced. He could not go back to how he once was, which shows how this gained knowledge becomes a part of who you are. That could be how the Beaven family (mainly Colin) goes on, now aware and changed, and they remain holding these changed values first in their decisions, which can then influence others.
My question is do you think Colin would have been more forward in his actions to reduce his impact and change his location if he did not have a family present, and would Thoreau encourage this decision of leaving behind his life to creating one he believes in?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, “Where I lived, and what I lived for”, he begins by discussing how he chose where to live versus the other places he visited, and he described what it looked like and the surrounding area. In this, he describes his privileged of being able to choose where to live, all the places he looked at were larger properties. He also continues the theme of wanting more simplicity in life, by means such as farming, and spending more time in the woods; it sounds like he is trying to live for himself. One statement Thoreau made was “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived” (Thoreau, Page 85). This quote is perfect for summing up what Thoreau’s goal is in Walden, he wants to experience life in a non-systematic and natural way unlike ever before.
In the chapter “Reading”, Thoreau talks about how he was reading Homer Simpsons Iliad. He talks a little bit on Greek and Latin and how only few scholars can read it. He is distraught that not everyone reads classics “The best books are not read even by those who are called good readers” (Thoreau, Page 100). In this he makes it seem that if you are not educated or reading good books, then you are ignorant. The chapter, “Sounds”, is a continuance from “Reading”. He talks about things he sees and hears while out in the woods; Birds, squirrels, fishes in a pond, etc. He also visits a railroad, where he interacts with people, therefore he is not totally cut off from society. There is also a lot of metaphors and poems in this chapter about man in relation to mother nature, and how man does not rule over it.
“Solitude” is about Thoreau submitting himself into nature alone. One special evening showed him romance in nature through the animals and sounds and all the elements making it a beautiful night. He wants to trade out human society for a life in nature because the Earth and its natural settings are more important than those that are man-made. His response to people asking him if he gets lonely is deep, he is saying that how can he be lonely in a planet…a galaxy, with so many inhabitants, what is the separation besides distance and walls? But, another paragraph in this chapter is Thoreau talking about enjoying being alone, especially most of the time.
The chapter “Visitors” is about people visiting him in his cabin. Instead of providing material items such as food or other comforts, he aims to provide spiritually enriching experiences instead. He only has three chairs in his house, so when he has big groups of people over everyone is standing and almost touching, which could potentially be more spiritually connecting for people. He seems to feel a little bad for not being a charitable host, but his perks have reason.
My question is, what are these spiritually enhancing things Thoreau is doing alone and with his visitors, besides being in nature? Him and his guests do not eat or drink alcohol when hanging out at his cabin, which is funny to me because sharing and eating food with others is a very spiritual thing in some cultures. He seems to have the idea of what he wants but hes not fully taking action in terms of growing spiritually, individually and as a collective.
In Thoreau’s chapter “The bean-field” the most striking aspect regarding his attitude towards nature is in how he believes the hungry farmer should view his pest and weed-laden fields. “Shall I
not rejoice also at the abundance of the weeds whose seeds are the
granary of the birds?” In essence, these things typically viewed as plagues of the unsuccessful farmer, could be seen as a bountiful gift to nature and its creatures.
In “The Village” and “The Ponds” we learn that Thoreau would frequently go into the town of Concord to talk with the townspeople and socialize a little bit.
Later we meet the family of Joh Field, who are also living self-sustained on their farm. However, it seems that Thoreau holds some contempt for the family. He even describes the family’s infant as a “poor starveling brat”. He says the wife has a greasy face and is always holding a mop, despite the fact that the farm seems, in his eyes, to be filthy. He even reveals some antiquated racism declaring that the family suffers from “inherited Irish poverty”. He then has the gall to say that John Fields probably won’t read the book (probably because he views the family as uneducated) and that if he did read the book, maybe he could learn a thing or two. To be honest, if I were John Fields, I would track down Thoreau, and throw hands with that smug academic.
We also learn that even in the winter, Thoreau keeps a trail to town clear for an occasional visit, and even takes on quite a few visitors over the winter months.
Question: If Thoreau did not have access to those visits to Concord or his few visitors, then do you think the isolation would have had more of an impression on Thoreau’s mental wellbeing over the course of this experiment?
Throughout Walden, Thoreau discusses what makes a man and when talking about the human experience in society refers to only man. However, when discussing Nature, the word is always capitalized and referred to as “she”. On page 180, Thoreau says, “Nature is hard to be overcome, but she must be overcome.” Throughout Walden so far, he explains how man should live in harmony with nature, but in this statement he contradicts that quite blatantly. A few pages before on page 173, he is saying how society pities the boy who was never taught to shoot a gun or to be a hunter, but never mentions that of a woman.
My question is, why has Thoreau never challenged the views of gender regarding Nature and “her” domination? Even when he claims to have a respect for and live in harmony with nature and wilderness?
In Thoreau’s Walden, specifically in the Chapter, “Where I lived and what I lived for”, I found that some common themes were self-renewal, setting intentions for the day, and reawakening. A few quotes that summoned these themes for me are on pg 87 and 88. “Every morning was a cheerful invitation to make my life of equal simplicity, and I may say innocence with nature her self. I got up early and bathed in the pond, that was a religious exercise, and one of the best things in which I did.” In this chapter, Thoreau would also describe the self-renewal practices of Men during the Heroic ages. “Renew thyself completely each day; do it again and again, and again forever.” In interpreting this section of the chapter It seems that to Thoreau the highest art is to affect the quality of the day.
Is Thoreau suggesting that society does not allow people to adhere to the practice of self-renewal enough, self-renewal in which Thoreau describes as allowing oneself to awaken to his/her fullest potential? What does Thoreau mean by “few are awake for poetic labor”?
Higher Laws
Henry David Thoreau has brought forth the ideas of essential human and animal instinct. On page 197 he wrote, “I found in myself, and still find, an instinct toward a higher, or, as it is named, a spiritual life, as do most men, and another toward a primitive rank and savage one, and I reverence them both.” Thoreau has thus stated how he has deep respect for the spiritual life and the savage instincts. Yet, Thoreau seems to have put forth his deepest efforts to overcome his savage instinct, and the two instincts were brought to a friction or even collision of sorts. Thoreau continued, “The repugnance to animal food is not the effect of the experience, but it is an instinct” (201). Therefore, Thoreau portrayed his spiritual and higher instinct to have been overcoming the savage, and in conflict with the other. Yet, what does Thoreau mean by spiritual? He has represented the decision not to carry an organized religion or belief. Thoreau went on to describe how imagination, generative energy, knowledge, and wisdom can be brought forth with purity and chastity. Is the chastity that Thoreau practiced the abstinence of the savage instinct? Then, nearing the end of the chapter he stated, “Nature is hard to overcome, but she must be overcome” (207). What did Thoreau mean by nature, why must it be overcome, and why is nature a “she”? Most importantly, what is so significant about the spiritual instinct?
