In chapter 1, Economy, of Thoreau’s Walden, he talks extensively about the necessities of life. These include: “Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel” (5). He delves into each aspect and examines the modern day (his modern day) progressions in each area. Furthermore, he often compares how people live in his modern day to how natives and “savages” are able to live (i.e. not dressing in extravagant garments, not worrying about the exact look of ones house/shelter, etc…) (6). Thoreau depicts modern comfort as a trap and as if it actually makes you poorer (15). What is the purpose behind Thoreau’s constant criticism of modern day extravagance? Is it possible that he is critiquing the consumeristic nature of capitalism? What are the messages that he is trying to get across? Furthermore, why do you think every time he mentions the overarching categories of food, shelter, clothing, and fuel he tends to capitalize them (i.e. as seen on pages 5 and 6)?
In chapter 4, Sounds, of Thoreau’s Walden, he makes note of all the sounds he hears while out living among the forest. When doing so, he picks up many natural sounds such as the whippoorwills, screech owls, and the bullfrogs. However, he also notes many man-made sounds such as wagons, church bells, horns of locomotives, domesticated animals (which he classifies as dogs and cattle), and the train. Thoreau begins comparing much of the man-made noise to nature, such as the “whistle of the locomotive…. [to] the scream of a hawk” (57). Additionally, he classifies the train as an “iron horse,” and much of its accompanying sounds to noises which a horse would make (i.e. snorting, breathing, trampling, etc…) (58). Thoreau’s personification of non-living man-made structures (i.e. a car and a train) to very wild animals makes me think that Thoreau is trying to make a point of human take over and replacement of nature. Is this a logical conclusion? If so, what is Thoreau trying to make the audience contemplate and what does he blame for the takeover of nature? Additionally, are there any other messages that Thoreau is trying to get across through his personification examples?
In Economy, Thoreau states “we have built for this world a family mansion, and for the next, a family tomb” (27). Economic development has exacerbated the desire for luxuries resulting in an exploitative market. When this market allowed for easy access (for the wealthy) to necessities, people began to seek more than they needed. In what ways has this issue been amplified given even greater economic success with the current economy? How will the beginnings of new technologies (AI, biotech, robotics, augmented reality, cyber warfare) impede upon natural processes and human ecology? With more economic and technological advancements, is it fair to expect a tombstone labeled ‘The Anthropocene’ in coming years?
Thoreau writes, “…when I hear the iron horse make the hills echo with this snort like thunder, shaking the earth with his feet, and breathing fire and smoke from his nostrils (what kind of winged horse or fiery dragon they will put into the new Mythology I don’t know), it seems as if the earth had got a race now worthy to inhabit it” (120-121). With this, it becomes clear that Thoreau despises the sound of men and their creations. The sounds of these creations, such as the train, has masked the sound of nature. Yet, Thoreau also makes a comment on the sound of the church bells. From here, Thoreau describes the church bells as being beautiful and rather peaceful, almost as if it was a birds song. It is because of this that I question Thoreau’s response to the sounds. More specifically, he has clearly made the depiction that human-made creations and sounds have corrupted nature, perceiving them as being evil. However, he enjoys the sound of the man-made bells. Nevertheless, my question would be whether or not Thoreau truly wants to be away from society? He claims that it is corrupted, yet the simple sound of the church bells push him towards the appreciation of civilization.
In “What I Lived For,” Thoreau writes about an almost spiritual awakening of being awake for the mornings. He explains that in the morning, “for an hour, at least, some part of us awakes which slumbers all the rest of the day and night” (p. 72) later writing that “moral reform is to throw off sleep” (p. 73). He is pointing out that most people sleepwalk through life, never awakening to their true desires and never truly being alive. On page 75, he sarcastically wonders, “If we do not get out sleepers, and forge rails, and devote days and nights to the work, but go to tinkering upon our lives to improve them, who will build railroads?…But if we stay at home and mind our business, who will want railroads? We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us.” He notes the meaninglessness of modern work. We build railroads to get to places faster and Thoreau wonders if this is necessary and asserts that it is not. The things we have created to enhance our society end up taking control of us. As technology and modernization have increased, are we increasingly imprisoned and bound to it? Do we use and develop our technology (i.e. riding the railroad) or does the modern way of life control every aspect of our lives, making us more asleep (i.e. the railroad riding us)? If we were to “wake up,” like Thoreau claims to have done, what would that look like in our modern era?
It seems as though other people have considered the same thing as me when it come to Economy, but a major take away for me was the idea of living a modern life unfulfilled, i find myself buying things simply to fill a void due to the detachment that modern lifestyles cause. Living a more fulfilling life or working a more fulfilling job is for me a better way to live. Could we sacrifice our booming economy, our mindless gadgets and time wasting devices in order to return to a lifestyle that where we can reap the direct benefits of our time and toil? or would society simply crumble?
In Economy, Thoreau criticizes certain modes of progress, through the building of new inventions, as he states “Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which it was already but too easy to arrive at; as railroads lead to Boston or New York” (37). Can this mentality be applied to today’s society, with the technological advances that have been made since he wrote this? Is this mentality applied to all of our new developments and technologies or is it more of a pick or choose? Why would he have this critique? He also later claims “Man is an animal who more than any other can adapt himself to all climates and circumstances” (45). Can these inventions he claims unnecessary be argued as people adapting to their climate? Why or why not?
I’d like to compare two quotes, one being from Economy and the other from Sounds. The first is, “We are made to exaggerate the importance of what work we do; and yet how much is not done by us! (Economy).” I think this quote is getting at society’s obsession with working and in turn consumerism. From a very young age we are asked “What do you want to be when you grow up?” And we aren’t expected to answer with “A good person” or anything like that. We are supposed to answer with a “dream job”. Our work becomes our identity and I think that is what Thoreau means by this quote. Also the work that we do isn’t really done by us, he argues. Nature provides us with all of the puzzle pieces we just have to put them together.