In Where I Lived and What I Lived For Thoreau says on page 85 “We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn, which does not forsake us in our soundest sleep.” What is the sleep which Thoreau is referring? How do we apply these words to our modern lives?
Thoreau leans into his hermit like tendencies in these chapters. Particularly in The Brute Neighbor when he is comparing the hermit and the poet. However, Thoreau does regard the mice of the cabin his housemates and birds of the pond his companions. How does Thoreau use these examples to show us how we should live among and in nature? How does he see the consumers of the cranberries and bison as disconnected from nature?
In Walden’s chapter Visitors, Thoreau tells of a young man who he describes as an “inoffensive simple-minded pauper (142).” He tells Thoreau of his deficient intellect. This man says that he believes himself to be weak in the head because of the Lord’s will. He describes himself as different from the other children growing up, that he never had much mind. The reason he came to Thoreau was to talk with him about how he lives. He came because he has the desire to live as he lives. Earlier on that page, Thoreau states that “there might be men of genius in the lowest grades of life, however permanently humble and illiterate, who take their own view always, or do not pretend to see at all.” Yet, this “simple-minded pauper” is not confined to his own view, he is going out and asking for others. He does not pretend, he knows his ignorance and accepts who he is. He is going out and trying to find a better way for himself. This man’s humility, self-knowledge, and desires to me seem to be simple yet profound and in a way wise.
This section stirred the question in me of what constitutes intelligence? Does simple-mindedness have to mean the same as unintelligence? Just because someone is different from the others in thought, does that mean they are weak in the head? Which is wiser, a man with complex thoughts and little initiative or a man of the opposite? Does any of it matter?
Thoreau has a connection to nature that is different than most people. Throughout Walden we are able to read about his connection to it and how he views his use of nature and the benefits he obtains from it. He also focuses on the importance of being independent and not relying on anyone other than yourself, he then compares the reliance on other people as being imprisoned by an obligation.
My question is this, does Thoreau’s ideal lifestyle have flaws that can be worked around or is he just writing about the ideal lifestyle? Does he seem to be practicing what he preaches or is he simply writing what he believes and stretching his own reality?
In the chapter “The Bean Field,” the end stood out to me where Thoreau was discussing farming, which he calls husbandry, and how it was once a sacred art. He goes on to say “By avarice and selfishness, and a groveling habit, from which none of us is free, of regarding the soil as property, or the means of acquiring property chiefly, the landscape is deformed, husbandry is degraded with us, and the farmer leads the meanest of lives. He knows Nature but as a robber” (pg 156). This quote stood out to me because it resonates with farming today on an even bigger scale due to industrial agriculture. It is also degrading and deforming the land even more then it did in the past. There is a lack of appreciation of nature and it is currently utilized for the most part as a way to make money by the big corporations. In the next chapter, “The Village,” through notes that as he is blindly making his way through the woods helps make you “…appreciate the vastness and strangeness of Nature” (pg 162). Continuing with the theme of exploiting nature due to greed, Thoreau states “I am convinced, that if all men were to live as simply as I then did, thieving and robbery would be unknown.”
How do you think Thoreau would feel about how big industrial agriculture has become? How would Thoreau approach changing the current system? It is easy to state that you should grow what you need to survive but in today’s society, it is not as easy for everyone to have access to land with how big our population has grown. In addition to that, there are a few big corporations such as Monsanto that control a lot of the agriculture.
In Thoreau’s chapter “Brute Neighbors” he talks about his relationship with the living beings surrounding his cabin as well as the animals relationships with one another. He analyzes the battle between red and black ants and compares their battle to that of the battle in the Illiad. Thoreau continually describes how the ants are feeling throughout the battle. He goes into detail about the team work that the red ants use and the strength that the black ants have. Thoreau spends an entire chapter talking in depth about how different animals live. I think the message he is trying to get across is that it is important for us to observe the relationships and systems around us. So my question is, do you think observing these relationships is crucial part of life? How can we observe the natural systems around us in today’s busy world?
I was really surprised reading Thoreau’s chapter when he visits the Baker Farm. He found a small hut, once abandoned is now being occupied by a man named John Field and his family. In his very first descriptions of the family he is not kind. He describes John Field as “shiftless”, his baby as “coneheaded”, and describes the wife as having a “round greasy face and bare breast”. In the time he spends there, he seems to do nothing but judge John Field and his family. He immediately looks at the family with pity and seemingly disgust. He even tries to give unwanted advice to Field explaining how he lives his life so well and simply and how Field can be more prosperous by doing the same. He then asks his host for some water, regards it as the “gruel that sustains life here”, then drinks it so as not to appear rude. Clearly, it has not occurred to Thoreau (but has a occurred to the rest of us) that he had been quite rude to the Field Family. He scarcely even mentions a thing they say and focuses only on what he has to say to them. Thoreau seems very comfortable in his own beliefs and views and now we can see that he is very uncomfortable when others’ views don’t line up with his.
Considering Thoreau’s close-minded and superior mindset when it came to his meeting with this family, do you still think that Thoreau’s time spent alone in nature has truly humbled him?
Throughout the book Thoreau describes many things that happen around us in nature that we probably do not see on a normal basis. This is especially true in the chapter “Brute Neighbors” where Thoreau described the different animals living in and around his cabin. Many of the animals are peaceful like the mice that linger in his cabin. However one day Thoreau witnesses a battle between two different types of ants one black and the other red. “A war between two races of ants, the red always pitted against the black, and frequently two red ones to one black one.” (215). Thoreau describes the battle in great detail using an analogy of Spartans from Greek history. I have not considered these struggles between bugs in such a way before however for the ants it must feel like a massive conflict. It seems the competition in nature goes farther than I had considered. War for people is a pretty common thing however I had not thought of wars being fought between different types of ants. So what does this mean for us if the need to fight a war naturally comes to something as small as an ant? Can it be related to conflict seen throughout human history?
We have all likely become familiar with the concept of distancing from a “free mind” and the issues surrounding this due to institutionalized thought and processes. For example, in “Visitors” he describes those that have subscribed to the common attributes of the “developed” human who have a “grovelling habit, from which none of us is free, of regarding the soil as property” (88). Such is the dichotomy between nature and culture, and between culture and the individual. To mend these relationships, he states that we must get “lost” or have “lost the world” to “begin to find ourselves” (91). This mental journey is one taken alone, according to Thoreau.
Throughout these chapters Thoreau has decidedly separated himself from these institutions physically and spiritually. However, this experiment has been one of solitude and further distancing. I want to believe that these journeys do not, in fact, have to be ones of complete solitude within the natural landscapes, unscathed by humans. Could we, perhaps, see this journey as simply spiritual and not just physical? Similarly, could a freed mind, awoken, “whether from sleep or any abstraction”, actually change our culture? Should this way of thinking be treated as a religion, or simply as just a way of living with non humans around us?
For this weeks question, it brings back some components from SD theory. Primarily, the colonialism mindset. At Baker Farm Thoreau finds himself fishing and needing shelter from the rain and stumbles upon a man named John Field who is living in this hut with this family. What is disturbing to me is how prevalent this mindset is still used today and by Thoreau. “I had sat there many times of old before the ship was built that floated this family to America. (Pg. 204)” I find this assumption Thoreau has made here and later at the end to be extremely uncaring, he has not provided any critical thought process to this situation at all. “With his horizon all his own, yet he a poor man, born to be poor, with his inherited Irish poverty or poor life, (Pg. 209)” Apart from his assumptions of this man and his family, I don’t think Thoreau handled the rest of the situation well at all, apart from drinking the “dirty water”. Thoreau in my mind wrongly assumes much about this man and then “gives advice” but he does so in a very demeaning and insulting way. My question is do you think Thoreau is exhibiting a colonialist mindset towards this family or does he honestly care and want to help them out of poverty? Is there a difference?
In “The Village” the chapter begins with Thoreau bathing himself in Walden pond after a day’s work of study and labor, cleansing himself both physically and mentally is what I gather from this. I was surprised when he mentioned that he goes to hear the village gossip every day or so, taking it in “homoeopathic doses”, as it was refreshing to do so. He critiques the people that become consumed by the gossip, “it only produces numbness and insensibility to pain, —otherwise it would often be painful to hear,—without affecting the consciousness” (109), which is a critique that can certainly be made today, as are many of his other observations and critiques, even if he himself partakes in these acts at time. As he was walking to the village he described busy men, comparing them to the prairie dogs he had just seen; “under the grove of elms and buttonwoods in the other horizon was a village of busy men, as curious to me as if they had been prairie dogs”, this imagery reminding me of the scenes we viewed in class from Baraka. I was also surprised at how welcoming he was to guest, this part, in a way, humanizing himself, as these readings tend to show him in an isolated form where a level of superiority is expressed. Towards the end of this chapter he reiterates once more how living simply, in “voluntary poverty”, as he has referred to it before, is beneficial. This time not only to detach oneself from the toxicity of materialism and excess, but to not become affected by a robbery; “I am convinced, that if all men were to live as simply as I then did, thieving and robbery would be unknown. These take place only in communities where some have got more than is sufficient while others have not enough” (112).
This quote leads me to some of my own conflicting thoughts; Throughout this book it could be interpreted that Thoreau cares little about other people and humanity, only focusing on his experience, as it is after all an experiment. Sometimes I believe that he wants humanity to better itself, for each individual to decide how to best go towards that, if it does not infringe the livelihood of others I am assuming. With this quote I even thought, for a second, that Thoreau would, in this time, have socialist sentiments. This however quickly faded away as I was reminded of his individualistic ways and his rather disgusting and discriminatory views of not caring about other people’s social circumstances, such as with John Field’s poverty due to him being Irish. I ask myself now; Should Thoreau’s problematic views affect how I see some of his positive and eye-opening ones? Some could say that that’s just how people were back then but his whole experiment is him in his efforts of going against that grain.
In the beginning of “Where I Lived,” Thoreau talks about the morning, or “the awakening hour.” He says the morning is a time to rejoice with our aspirations and find a sort of spiritual grounding in it. Then he says, “Why is it that men give so poor an account of their day if they have not been slumbering? They are not such poor calculators. If they had not been overcome with drowsiness they would have performed some thing…I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. How could I have looked him in the eye?” (84-85). Reading this confused me as Thoreau has not previously been so dismissive of the faults of man. Instead he excuses them for not being awake for “effective intellectual exertion” or poetic or divine life, only physical labor, attributing it to a lack of adequate sleep. I read Thoreau with a grain of salt as I find him to often be contradictory, but I was surprised to see him defending the men that he usually speaks of with disgust and no openness to understanding any deeper reason for their lifestyle. Additionally, if I’m interpreting the last part correctly, he is even humbling himself in saying that he is not the most awake himself. I’m wondering, did Thoreau do this on purpose, perhaps to excuse some of his own hypocritical actions? But then is he even aware that he contradicts himself so often?
In “The Bean-Field”, Thoreau acknowledges that, along with planting, hoeing, harvesting, threshing, and picking over, he sold some of his beans (152). He took several pages to describe his experience growing beans and it seems to me that he found it to be pleasant, rewarding, and, most importantly, outside. I was surprised, however, to read that he sold them. Knowing already that he is not completely self-sufficient (rice, molasses, flour, sugar, and more), I was surprised to see him participating in the economy he criticizes so harshly. Similarly, in “The Village,” Thoreau describes his walk into the village “every day or two” (that in itself is, I think, pretty often for someone who claims to have been living in solitude), particularly commenting on the town gossip. He says the gossip, “taken in homeopathic doses, was really as refreshing in its way as the rustle of leaves and the peeping of frogs” (158). This quote surprises me for two reasons: one, that Thoreau enjoys gossip in itself, and two, that he compares it to happenings in nature, something he holds much higher than society. And, yet again, he contradicts himself in claiming that he lived in solitude for a lengthy time. How much truth can we find in Thoreau’s ideals when he does not truly practice them himself? Or, are we not meant to read into his writing so literally, but rather take away that we could have the option to do so if we choose?