The other quote is, “Sometimes in a summer morning, having taken my accustomed bath, I sat in my sunny doorway from sunrise till noon, rapt in a revery, amidst the pines and hickories and sumachs, in undisturbed solitude and stillness, while the birds sang around or flitted noiseless through the house, until by the sun falling in at my west window, or the noise of some traveler’s wagon on the distant highway, I was reminded of the lapse of time. I grew in those seasons like corn in the night, and they were far better than any work of the hands would have been. (Sounds).”
This quote is pretty straight forward and self explanatory. He is saying that just sitting with nature, living in that moment with yourself and your surroundings can do us a lot of good. Just drop the anxiety and worries of the world and live in a single moment in time. Instead of placing a large importance on work and abandoning nature, we should enjoy nature and study it. Animals and nature are not bogged down by 40 hour work weeks, debt, or bills. They just exist, with very few objectives. I just thought these two quotes had interesting parallels.
I guess my main question is just to ask others what their take is on these two quotes? Do you agree with Thoreau that we place too big an emphasis on our work? What can simply sitting and taking in nature teach us about how to navigate life?
Thoreau stated that he wanted for others to see the virtue of a rudimentary lifestyle, by this he means minimizing one’s needs to four necessities: food, shelter, water, and clothing. It is explained in chapter one of Walden that luxuries exist as a hindrance to one’s freedom. Since Thoreau’s time, there has been an increase in the gap between classes in the United States of America. How would Thoreau’s interpretation of a rudimentary lifestyle in today’s United States of America possibly appear? In what ways would his two year project in Concord be altered if it were to occur now, what impacts would he face in order to achieve this lifestyle? In relation with present day America, how does Thoreau’s project reflect (or differ from) life during the COVID19 pandemic?
At the end of the chapter, Economy, Thoreau talks about jobs. He speaks of his time “school-keeping” and that he “did not teach for the good of my fellow-men, but simply for a livelihood, this was a failure.” (69) He then explains how he wanted to pick huckleberries or grow herbs but how even this is some sort of business and that “the whole curse of trade attaches to the business.” (70) Thoreau wanted a job where he would have plenty free time and decided that being a “day laborer” was the best option. (70) Thoreau wraps up this thought by saying that “to maintain oneself on this Earth is not a hardship but a pastime.” (70) In conclusion, Thoreau believes that one should work for enjoyment, not for livelihood. My question is: How would the world look different today if everyone was able to do whatever they want, have unlimited free time, and choose their job based on what they enjoy? What would you decide to do if this were the case? How would this even be possible… robots?
In Economy, Thoreau writes “I long ago lost a hound, a bay horse, and a turtle dove, and am still on their trail.” (16). I am curious about the significance of the hound, bay horse, and turtle dove, and what they could symbolize. The symbolism of these items can have a various amount of possible interpretations and create numerous meanings to his statement. One possible interpretation that I believe could be a possibility for the hound and bay horse would be hunting. Hounds and horses are traditionally used in hunting, so losing either during a hunt would make finding their target much more difficult. Turtle doves in the past have typically been used to symbolize love and faithfulness. Overall, I believe they represent personal losses with which others can empathize. Whatever the hound, horse, and turtle dove mean, I feel it sounds as if Thoreau knows that he will never find them. What do you think that these symbols represent and what could the significance of them and this statement be?
Throughout the beginning of Walden, in the chapter Economy, Thoreau highlights the ways in which economics plays heavily into his decision to go to walden pond and construct a home and live as an experiment. More specifically, Thoreau does a thorough cost-benefit analysis of living at walden pond versus living as a student in the dorms at Harvard, which he went to school. Ultimately, he concludes that it is cheaper to live off of the land than to pay to live in dorms, offering a harsh criticism of the institution of higher education and its contributions to a debt society which Thoreau believed to be the structure of “civilized society”. Thoreau’s response and philosophy is clearly generated from a libertarian point of view, and his intention within the Economy chapter can likely be concluded to be that students and the general public have the responsibility to pull themselves up from their bootstraps and make what they want out of themselves. One passage that sticks out is on page 27 when Thoreau states; “On applying to the assessors, I am surprised to learn that they cannot at once name a dozen in the town who own their farms free and clear. If you would know the history of these homesteads, inquire at the bank where they are mortgaged. The man who has actually paid for his farm with labor on it is so rare that every neighbor can point to him. I doubt if there are three such men in Concord.” In the passage, Thoreau goes on to say that in the current structure of society the vast majority of merchants and farmers fail under the guidelines he has established, that ownership and being free of debt is the ultimate goal. To this he lays the blame on the individual, because it is more convenient to play into the system than to overcome it, though he argues that it is achievable enough that his audience can and should go against this structure. In what ways is this applicable today, if at all? If Thoreau were alive today, would his views be any different from what they are in this book? Is it justified to place the majority of the blame or responsibility on the individual? What lines can we draw between the society that Thoreau is talking about and our society today, and what does debt society today look like? In what ways can we not conform to debt society today?
In chapter 1, Economy, Thoreau critiques materialism and the tendency of people to purchase an excess of things that they have no need for at all, and that this want for material things of no substance only continues to increase. Thoreau also tells the story of his journey to distance himself from society and live only on necessities and off of the land and what these experiences have taught him. He claims that “…many of the so called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind” and “…the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meager life than the poor” (8). He goes on to explain that this excessive need to own more and more things leads people to devote more and more time to labor in order to be able to purchase more things. “He has no time to be anything but a machine” (3). This only leads to unhappiness as they are never satisfied and spend all of their time laboring and miss out on the very essence of what life is meant to be. Thoreau states that people are “…so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them” (3). Given that this work was published a couple hundred years ago, how do you think Thoreau would feel about the state of society today, considering the fact that materialism and excess has increased more than tenfold not only when it comes to physical items but with the growth and production of our food as well?