Thoreau is interested in the good and evil of human nature. He acknowledges the tendency for humanity to become corrupted and overcome by immorality. “We are conscious of an animal within us, which awakens in proportion as our higher nature slumbers” (205). In the chapter “Higher Laws”, Thoreau compares the human tendency to indulge in “bad” behavior with eating habits. This comparison of working to get good tasting food, is similar to his belief that people are slaves to the land. We are slaves to our senses, and therefore we work to temporarily relieve those senses. Thoreau has concluded that our need and desire to eat foods that are savory and rich is enforcing a bond that is attached to impurity. “If I knew so wise a man as could teach me purity I would go seek him forthwith”( 206). The ultimate goal that Thoreau seems to be looking for, is how to divorce beastiality within humanity and attain an elevated standard of living.
“Nature is hard to overcome, but she must be overcome” (207). Thoreau is seeking a way for humanity to reach a stage of purity by overcoming nature and submitting ourselves to strict and simple modes of living. However, he is also contradicting in his belief that Nature itself is pure by claiming that human nature ought to be overcome or subdued. Is it possible to live both in communion with nature and to overcome it? Where is the line drawn between that which is Natural and that which is considered Human Nature? In other words, should human nature be considered as part of Nature, or separate from nature?
The chapter “The Bean Field” really spoke to me as Thoreau compared his approach to farming to how most of the farmers in Massachusetts operated during the time. To me, farming is one of the most intimate ways humans can connect directly with nature; however, it requires more reflection and care on the farmer’s part as it can easily be transformed into an unbalanced relationship (where man is the conqueror and nature has been beaten into submission). This imbalance is best described on page 114, when Thoreau writes, “By avarice and selfishness, and a grovelling habit, from which none of us is free, of regarding the soil as property,…the landscape is deformed, husbandry is degraded with us, and the farmer leads the meanest of lives. He knows nature but as a robber.” It’s interesting that Thoreau’s words, though over 150 years old, still sound eerily familiar, especially given the prevalence of industrial agriculture today.
My one concern with this chapter is that Thoreau has talked often about how we should aim to provide for ourselves and not pursue other extravagances that only complicate our lives, which is why I initially thought the bean-field would be completely for subsistence purposes only. I was surprised when he described his investment and profit from the beans as if it were any other business venture. While I understand that his talk of money is probably more of a practical addition to the book, my question is: Does cultivation of a crop for profit take away any of the magic of farming? Thoreau clearly expressed that he isn’t even much of a fan of beans. Does viewing his beans as a product to be sold and less as a resource for him to eat make them lose some of their emotional value?
When Thoreau discusses being in solitude and away from the nature of society. He talks about enjoying the sounds of nature and what it truly has to offer. The idea that he is alone in nature. Taking in what Walden Pond truly has to offer. Having the land provide what he needs. I find this interesting that he discusses this because he does spend a large amount of time with people, from having visitors to going into Concord.
My question then is, if Thoreau would have fully fallen into the idea of being alone in nature and not letting society impact him at all would he of had a different mindset of society and appreciated the human connection that society bring to us? Did having the idea of being in solitude but still being connected to everyone make him more cynical of society?
Thoreau often describes the beauty and importance of solitude, but frequently references writers and thinkers. In the Brute Neighbors chapter he spends a lot of time describing a battle between ants and goes on to talk about writers who also write about ant battles. I have a hard time reading Thoreau because his purposes are not clear to me with each topic he describes in great detail, so when I see him referencing well known thinkers, I recognize that he is cuing us in to a larger conversation, but then I don’t know what that conversation is because I haven’t read nearly as much as him. The ant battle section made me question more what exactly his purpose was because it was so specific. He also Is writing to an audience, which to me, is inherently a form of community as the reader becomes part of a conversation with Thoreau and those he references. I greatly value community and see it as necessary for a healthy and fulfilling life, but when I read Thoreau I do find myself wishing I could have that solitude and simplicity. Of course he doesn’t believe that his way of life is for everyone, but only some people can choose to participate in this romanticized way of living.
Does Thoreau believe in true solitude, or that it is possible to live in true solitude? Give examples from the text to support your answer. What does true solitude even look like? If he does believe in the value of community through literature, why does he make it so inaccessible? What kind of person can afford to live in solitude?
Throughout Walden,Thoreau is adamant that nothing is required other than himself in order to thrive. Thoreau often considers food, drink (other than what is absolutely necessary), family, and community not only dispensable, but hindrances to true living. He even writes, in ‘Higher Laws,’ “The wonder is how they, how you and I, can live this slimy, beastly life, eating and drinking.” Thoreau seems to demand that we live in the exact way in which he has found “fulfillment.” He writes as if his path to “true living” is the only path. Thoreau writes that he, “wanted to live deep and such our all the marrow of life, to live to sturdily and Spartan-life as to pout and rout all that was not life.” This quote in particular seems to give Thoreau the power to distinguish exactly what counts as “life” and what does not.
Is Thoreau’s way of life simplistic or a determined journey to a moral high ground? Is denying ourselves “luxuries” – such as connection, tradition, and work – essential to our lives or are these aspects to life that should be enjoyed and are essential to our quality of life and happiness?
In “The Bean Field” Henry begins farming a small plot of land to sustain himself. Even though through previous writing he condemns such a lifestyle as slavery to the land. The need to sustain himself is an inevitability and it brings me to weird train of thought.
Where do you feel the line is between freedom and sustaining yourself is? Is existence just the labor of keeping yourself alive? So could you ever be “free” of responsibilities sense you can never be free of yourself?
When I was reading Walden, I came across a line that just particularly struck me – in the beginning lines of “Solitude” he says “I go and come with a strange liberty in Nature, a part of herself.” (89). This got me thinking about how Thoreau is approaching his environment and understanding his place at Walden Pond. Here he claims that he is a part of Nature, and then goes on to describe how he has “friendship in the seasons,” and “society in Nature.” However, he does note that “With thinking we may be besides ourselves in a sane sense…. We are not wholly involved in Nature,” displaying what seems to be a perceived separation between man and the “natural world”. He then goes on to describe that he feels like merely a spectator in life, one who can view himself as a human entity and choose what to be affected by (93). What does this mean for Thoreau’s views of solitude and natural companionship? How does this play into the themes of self-making, simplicity, and living in the present that we’ve seen in Walden? How does Thoreau position himself in regard to his natural environment and how does this change his self and his thinking?
Also in “Solitude,” he faces a question from his neighbor about loneliness – does he not desire to be closer to other human beings, especially on snowy and rainy nights? Thoreau answers “This whole earth which we inhabit is but a point in space…. Why should I feel lonely? is not our planet in the Milky Way?” (92) (This might be a goofy question, but did/would Thoreau believe in aliens?) He seems to render space imagined as distance irrelevant when he says “What sort of space is that which separates a man from his fellows and makes him solitary? I have found that no exertion of the legs can bring two mind much nearer to one another.” He also goes on to say that “For the most part we allow only outlying and transient circumstances to make our occasions.” (93) What do these speculations about space, time, and positioning bring to the table in a discussion about society and solitude?
I’ll admit, I got a little bit lost in his writing after that last quote, where he begins “Nearest to all things is that power which fashions their being,” and continues with a series of quotes like “We seek to perceive them, and we do not see them; we seek to hear them, and we do not hear them; identified with the substance of things, they cannot be separated from themselves.” (93). While I understand bits and pieces, I’m not sure what Thoreau is getting at overall in this section midway through “Solitude.” What does he mean when he says “We are the subjects of an experiment which is not a little interesting to me,”? (93)
In Brute Neighbors, Thoreau sets himself up in a hypothetical conversation between a poet, and a hermit–the hermit being who Thoreau saw himself as in the situation. The Poet was always alluding back to previous readings or adventures, while the hermit kept to more practical tasks and was aware of the things around him (like the right size worms to use for fishing, the fact that his bread needed eating soon, etc) (Walden, 210-212). I believe Thoreau sets himself up as the hermit due to his constant assurance of his own pragmatism, but at the same time I had hesitations. Would he not be the poet, especially based on the entirety of this book thus far, where comparisons are made every page or so to some contextually-relevant but still seemingly unrelated philosophy or story?
Then again, later on he admits himself a poet after all (Walden 219) when talking about the “winged” cat he should so fancy as to own. So maybe the conversation could be read more as his own internal dialogue? The practical man aware of how to feed himself versus the bubbly scholar who’s absorbed enough in his own world to disenfranchise himself from reality? Not that I’d say he’s as bad as his hypothetical poet, Thoreau’s been keeping a fairly regimented account on his food and how he acquires it, and while he does often take the time to ruminate over old wisdoms and stories, its in his ample amount of free time in communion with nature.
Later on in Former Inhabitants, Thoreau spends a time noting the fact that he’s not the first to settle in his neck of the woods, and in fact can easily find traces of a more bustling settlement through the grave-ish remains of house cellars and foundations. He notes that the state of the soil could have also just as easily told him that it had been freely used, and fallowed, and used again. He wonders why settlements in such a good location could be left to waste, while Concord continued on fine. “Alas! How little does the memory of these human inhabitants enhance the beauty of the landscape!”, he says, and “Deliver me from a city built on the site of a more ancient city, whose materials are ruins, whose gardens cemeteries.” (Walden 248-249) How often is it that we too, take a few minutes to look for the signs of those who came and lived before us, even on what could initially seem like freshly settled lands? And how often does the notion strike us that we are indeed settled where others once lived, but without noticing a trace of their ever existing?
Within “The Bean Field” Thoreau points out an inherent flaw in our economic/market systems that has remained an issue, even in contemporary times. He raises the question, “Who estimates the value of the crop which nature yields?”
The answer was and still is the markets, the consumers, and the businessmen. Due to ill-enforced (and sometimes lack of) labor laws and regulations the prices set on the food consumers purchase tend to not reflect their true value when the labor and transportation costs are considered. This is true within all types of extraction practices. The thought of humans putting a value on natural services and products makes little sense.
When people do not understand the value of their food, it is then taken for granted. This results in food waste, excessive eating, etc. How can we re-evaluate how food is considered and treated within our markets to more realistically portray its value? Can you think of other consequences that come along with the unrealistic cost of our food and other products/resources?
(Side note/question: Why is there an emphasis on Thoreau selling his beans for a profit when he constantly critiques and suggests avoiding our market system? This confused me.)
Throughout the beginning and now towards the middle of Walden, Thoreau references “freedom” and living “freely”. He complains that the common man is a slave to himself and to society. In the chapter “Baker Farms”, he says, “But the only true America is that country where you are at liberty to pursue such a node of life as may enable you to do without these, and where the state does not endeavor to compel you to sustain the slavery and war and other superfluous expenses which directly or indirectly result from the use of such things” (193). Following, on page 196, he says, “Men come tamely home at night only from the next field or street…We should come home from far, from adventures, and perils, and discoveries every day, with new experience and character.”
Both of these quotes highlight what Thoreau is trying to get across– experience in nature is the only valuable thing in life, and we should not succumb ourselves to conventional ways of living. To him, we are waging a war within ourselves in regards to this conventional life, but we are our own prisoner (hence, the slavery comments). Both society and ourselves have made us prisoner to our own lives. I think Walden, for Thoreau, is really more about him rejecting conventional lifestyles than it is about him trying to live sustainably or eco-friendly, like many of us have already figured out and discussed. Most of us probably struggle with this internal war, or cognitive dissonance, about whether we should continue our American, consumer-driven lives or reject that and live sustainably. However, it can be extremely difficult, and one may need to come from a place of privilege like Thoreau, to truly do that.
What is it that holds us back? Why can’t we give up this cognitive dissonance? Is convenience, consumerism, technology, the strive for higher education what holds us back? Or is this lifestyle just not accessible or possible for some? Is it a privileged lifestyle to essentially give up all the ways of a consumer-driven, capitalist society?
Thoreau offers many different viewpoints on the people of his time; statements about men that work on the railroads every day with courage. He notes that these men are seemingly content in their work (pg 115). He also speaks on the reaction that he has from the mere smells that the train cars bring along with it, sparking positive and worldly memories and feelings, of which he can thank the men that spent their time and labor keeping it running. Yet he also makes claims that the people of this time require more education, and the importance of it (pg 106), “It is time that we had uncommon schools, that we did not leave off our education when we begin to be men and women. It is time that villages were universities…if they are indeed so well off- to pursue liberal studies the rest of their lives”. Here he is really just advocating higher education for everyone in an optimal world, but for everyone? If there are parts of these general men/people that are content, is higher education what is best for them in their lives? How does thoreau make the claim that everyone needs higher education, when he observes content, and already useful, productive citizens of society hard at work?
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived”(88).