Thoreau explains that his purpose at Walden Pond was not to live cheaply but rather to “transact some private business with the fewest obstacles” (17). He explains his desire to acquire strict business habits and to trade “with the Celestial Empire”. Thoreau considers the habits of his life as economic functions in this passage and continues to frame his time at Walden with this perspective. In SD, we often reference the fact that eco is derived from oikos, meaning home, and onomy referencing “management” – therefore economy representing the management of our homes. In this way, does Thoreau offer a perspective that thrusts his life into this broader picture of what the economy is – the management of our selves and our society? Or, does this perspective reduce Thoreau’s life in some way?
In Thoreau’s Economy, he criticizes consumerism and how the quest for material possessions takes away time which could be spent living one’s life. Thoreau doesn’t see the point of spending many hours working at a job so that he can buy things that don’t add to the intrinsic value of his life and ultimately takes away his freedom. In this chapter, he shows how there is more than one way to maintain one’s personal economy. I believe the reason people choose to limit themselves to one path of living is because western society worships and celebrates financial success and material gain rather than intrinsic success and spiritual fulfillment. Those who live like Thoreau are deemed poor and unsuccessful. Because of this stigma, “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” always wanting more out of life, but not finding it in the places they are conditioned to believe it exists in materialistically (PG8). So many people are striving for what society deems successful, not what would actually give them the most out of life. I believe the best way to rebel against materialism is to alter the western societal definition of success. I pose the question: How can Westerners in the 21st century use Thoreau’s anti-materialist philosophy to provoke a cultural shift away from consumerism in order to free themselves from the stigma created by the narrow definition of success in capitalist society? In recent years, there has been a more open platform for a critique of capitalism that hasn’t existed in the past. For this to happen, there had to have been events throughout history that have exposed faults in this system and have allowed for cultural changes to take place and progress towards a new ideology. What events must take place for there to be a platform for the critique of the association of wealth with success?
Thoreau is well acquainted with the farmers of his area and I find his observations on the economic station of the farmers of his day to be strikingly similar to that of contemporary independent farmers- continuously struggling to pay off long standing loans and being caught in multi-generational debt, with seemingly no recourse to break the cycle but wanting desperately not to lose the family farm and legacy. “It is true, the encumbrances sometimes outweigh the value of the farm, so that the farm itself becomes one great encumbrance, and still a man is found to inherit it, being well acquainted with it, as he says. … The man who has actually paid for his farm is so rare that every neighbor can point to him. I doubt if there are three such men in Concord.” (27, Signet Classic Edition)
I wonder what Thoreau would think of the modern state of agriculture. What would he think of the dearth of mid-size farms and the virtual monopoly of industrial agriculture? Maybe he would be scandalized that food quality held such a lowly station in American mind. However, I think perhaps he would be unfazed, saying something like, “Let the corporations have it; Grow just enough food for yourself and your family on your own.” Thoreau was clearly a proponent of subsistence farming, and there is a growing micro-farming/ home vegetable gardening movement in the United States. What would Thoreau say to the idea of community and home farming as a political act? And, what role do small to medium-sized private, independent farms play in communities seeking to be more self reliant?
In Thoreau’s chapter, Economy, he talks about the necessities to life. When he talked about clothing, he said “It would be easier for them to hobble to town with a broken leg than with a broken pantaloon” (20). This quote made me stop reading and think about this because it did not make sense to me. In a literal sense, it would be more difficult to walk to town with a broken leg than a broken pantaloon, but Thoreau is conveying their obsession with unnecessary items which leads to their obsession of other people’s opinions. Does this materialistic mindset stem from human nature or society’s influence on human behavior? Thoreau said “I have heard of a dog that barked at every stranger who approached his master’s premises with clothes on, but was easily quieted by a naked thief” (20). He is explaining how clothes can be constricting because people judge based on what they see rather than how they act. What would our society look like if we truly stuck to Thoreau’s claim that food and shelter are the only necessities to life? Are our thoughts actually our own or are we constantly being pushed and influenced to behave in a certain way without realizing it?
In Thoreau’s first chapter economy he talks about consumerism and its negative effects on people, he goes on to talk about how society and technology are advancing however it seems to be that intellectually people are staying the same, “While civilization has been improving our house, it has not equally improved the men who are the inhabit them” (34). What this quote means to me is that people are not changing for the better, instead the human race is learning how to advance technology so that more money can be made rather than trying to advance technology to better mankind, we see this in today’s society, we are at the peak of human knowledge and technology, yet so many people in this world are still suffering. My question is that will we ever get past this point of consumerism, will we see the day that we are not just advancing technology but we are our advancing our world to help other people? Furthermore Thoreau was just at the tip of the ice burg of consumerism the early 1800’s I wonder if he ever thought that society would be this intertwined with consumerism to the point where it is ruining our world. For this consumerist society to end do we have to stray away from capitalism and run our economies in a different manner? Would eventually we end back up in the vicious cycle of consumerism?
In the first chapter of Walden, Thoreau implies that unhappiness is the result of owning unnecessary things and wasting time working to buy these things. Thoreau says that the objects humans own really own them, “And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him” (19). He talks about how unnecessary objects steal time from people. Time is lost through the labor humans endure to earn money to purchase an object, time is also lost through the upkeep of that object, use, or storage. Thoreau explains this idea when he says, “A lady once offered me a mat, but as I had no room to spare within the house, nor time to spare within or without to shake it, I declined it, preferring to wipe my feet on the sod before my door. It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil” (35). Do you feel trapped by society or impeded mentally and physically by objects, technologies, luxuries, etc.? Why or why not? Do you think the objects people own prevent them from experiencing a more human existence? How and why? How do you think Thoreau views time and reality differently when in Concord as opposed to his time spent at Walden Pond?
In Economy, Thoreau said, “I see young men, my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of”. This thought in itself really highlights how differently Thoreau’s mindset is to most other individuals, typically people envy people’s inheritance when it comes to materialistic objects. He then goes onto talking about those whose lives are committed to labor are living foolish lives. What would it take for society to transform our mindsets away from thinking our entire purpose is labor? Growing up you are always asked about your future and what job you are going to have, in Thoreau’s example the young men and townsmen are predestined to work on farms due to their inheritance, our culture has always revolved around this idea of performing labor for gain.According to Thoreau, if we switched to a less labor focused model globally mankind would be better off, do you agree with this theory on labor? If so how could our world make this switch with our current stage of technology and our current livelihoods?