From the beginning of reading Walden I was irritated with Thoreau in his what sounded like an aggressive tone towards those who decided to follow the path of the traditional society, but as I have continued to read I have found Thoreau’s writing to be free flowing and poetic. I think through school and the way we are raised in our society we often undermine the humanness of writing and are taught to harshly critique. Although critiquing can be beneficial I think with Thoreau’s writing and based off what we have discussed in class, it is harder to understand his position when we get caught up in critiquing. When we look towards the way he writes without much structure and it seems like a random bundle of words, I think it shows the authenticity of his position at the time. With that being said in Reading he kind of guides us through on how to read his text, he says “To read well, that is, to read true books in a true spirit, is a noble exercise, and one that will task the reader more than any exercise which that customs of the day esteem”(99) From this I am left thinking Thoreau wanted us to be confused about the text and to be the discussing the things that we are, and to read “in true spirit”.
Do you think writers like Thoreau write with an intention to leave the readers with one lasting thought or to leave their writings up to interpretation? and how through the education system how is this interpretation steered?
I skipped ahead to the bean-field chapter because I was excited about it. I appreciate some of the points that Thoreau makes about nature and our relationship with her. The first being that he acknowledges in some ways that growing his crops does mean the clearing out of another wild plant /ecosystem. (146) This is similar to his point in Economy about borrowing from trees from nature in order to have timber. We always have to start with borrowing or you could even say violence against another living being to start our projects. Although he was growing food for himself, other plants had to die for him to be able to do that.
On the other hand, I like the way he describes his living relationship with the beans. Not only does he claim them to be a source of his livelihood, he also describes getting to know them as if they were human. He references Evelyn’s knowledge on the soil who says that there is nothing more useful to the growth of crops than the turning of the earth with a spade. (153) I interpret this as there may be nothing more powerful than having a direct relationship with a crop and it will bring forth growth in both the grower and the crop.
Since violence is inevitable in the means of all production- even small scale, sustainable agriculture, how do we determine what is actually ethical or not? And is it more about minimizing violence? How do we determine what living creatures are worth preserving (ie an animal, tree, or weed)?
Thoreau frequently discusses man’s desire for excess and an unnatural dependency on the free market. He spends his day living off of the land, cultivating all that he needs and nothing else. Is the way that Thoreau lived really ‘freedom’ if he was so heavily dependent on the earth for sustenance? Or is it his own construct of freedom from what he considers to be shackling society? Thoreau felt that the day was wasted if he had not taken a three to four hour walk that day. My ultimate question is, was Thoreau truly living the good life or what his own version of the good life was? Can there be one ultimate version of the good life?
For this week’s question I’m focusing on Thoreau’s chapter “Brute Neighbors”. He starts the chapter by having a discussion with his friend while they are fishing. He refers to himself as a hermit, and his friend a poet. the Hermit seems much more concerned with practical things such as, if hes’s caught any fish, and his brown bread. While the Poet seems more concerned with nonpractical things such as how beautiful the clouds are in the sky. I don’t believe the question that came to my mind is as profound as some of my fellow student’s but this conversation between Thoreau and his friend made me wonder what most Sustainable Development students would consider themselves more like; hermits, or poets? Though perhaps we consider ourselves a good mix of both, like a loon playing on the lake because at that moment survival or success is not the focus.
In Bean Field Thoreau talks about working in his bean field. He mentions that because he has no animal assistance. He says “I was much slower, and became more intimate with my beans than usual (148). He also discusses later in the page the different criticisms he received from travelers on the techniques he used. Criticism that he writes off ignoring them. It seems that he writes off the experienced farmers for doing what he wants to do. My question is do Thoreau have the authority to comment on making a living off of farming when he himself isn’t relying on it for a living? He is not going to loose the land he is on if he doesn’t succeed or make a good crop, he’s not going to not be able to feed a family because his crops don’t succeed. So how can he judge a lifestyle without a full perspective of that lifestyle? It almost feels like hes saying I grew some beans and it didn’t turnout well for me so I think its a waste of time that farmers grow beans. Does Thoreau have authority to judge a lifestyle of others when he himself isn’t truly living that lifestyle?
“…- better if a country seat.” In the chapter ‘where i lived and what i lived for’ Thoreau identifies a house in his words as a seat. And this seat is better if it is a country seat, which i think particularly refers to the trade that simplifying a home tk seat requires. You may lose space, material comfort but you actively create an air of inclusivity wherein a calm mind can find room for the wonder of life.
Does Thoreau weave words relevant today when he speaks to the country as a place of worthy simplicity, as in there can be found an abundance of life, particularly in an era of recovering eastern American forest and simultaneous coexistence of near total farm infertility?
In the second half of Walden, there is a tone shift in Thoreau. Throughout the chapter of Economy there was a dense critique of the way the farmers of Concord lived and how the laborers spent their days living a “fools life”. As Thoreau progresses throughout the book, the lens turns inward. Thoreau is adamant on self renewal, quieting one’s mind through nature and the benefits of alone time.
In the Brute Neighbor chapter, his inner dialogue reminds me so much of what it is like to be in nature, alone, for a prolonged amount of time. The mind chatters and dives deeper into thoughts and the physical world around you. For example, Thoreau’s observations of the ants on the wood pile. (p. 215) When is the last time the average person was so observant or present that they notice the action of an ant?
I see this as the purpose of Walden. Thoreau’s descriptive writings of what it looks like to not be a component of the marketplace or even an obedient member of one’s community.
In this perspective, should the reader interpret Walden as a self help genre? Is Thoreau speaking to micro politics and is his goal of chapters like “House Warming” to inspire individual awareness. If so, is this the end goal? Or does he see that self renewal and introspection will benefit the world as a whole?
Solitude:
As a SD major focusing on community regional and global development, the role of community has been a recurrent theme throughout most of my courses. We have discussed in depth the importance of building a network of resilient and diverse communities to achieve the goals of sustainability and social justice. I believe this is why I found the chapter Solitude so impactful.
“..I doubted if the near neighborhood of man was not essential to a serene and healthy life. To be alone was something unpleasant, But I was at the same time conscious of a slight insanity in my mood, and seemed to forsee my recovery. In the midst of a gentle rain while these thoughts prevailed, I was suddenly sensible of such sweet and beneficent society in Nature, in the very pattering of the drops, and in every sound and sight around my house, an infinite and unaccountable friendliness all at once like an atmosphere sustaining me, as made the fancied advantages of human neighborhood insignificant and I have never thought of them since.”
This passage and others in the chapter, lead me to believe that to Thoreau simply existing in the presence of and acknowledging the validity of all non human forms of life fulfilled his desire for community. However, I feel this method is by no means universal. For many people, a network of support provided within ones community is a necessity for the good life. Thoreau was an able bodied man who came from a place of relative privilege, for others with different life experiences, community may be essential to meet their daily needs. But even for people like Thoreau, can one truly construct ones own community from the pages of books and birds in the trees? Or is human contact, in one way or another, a necessity for living well? If so, does this human interaction have to be in the form of the neighborhood life Thoreau is so critical of? Could there be some middle ground, a way to exist in a space never feeling alone because of your awareness of the life all around you, yet fostering the human connections that make life so wonderful and worth living.
In Baker farm, Thoreau meets a man named John Field and lectures him on his own personal way of life. “and how, if he chose, he might in a month or two build himself a palace of his own” is what he states. My question is this: Thoreau spends time emphasizing that people have to find their own way and path, and that no one person should copy him. Why does Thoreau press his ideas upon John and his family? Isn’t this directly hypocritical of his own philosophy?
In class on Tuesday, Sept 4, we discussed in great detail the idea proposed by Thoreau of living a life of “voluntary poverty” in order to be “an impartial or wise observer of human life.” (16). He also makes claims to the lack of present day “philosophers” and looks to and reveres those ancient philosophers of “Chinese, Hindoo, Persian, and Greek” eras, claiming they “were [from] a class than none has been poorer in outward riches, none so rich in inward.” The factual inaccuracies of that statement aside, what constitutes “outward riches” as opposed to those “rich in inward”? Thoreau raves against monetary wealth and capitalistic materialism, and glorifies living simply off the land and what it provides, however he, and many if, not all of those “wisest” philosophers of ancient times, were given that which many others could view as the “wealth” and opportunity of education, access to all types of books and ways of thinking, and, most importantly, the time and space to read and think without the economic or environmental pressures that so many who live in “involuntary poverty” do not have. What is more desirable? Living a life of well-educated unhappiness? Constantly seeking some higher truth, looking for a way to live life with a sense of purpose, only to almost never be fully satisfied, as we see with the cantankerous writings of Thoreau and other philosophers, and as well among many of us, our peers and those around us? Or to live a life of ignorant contentment, fulfilled only by those vital activities that are necessary to provide for you and your family, never given time to question your realities, but still happy nonetheless? Who is truly the impoverished?
In The Bean Field, Thoreau seems like he is flourishing along side the lands he has called his new home; he makes a large profit from the vegetables he has been able to grow himself, and he speaks of the “inexhaustible entertainment” he gets from the outdoors. Thoreau speaks as if he is on a spiritual journey. Today in class we viewed the film No Impact Man directed and narrated by Colin Beavan. This movie about Colin and his family’s mission to have little to no environmental impact as possible is a beautiful story about how living closer to the Earth can actually be healthier for our bodies and minds. The movie was really eye-opening, and I was taken away by how committed the Beavan’s were to making no environmental impact. They washed their clothes in a bathtub and hung them up to dry in their tiny New York City Apartment. I wonder what Thoreau would think about the concept of having no environmental impact amidst the hustle and bustle of a city like New York? Certainly he could have been overlooked, no one would have known what the Beavan’s were up to had they not documented it all. Just like no one would have known where Thoreau went had he not told his family or wrote a book. The Beavan’s shut off their power and went without a refrigerator, television, and lights for the better course of a year. They did not use paper products like toilet paper, paper towels, or even baby diapers. Everything they used, they reused. People like Colin and his family are the ones that really live by “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” Thoreau would probably embrace their new simplistic way of life and see it much more sustainable than the streets littered with trash and half eaten takeout trays. Thoreau, I believe would be proud of what this family is doing and encourage every one else to do as Colin said in one of his many interviews, everyone should just do what they can to help the problem.
Why does Thoreau in Higher Laws talk about the mind descending into the body? What does this mean?
After viewing No Impact Man, Walden could be viewed in a new light. There are very easy parallels to be made between Thoreau’s and Beavan’s experiments. While both could be argued as being equally obnoxious and pompous, I still admire the effort made by both men and bringing to light certain issues that more times than not make the general population angry and defensive. It’s to my understanding that Thoreau never married, never had children, and went about his experiment at Walden Pond solo. What immediately came to mind when viewing No Impact Man was the strong family dynamic central to the film. This leads me to my late question which is how would Thoreau’s experiment differed at all if he were married or had children and had taken their wants/needs into account?
Thoreau’s musings in the section “solitude” could perhaps suggest that his distance from human society does not remove him from the sense of society which is evident in nature. The way that he personifies different organisms provides a fresh perspective for those who worry if he was lonely. My question in regards to this section is, how can we as a society reintegrate nature into our definition of society? As SD students we can most likely agree that viewing humans as superior to nature is problematic, but what other ways could we envision an integrated society between the Anthropocene and nature…other than the one that Henry Thoreau described in this portion of the novel?
The documentary No Impact Man really showed how people (specifically those in developed nations) depend on fossil fuels and many modern conveniences to live ‘normal’ lives. I think that Thoreau would have agreed with the Beavans on many things, but would have issue with others. I feel that Thoreau would have an issue with the fact that the family stayed in the city, removed from the nature that he felt was crucial to this type of ‘experiment’. However, Thoreau would likely understand and relate to some of the casual omissions of the documentary. For example, I noticed that the family had a dog, and this dog has to eat, but what? The family vowed to not buy meat, and they probably didn’t feed the dog a vegetarian diet. I suspect (I could be wrong) that the family broke one of their ‘rules’ to feed the dog, so Collin chose to leave it out of the documentary. This parallels to Thoreau’s omission of the social interactions and outside help he had during his experiment. My question is, would Thoreau consider what the Beavans did a modern version of his own experiment? And, would he have issues with the fact that Collin started this experiment partially as a way to make money?
When watching the film ‘No Impact Man’, I thought to myself, would Thoreau approve the Beavan family’s new way of life? At first thought, it seemed for me it would that yes, Henry would approve. Yet, upon further reflection, I am now skeptical. Although the two ‘experiments’ seem to have the similar goals of going against the norms of society to achieve a more meaningful and intentional life, a closer glance reveals that these goals were reached in notably different manners.