The Walden’s chapter Economy, Thoreau states that human’s four necessities in life (page 8) are food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Thoreau connects these four concepts to consumerism.
Thoreau explains that people who have riches are the ones who are defined as the consumers because of their ability to purchase luxuries such as the newest clothes (Page 14-15). Whereas on the other side of the spectrum there are the the poor who are not as rich in funds. He indicates that when they are rich people, there are poor people on the other side (Page 20). This statement he addresses has not changed since the development of industry and technology. Over time Thoreau says “The civilized man is a more experienced and wise savage (Page 23),” Although Thoreau gives credit to the development and growth of inventions, from this quote Thoreau is saying that even though society has grown to be more efficient with technological advances, there are still people who are wealthy and those who are not.
Thoreau suggests that human’s attempt to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor is the use of philanthropy, which he states is driven/overrated by selfishness and self-interest. Instead philanthropy should be consistent, ongoing, priceless, and unconscious (Page 44). What are examples of what philanthropy looks like when done correct (in practice)? And if the advances in mankind including technology do not seem to decrease the gap between rich and poor people, then what can? Are their any barriers to decreasing the gap between rich and poor people?
In Walden’s Economy, Thoreau condemns consumerism as it has corrupted society. He further explains that capitalism has indoctrinated people into believing that their satisfaction can only come from the wealth they accumulate and how they are able to spend it. Thoreau asserts that those who allow themselves to engage with this capitalist ideology are enslaving themselves, which is arguably the most severe form of slavery. “I sometimes wonder that we can be so frivolous, I may almost say, as to attend to the gross but somewhat foreign form of servitude called Negro Slavery, there are so many keen and subtle masters that enslave both North and South. It is hard to have a Southern overseer; it is worse to have a Northern one, but most of all when you are the slave-driver of yourself” (pg. 6). Would you consider our current society to be enslaved by capitalism and the material possessions we obtain from it? Why or why not? Is enslaved an appropriate word to use in this context?
Thoreau is often praised for this “experiment” of his- living in the woods, sustaining himself using nature and nature alone, rejecting the ideals of society- and has prompted many to reconsider the conception of what a normal life should/does look like. He encourages the criticism of capitalistic society and the challenging of our ignorance towards the possibility of living “a fool’s life” (5) by bowing to the needs of the market and laboring for the benefit of others. With this in mind, why do you think he referred to this as “civilized life” (3)? Is he simply using these words because it is what others would consider to be “civilized life” or does he mean to imply that his experiment really was just an experiment and that he does not intend to spark any type of movement or inspire a mass rejection of the societal norms which were at hand? Given that plenty of people- probably including a handful of SD students- take his writing to be some holy rulebook, should this challenge their perception of Thoreau and the decision to live off of the earth in solitude?
In Walden, Thoreau uses the example of building a house to make several points about economy and society at the time. He states that it should be “Simple”, as to not mean unfulfilling, but to mean that in many ways’ life should be simpler as to allow for its protagonist to live a life more in the moment and connect to universal aspect that are involved with life. He says ideas of style and fashion are simply just fads, which will come and go but ultimately enslave the public in a chase for an unrealistic idea of happiness or prosperity (19). Thoreau also speaks to the future generations which will “inherit farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools” (8) from their forefathers; saying how they are committed to the grave before they are even born. This is to say that they never would have the experience of living outside of and establishment, and therefore never truly know how to “live deliberately” (65). Thoreau finally says, “We have built for this world a family mansion, and for the next, a family tomb” (27). This is to say that the actions of today will have repercussions in the future. Are we living in this “tomb” which Thoreau is speaking about? Have we as an economy and a society “inherited” a life of that is condemned to the limitation of consumption and style? If Yes is answered to the former questions, then are we to blame our forefathers for their faults and to sit helpless in our tomb? Or do we, like the audience of Thoreau’s day, still have the ability to change and “live” before we die?
In Walden, Thoreau speaks a lot to a simplified life and self-reliance. He seems to view having excess as almost a type of violence to a persons’ mind and freedom. In the chapter “Where I Lived, And What I Lived For,” Thoreau states that “a man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone”(106). I understand this to mean that the wealth of someone is determined by the things they can live without. Thoreau goes on to explain that he never got his fingers “burned by possession”(106). He speaks often of respect to land and living “free and uncommitted”(109). Do you agree that possession of anything or of too many things is harmful to a persons’ mind/freedom? Should people have the right to own land or should land be a common space that we all share? Where should the line be drawn between respecting nature and survival?
Henry David Thoreau says in Economy, “Public opinion is a weak tyrant, compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines or rather indicates, his fate.” (12) He often brings up the idea of societal prisons. It seems as if Thoreau was saying that societal standards do not benefit us in a positive way. If anything these standards just put people in boxes and drive them crazy. He continues this theme when he says, “Age is no better… qualified for an instructor as youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost. One may almost doubt if the wisest man has learned any thing of absolute value by living.” (12) Thoreau is pushing societal standards constantly on this page, he is making us question the way in which we value the information we receive. Elderly opinions are quickly taken seriously and held to a higher standard because of the quantity of years they have lived, not the quantity of them. How do we self-emancipate and liberate ourselves from the hard set standards that are created by the old and “wise”, when this has been the structure of our society globally for thousands of years. How do humans find a way to value their own self-awareness and freely choose their own path diverted from the one that they are expected to take?