Thoreau was not interested in being a part of a market based economy, he preferred to consume mostly only what he cultivated. To have others grow food for him would have been to disconnect him from the land it came from and the process that it takes. He desired an intimate relationship with nature, so planting, raising, and taking care of his crops was essential to owning a close relationship with the sustenance that came from nature. The Beavan family, however, also did not want to be a part of the regular consumer society, and opted to go to the farmer’s market instead. Is this a modern alternative for someone living in a big city? Or is it something completely different? Would HDT’s version in the present day be to get out of NY in the first place, to find a secluded forest somewhere? But is even this alternative somewhat unreachable in today’s world? The Beavan family tried to have a garden, but their only option was the small community garden with a 2 year waiting list.
Another possible disagreement between the two ‘methods’ of pursuing a deliberately lived life, would be the Beavan’s family continuation of labor. Thoreau made it very clear in Economy that working to make money is a ‘factitious care’ and that labor prohibits people from being able to pluck the finer fruits of life. What would Thoreau ‘s thoughts be on the Collin’s posting of his journey on social media? Would Thoreau be judgmental about this process? Collin and his wife started to get really upset and question their decisions when people (whom they didn’t even know personally) were hating on their lifestyle, and to this I think Henry would suggest to them, “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” But, is the forming of a documentary and blog as Collin did just a modern version of HDT’s writing of Walden? For he was judged too, and he was seeking an audience for his thoughts and experiences too. But, in Collin’s case, it was a live audience that could judge him immediately, and for Thoreau, his writing allowed him to escape immediate criticism, other than from his neighbors or others, but he seemed to not care too much about what others thought, and did as he wanted to anyway.
My final debate between the two modes of living would be about the location of the ‘projects’. Would Henry disapprove of the Beavan families’ decision to stay sort of ‘separate’ from nature in their apartment? HDT saw the deep connection and relationship with nature as paramount to his goals in Walden. Would he disapprove of the family structure because of his emphasis on solitude, and a quiet, and intimate relationship with nature and oneself? “I find it wholesome to be alone the greater part of the time. To be in company, even with the best, is soon wearisome and dissipating. I love to be alone. I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude.” Was Henry anti-family, or did he just not want that for himself?
HDT wrote of how he did not want others to follow in his exact footsteps, but to find their own ways of achieving a deliberate life. So, in conclusion, would you see the Beavan family’s experience in Manhattan as a possible ‘modern day Walden? Because in a different world, a different setting, and different lives, they were still trying to find a way to escape the traps of a consuming and ignorant society, even though they still lived in it in a large sense. Thoreau professes that, “…if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.” Is this what the Beavan family was doing?
After watching “No Impact Man”, I was left wondering how much projects like Colin Beavan’s make a difference in the world. The film expressed moments of extremism that provoked many to disregard the project, but rather jump to disagreement and anger. The complexity of living in NYC while mindfully producing zero waste creates personal and external relationship issues between Beavan, his friends, and family. This is where I relate to Colin Beavan’s complexity issue. How is it and why is it that lifestyle choices of a modern person trying to live sustainably are rejected and treated as if it belittles those whom don’t choice to make similar actions in their lifestyle? I do not think it is out of the norm to bring about awareness and make suggestions. Does our societies popular belief lye within the realm of mythology? Or are people at large in a huge state of denial?
Up until this point, Walden has read much like a typical memoir; that is it is mostly focused around details and the facts about Thoreau’s experiment. But there is a clear tone shift upon reaching Sounds that transitions the book into more of a thoughtful, reflective scope. While Economy focuses on the connections between individuals and society, Sounds and Solitude in particular look more introspectively to the individual. Despite the occasional church bells or sound of a train passing by in the distance, Thoreau is mostly left with the ambience of nature, and in this tranquility he reflects on how one can find value when they are secluded from the hustle and pace of society. By removing himself from it all, Thoreau is able to truly think about the bigger picture, speculating that the activities of mankind are trivial in comparison to the greater force that is the natural world. He critically examines how society views their own sphere as an all important system with little regard to the environment, much to Thoreau’s displeasure. Although he isn;t that far removed from the rest of humanity, as is his closest neighbor is still roughly a mile away, he speculates that solitude is more of a state of mind rather than a physical isolation, and that its more about closing yourself off to the tribulations of the world in order to find transcendence from material wants.
My question is, how does one effectively become secluded and internally reflective without considering the state of society? in order to truly move beyond such desires, doesn’t one have to have a certain degree of understanding and experience within the market conditions Thoreau critiques?
sep 4-6
After seeing “No Impact Man”, I thought immediately of the differences between the Beavan’s family and Thoreau. Thoreau might appreciate the efforts made by Colin Beavan to have no impact on the environment, but would probably be critical that Colin and his family still lived in the city and continued to buy food and products that he did not grow or make himself. I think both of them had similar ideas, but the time period and the situations they were in determined how far they could take the experiment. Thoreau was never married during his time at Walden and he never had kids to take care of. He also lived in a more simple time. I think maybe if Colin Beavan had lived during Thoreau’s time, he might have ended up at Walden pond too.
Question: Is it possible for someone like Colin Beavan to do something like Thoreau did in todays time? How would having a family alter this experience?
Screening No Impact Man was a great parallel with reading Walden, as the same idea was presented but with very different executions. No Impact Man had good intentions, and I think the actions Colin took to addressing the consumption patterns and wasteful excretions of man’s energy usage was neat and informative. I was really inspired by the ways they committed to changing their lifestyles to reduce their impact on the planet, despite being in the most consumptive nation and living in such an energy intensive city.
Thoreau would definitely criticize Colin and his family for the lack of change they made however, as he would have addressed and changed more than they had chosen to. He would have first been appalled at the norm of consumption in modern time, but he would have then addressed that the Beavan family was not going far enough to truly represent a life with less. But on the other hand, I could see Thoreau being supportive and understanding that the decisions they made to change were big and created something more for their moral and emotional self. “Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live…I did not wish to take a cabin passage, but rather to go before the mast and on the deck of the world, for there I could best see the moonlight amid the mountains. I do not wish to go below now” (302). This shows how the time spent at Walden created a lasting impact that could never leave Thoreau after all he had seen and learned and experienced. He could not go back to how he once was, which shows how this gained knowledge becomes a part of who you are. That could be how the Beaven family (mainly Colin) goes on, now aware and changed, and they remain holding these changed values first in their decisions, which can then influence others.
My question is do you think Colin would have been more forward in his actions to reduce his impact and change his location if he did not have a family present, and would Thoreau encourage this decision of leaving behind his life to creating one he believes in?