In Walden, Thoreau repeatedly speaks of human’s connection to material object. Thoreau reasons that “men have become tools to their tools” which limits humans capacity, attachment to the material object limits human’s expansiveness: “we… have settled down on earth and forgotten heaven” (31). Thoreau rejects this limitation by abandoning attachment to material possessions. Material possessions ranging from comfort and convenience to company. This rejection for both can be seen with the statement: “I would rather sit on a pumpkin and have it all to myself than be on a crowded velvet couch” (30). However, we see a progression of this thinking. While in Economy Thoreau wanted merely a pumpkin, in Visitors “I had three chairs in my house; one for solitude, two for friendship, three for society” (115). This seems to show a recognition that life can’t be lived entirely in solitude on one’s pumpkin; life might also need to be lived in friendship and in society. I think where Thoreau had a natural bent towards solitude, today’s readers might be too dependent on friendship and society. The three chairs are a reminder that all three are needed, in balance; but today’s readers can still be challenged to move towards the pumpkin ideal, to not require anything besides what nature provides. How can we find that balance? Is it possible to find that balance? Does solitude limit our expansiveness or increase it?
In reading Thoreau, it forces me to really look at my own life. What do I have that I don’t need? Am I just following the model that society shows me I should follow? Am I one of the people leading lives of quiet desperation? This especially strikes me today, as I’ve sat at my computer doing schoolwork for hours, and longed to be outside doing anything else. What is this all for, and am I just following what everyone is doing around me? I am working hard in school to get a job so I can make money and purchase material objects. Why does society value those who go to school and get a job and make lots of money? One quote that struck me is on pg. 5-6. Thoreau explains that the necessities of humans haven’t changed over the years from our ancestors. He explains that “it would be some advantage to live a primitive and frontier life, and this makes me wonder, why does society push this life where we go to school and make money to buy things? If the primitive life is the good life, then why am I following this model that leads me to quiet desperation? I think it is because the economy needs us to spend money to sustain itself. Being happy and self-sufficient hurts the economy because we don’t want to go buy things and put money into the economy. When we are happy and self-sufficient, we do not depend on this materialistic model. My final question is, what would Thoreau think about the model of life that I am living? What would he think about modern society and the value of getting a college education?
Thoreau writes in the “Economy” chapter of Walden that “There is some of the same fitness in a man’s building his own house that there is in a bird’s building its own nest. Who knows but if men constructed their dwellings with their own hands, and provided food for themselves and families simply and honestly enough, the poetic faculty would be universally developed, as birds universally sing when they are so engaged? … I have never in all my walks came across a man engaged in so simple and natural an occupation as building his house (p. 37-38).” Is Thoreau’s emphasis on autonomy and re-centering ourselves on nature and meeting our basic needs applicable to our modern context, or is it a romanticized view of the past and “simpler times”? Even if building our own homes and/or growing or own food is not realistic, what themes or ideas from Thoreau’s argument could we apply to our lives?
Thoreau wrote “We might as well omit to study nature because she is old.” (page 92) What do you think Thoreau meant by this? Obviously he himself studies nature to a degree so this could merely be a metaphor for understanding that nature is a force beyond our control, but if Thoreau was faced with the issues of today, do you think he would hold true to this stance of merely observing nature rather than studying and altering it, or even trying to save it? If so, why? If not, where do you think he would stand? Also, as a group of individuals studying nature to a degree, but more specifically how to save it and move forward as it struggles, how do you feel about this statement?
In Economy, Thoreau says “I too had woven a kind of basket of a delicate texture, but I had not made it worth any one’s while to buy them. Yet not the less, in my case, did I think it worth my while to weave them, and instead of studying how to make it worth men’s while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the necessity of selling them” (19). Thoreau seems to be arguing that it is more beneficial to him to be less successful in life, at least based on traditional measures of success. Do you think he would prescribe this way of limited success and simple self-sufficiency to everyone, or would he give different recommendations to different people? Would you prefer this sort of lifestyle to a more successful one, or is there another lifestyle you would choose?
My question pertains to the Economy chapter of Walden. Thoreau begins Walden by explaining the reasoning behind his choice to live in the way that he did, and in doing so, he makes reference to his ideal of simplicity. l believe that Thoreau would define simplicity as living as closely within nature and “natural law” as possible. Transcendentalism is a school of thought that views nature and “natural law” as sublimely beautiful, and even divine. This school of thought also separates humanity from nature, and views human activity as subordinate to the natural sublime. Thoreau argues that by pursuing simplicity and obeying “natural law”, one learns to treat oneself with the delicacy and tenderness required to truly flourish. In this chapter, Thoreau makes his affinity for the natural world, as well as his distaste for human activity, known. He does so by making the argument that the human economy traps us into a system of ever-increasing needs, which necessitates ever-increasing labor. In contrast, participating in the natural economy by creating a subsistent relationship with the land reduces one’s needs to the essential, and, in doing so, allows for more moral and satisfying labor, as well as fostering a spiritual connection to the land, all of which leads to an increased capacity for human and natural flourishing. This is the logic that troubles me, and so l would like to trouble it in return. This logic is based on the premise that there is an overarching “natural law” that can be understood by humans and used to map out a course for the ideal way of living. It is also constructed on the premise that there is a divide that exists between the nature and humanity (commonly referred to as the nature/culture divide). These are both premises that l disagree with. l would argue that although we can observe patterns in nature, these patterns are not constant enough, nor are they understood fully enough, to suggest a constant set of laws (aside from physical laws) that could provide an ideal way of living. The idea that there could be an ideal way of living is problematic itself. l would also argue that there is no real divide between nature and human activity, as humans are a part of the natural system, and, in fact they are the most influential species within the natural system. Although Thoreau might disagree with human economic activity and human aesthetics, l believe it is wrong to label them as unnatural. l also disagree with what l perceive to be an individualist undertone in Thoreau’s argument. ln detaching from the human world and choosing to live in isolation, Thoreau cuts himself of from the vital human need for community, and pursues only the flourishing of himself. My question is this: Is it possible to amend the idea of simplicity and simple life to extend beyond the individual? Or in other words, is it possible to develop a regenerative, or even a spiritual relationship with nature without enforcing a nature/culture divide?
Thoreau is quite frank about how he thinks of his elders. He does not value much of the advice he has received from his elders, even saying “I have lived some thirty years on this planet, and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors” (9).
Thoreau also acknowledges the limits that his writings has, as he is only able to write from his own experience, and completely unable to understand the diversity of experiences that each human has. This being said, Thoreau writes in a rather matter-of-fact manner. One example of this is on page 14, where he wrote “many of the so called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hinderances to the elevation of mankind” (14).
In the diverse society that we live in, with the multitude of problems currently facing the US, how is Thoreau’s work relevant? Has he become a senior that has little valuable advice to offer to the world? If he were living in our current society, would he continue to advocate that most people live lives of unnecessary extravagance? Or would he be putting his effort into other issues, like environmental or social ones?
Thoreau, in his Economy chapter, mentions that it is a burden many men are born to inherent “farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than gotten rid of…Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born… But men labor under a mistake. The better part of the man is soon plowed into the soil for compost” (24). He even goes on to say that the chief is the end of man and that men choose this life because they feel there is no other choice (26). The choice that Thoreau chose, and encourages others to as well, is to embrace a more simplistic, “frontier and primitive life” (28). Is Thoreau able to hold and encourage this position through his own privilege? Where do those who enjoy their toil and work fall in place?
I found it pleasantly surprising how much Thoreau’s disdain for wage labor was highlighted throughout this chapter. Before reading any of his work I assumed that his journey at Walden Pond was more of an individualistic colonial fantasy experiment, but reading this chapter made me understand that he had more compassion for the working class and other marginalized groups than I had anticipated. Thoreau also seems to share this compassion for other species aside from humans. He wrote, “nature and human life are as various as our several constitutions. Who shall say what prospect life offers to another?” (10). I wonder if despite this statement he still held some anthropocentric speciesist feelings. Are some natural beings more valuable than others? Who designates this value? What does “valuing” an organism even look like?
Thoreau, for decades, has been symbolic of a simple and independent existence, even being linked with ideas like “minimalism” and “tiny homes”, modern trends based on ancient ideals. Thoreau states on page eighty-five, “…but I would say, to my fellows, once and for all, as long as possible live free and uncommitted.” Thoreau is also well known for saying, “Simplify, Simplify.” (page 93), he obviously led a simple life and would encourage others to do so as well, and has, there are people who now dedicate their lives to living simply in tiny homes or in many other capacities. Considering these to be some of his more well-known principle philosophies, how do you think he would respond to the excess of wealth, material belongings, pollution, and overall consumption of today’s world?
In Economy, Henry David Thoreau speaks of philanthropy although I can’t tell if he’s speaking ill or speaking good of it. It’s near the end of the chapter, and in my eyes the most perplexing sentences are “There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted. It is human, it is divine, carrion. If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the Simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his good done to me,—some of its virus mingled with my blood. No,—in this case I would rather suffer evil the natural way.” A rather long quote, I know, but I’ll try and work it out for myself. I think that Thoreau is saying to be selfish, in a way. Later on he says to use any money on yourself first and to “not merely abandon it with them.” I think his ultimate point, however harsh, is that the person in need is not as poorly off as they may think they are. “Being superior to physical suffering, it sometimes chanced that they were superior to any consolation which the missionaries could offer…” He’s speaking to the resilience of the human body, mind, and spirit. He never outright dissuades philanthropy but he definitely doesn’t advocate for it either.
Throughout chapter 1 Economy, one theme or concept that kept jumping out at me was the relationship between man and work. I am not the best theoretical thinker so I am not sure if this is even correct but one of the ideas Thoreau is trying to get across is that if you work for what you have and succeed on your own, you would have a better appreciation and understand of what you have and the world around you. On the other hand though, in various parts of the chapter, he is contradicting that idea by telling us that man cannot succeed without others and that you would live an unsuccessful life if you pursue a life of labor on your own. There are various examples throughout the entire chapter but two examples include a passage from page 4 paragraph 2 where he talks about Brahmins doing penance through various extravagant methods but then exposing them as men that are continuously alone or the passage from page 6 paragraph three where he states that “the laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men; his labor would be depreciated in the market. He has no time to be anything but a machine. ” One of my questions is in relation to what Thoreau is actually trying to explain with this back and forth relations between man and work. Can a man be reach true integrity or become fully successful if he works alone for the benefit of himself? My second question pertains to Thoreau mentioning following the trails of the lost hound, a bay horse, and a turtledove and how it pertains to the travelers passing by. Are the animals a reference to some ideology of man or is it actually pertaining to the animals themselves?
Thoreaus separation from society does not solve societies issues but show Thoreaus privilege to be able to separate. Thoreau writes, ” In short, I went on thus for a long time (I may say it without boasting), faithfully minding my business, till it became more and more evident that my townsmen would not after all admit me into the list of town officers, nor make my place a sinecure with a moderate allowance. My accounts, which I can swear to have kept faithfully, I have, indeed, never got audited, still less accepted, still less paid and settled. However, I have not set my heart on that.” Thoreaus minimalistic message, yet not so minimalistic writing probably would have been more accessible to the educated/city folk than the country folk. Did Thoreau intend to change society by writing for those who had access? If not, then for who and why?
While Thoreau did not grow up wealthy, he still had the privilege of a family member being able to help him attend Harvard, when he could’ve studied elsewhere and saved the financial stress. I believe in his good intentions to go to Walden pond in search for a simpler lifestyle, but I cannot ignore my skepticism on his inner thoughts. His transcendentalist notions to go into nature for the search of a meaningful life based on self-reliance is commendable, but would he have been able to get there mentally without the financial help from Emerson and his family? Since the “mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” (7) within their capitalist ideologies, why did he not stay at Walden? Was he propelled to rejoin society because he felt he could capitalize on his experiences there by publishing his writings? He paralleled the lives of prisoners in jail cells to those who inherit farm land (3), and although I would invite Thoreau to tea, I would like to know his inner thoughts on such subjects. If he did not “inherit” his education from his aunt’s riches, would he feel the same way about this alternative lifestyle or would he be stuck in the mindset to acquire more? I understand that this was meant to be a temporary experience, but I wonder why he did not stay in that lifestyle if he had learned so much.
I found some of Thoreau’s writing in the “Visitors” chapter to be a little snobbish and rude but with some valid considerations. Throughout the chapter he plays host to numerous visitors to Walden pond and tells us a variety of thoughts and opinions on the matter. His initial considerations on dwellings and visitors are agreeable enough, especially in the eyes of many young people today- “Many of our houses, both public and private, with their almost innumerable apartments, their huge halls and their cellars for the storage of wines and other munitions of peace, appear to me extravagantly large for their inhabitants. They are so vast and magnificent that the latter seem to be only vermin which infest them”. It is true, even more so today than in Thoreau’s time that many folks, especially the in the suburbs and wealthiest among us live in vast homes that would be unimaginable to Thoreau. Thoreau’s modest home, equipped with all of three chairs, appears to be a place where all are welcome, with the exception of beggars whom he deems “objects of charity” and clearly states he’d rather they not bother him. Coming from a man of wealth and education, you would think Thoreau might embrace philanthropy a bit more and extend a welcome to the poorest of society instead of nearly implying that they do not deserve the same respect or consideration. His commentary on a Canadian woodcutter is especially snarky. He initially praises the woodcutter for his “natural genius” and compares him as a Homeric figure but then proceeds to flip the script and refer to the man in animalistic terms for his crude lack of education. It seems often that Thoreau is the sort who spends a great deal of time thinking and considering the best and brightest possibilities for people but in flesh and blood reality his upbringing comes out and he is quick to dismiss those he considers beneath him. Does Thoreau attempt to pose any solutions for helping those who don’t seem to meet his standard, or are they too far gone for him to consider educating? Do his words and actions towards the poor or uneducated reflect poorly on him?
In the beginning of Economy, Thoreau states “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them.”(6)
This is one of the reasons he went to Walden Pond, to escape from social constructs, civilized society, and to live independently with less distractions, surviving solely on basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, ect. He then goes on to say “The life men praise and regard as successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at the expense of others?” (19) How can we encourage others to take the path less traveled and live a more sustainable lifestyle versus the capitalistic vision of a successful life?
Throughout Chapter 2, ‘Where I Lived, and What I lived For,’ Thoreau discusses a sort of spiritual revelation he has while living in Walden. He describes the solitude and peacefulness he felt being disconnected from the rest of society and its everyday trivialities, as well as the strong connection to nature he felt. He realizes how unnecessary working for a living is in order to live an exciting and meaningful life. He undergoes a spiritual awakening of sorts while staying at Walden. At one point, Thoreau writes, “To be awake is to be alive.” What does being “awake” mean to Thoreau? What does being “awake” mean to you?
Throughout Walden, how does Thoreau reflect on the principles of transcendentalism? While he has been living at Walden Pond he has embodied this determination to “rise above” in the physical world. He is looking at nature in a completely different connected way. In chapter 2, “I found myself suddenly neighbor to the birds; not by having imprisoned one, but having caged myself near then.” He seems to be that he is putting himself at an equal status to the birds, and not putting them in a cage as a common human desire. Through his stay, every day he transcends deeper into this new enlightenment, but how does this relate to and influence romanticism? In chapter 2, Thoreau talks about the need for self-awareness and determination to lead a meaningful life. “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 even in our soundest sleep. I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor.” In this quote, I believe he is saying that he has this spiritual wakefulness that pushes him to fulfill his goals for an ideal life.
“Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind”(12). It is clear that Thoreau was not the kind of person who practiced the same kind of materialism that is common in most American societies, but do you think it is possible that he went to an extreme? I can understand that living with a certain kind of luxury can cloud one’s view of the world, but I believe that there are also certain comforts that may give us a greater appreciation of the world we live in. I believe that a modern example of this is with the internet, we have the ability for endless learning at our fingertips. Do you think that if Thoreau was alive now he would change his views on certain luxuries?
In the “What I Lived For” text, Thoreau writes about his physical sense of place and a curiosity, so to speak, about what life means. He goes on to say, “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 was a man who strongly believed in living simply and that nature was powerful. He also believed that by making our lives more simplistic and leaving behind the more materialistic things behind, it would help us; help us in gaining respect for and understanding what life truly means. So, I chose this quote to explain how by choosing to live more simplistic and honor nature, Thoreau realized there was so much more to live for rather than living for the materialistic things of the world. In regards to this, my question for this week is would Thoreau say he really discovered what the meaning of life and contentment truly is? Or could he have just discovered the beginning of a spiritual-self-awakening; more like pure happiness within oneself?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In chapter 1, Economy, of Thoreau’s Walden, he talks extensively about the necessities of life. These include: “Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel” (5). He delves into each aspect and examines the modern day (his modern day) progressions in each area. Furthermore, he often compares how people live in his modern day to how natives and “savages” are able to live (i.e. not dressing in extravagant garments, not worrying about the exact look of ones house/shelter, etc…) (6). Thoreau depicts modern comfort as a trap and as if it actually makes you poorer (15). What is the purpose behind Thoreau’s constant criticism of modern day extravagance? Is it possible that he is critiquing the consumeristic nature of capitalism? What are the messages that he is trying to get across? Furthermore, why do you think every time he mentions the overarching categories of food, shelter, clothing, and fuel he tends to capitalize them (i.e. as seen on pages 5 and 6)?
In chapter 4, Sounds, of Thoreau’s Walden, he makes note of all the sounds he hears while out living among the forest. When doing so, he picks up many natural sounds such as the whippoorwills, screech owls, and the bullfrogs. However, he also notes many man-made sounds such as wagons, church bells, horns of locomotives, domesticated animals (which he classifies as dogs and cattle), and the train. Thoreau begins comparing much of the man-made noise to nature, such as the “whistle of the locomotive…. [to] the scream of a hawk” (57). Additionally, he classifies the train as an “iron horse,” and much of its accompanying sounds to noises which a horse would make (i.e. snorting, breathing, trampling, etc…) (58). Thoreau’s personification of non-living man-made structures (i.e. a car and a train) to very wild animals makes me think that Thoreau is trying to make a point of human take over and replacement of nature. Is this a logical conclusion? If so, what is Thoreau trying to make the audience contemplate and what does he blame for the takeover of nature? Additionally, are there any other messages that Thoreau is trying to get across through his personification examples?
In Economy, Thoreau states “we have built for this world a family mansion, and for the next, a family tomb” (27). Economic development has exacerbated the desire for luxuries resulting in an exploitative market. When this market allowed for easy access (for the wealthy) to necessities, people began to seek more than they needed. In what ways has this issue been amplified given even greater economic success with the current economy? How will the beginnings of new technologies (AI, biotech, robotics, augmented reality, cyber warfare) impede upon natural processes and human ecology? With more economic and technological advancements, is it fair to expect a tombstone labeled ‘The Anthropocene’ in coming years?
Thoreau writes, “…when I hear the iron horse make the hills echo with this snort like thunder, shaking the earth with his feet, and breathing fire and smoke from his nostrils (what kind of winged horse or fiery dragon they will put into the new Mythology I don’t know), it seems as if the earth had got a race now worthy to inhabit it” (120-121). With this, it becomes clear that Thoreau despises the sound of men and their creations. The sounds of these creations, such as the train, has masked the sound of nature. Yet, Thoreau also makes a comment on the sound of the church bells. From here, Thoreau describes the church bells as being beautiful and rather peaceful, almost as if it was a birds song. It is because of this that I question Thoreau’s response to the sounds. More specifically, he has clearly made the depiction that human-made creations and sounds have corrupted nature, perceiving them as being evil. However, he enjoys the sound of the man-made bells. Nevertheless, my question would be whether or not Thoreau truly wants to be away from society? He claims that it is corrupted, yet the simple sound of the church bells push him towards the appreciation of civilization.
In “What I Lived For,” Thoreau writes about an almost spiritual awakening of being awake for the mornings. He explains that in the morning, “for an hour, at least, some part of us awakes which slumbers all the rest of the day and night” (p. 72) later writing that “moral reform is to throw off sleep” (p. 73). He is pointing out that most people sleepwalk through life, never awakening to their true desires and never truly being alive. On page 75, he sarcastically wonders, “If we do not get out sleepers, and forge rails, and devote days and nights to the work, but go to tinkering upon our lives to improve them, who will build railroads?…But if we stay at home and mind our business, who will want railroads? We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us.” He notes the meaninglessness of modern work. We build railroads to get to places faster and Thoreau wonders if this is necessary and asserts that it is not. The things we have created to enhance our society end up taking control of us. As technology and modernization have increased, are we increasingly imprisoned and bound to it? Do we use and develop our technology (i.e. riding the railroad) or does the modern way of life control every aspect of our lives, making us more asleep (i.e. the railroad riding us)? If we were to “wake up,” like Thoreau claims to have done, what would that look like in our modern era?
It seems as though other people have considered the same thing as me when it come to Economy, but a major take away for me was the idea of living a modern life unfulfilled, i find myself buying things simply to fill a void due to the detachment that modern lifestyles cause. Living a more fulfilling life or working a more fulfilling job is for me a better way to live. Could we sacrifice our booming economy, our mindless gadgets and time wasting devices in order to return to a lifestyle that where we can reap the direct benefits of our time and toil? or would society simply crumble?
In Economy, Thoreau criticizes certain modes of progress, through the building of new inventions, as he states “Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which it was already but too easy to arrive at; as railroads lead to Boston or New York” (37). Can this mentality be applied to today’s society, with the technological advances that have been made since he wrote this? Is this mentality applied to all of our new developments and technologies or is it more of a pick or choose? Why would he have this critique? He also later claims “Man is an animal who more than any other can adapt himself to all climates and circumstances” (45). Can these inventions he claims unnecessary be argued as people adapting to their climate? Why or why not?
I’d like to compare two quotes, one being from Economy and the other from Sounds. The first is, “We are made to exaggerate the importance of what work we do; and yet how much is not done by us! (Economy).” I think this quote is getting at society’s obsession with working and in turn consumerism. From a very young age we are asked “What do you want to be when you grow up?” And we aren’t expected to answer with “A good person” or anything like that. We are supposed to answer with a “dream job”. Our work becomes our identity and I think that is what Thoreau means by this quote. Also the work that we do isn’t really done by us, he argues. Nature provides us with all of the puzzle pieces we just have to put them together.
The other quote is, “Sometimes in a summer morning, having taken my accustomed bath, I sat in my sunny doorway from sunrise till noon, rapt in a revery, amidst the pines and hickories and sumachs, in undisturbed solitude and stillness, while the birds sang around or flitted noiseless through the house, until by the sun falling in at my west window, or the noise of some traveler’s wagon on the distant highway, I was reminded of the lapse of time. I grew in those seasons like corn in the night, and they were far better than any work of the hands would have been. (Sounds).”
This quote is pretty straight forward and self explanatory. He is saying that just sitting with nature, living in that moment with yourself and your surroundings can do us a lot of good. Just drop the anxiety and worries of the world and live in a single moment in time. Instead of placing a large importance on work and abandoning nature, we should enjoy nature and study it. Animals and nature are not bogged down by 40 hour work weeks, debt, or bills. They just exist, with very few objectives. I just thought these two quotes had interesting parallels.
I guess my main question is just to ask others what their take is on these two quotes? Do you agree with Thoreau that we place too big an emphasis on our work? What can simply sitting and taking in nature teach us about how to navigate life?
Thoreau stated that he wanted for others to see the virtue of a rudimentary lifestyle, by this he means minimizing one’s needs to four necessities: food, shelter, water, and clothing. It is explained in chapter one of Walden that luxuries exist as a hindrance to one’s freedom. Since Thoreau’s time, there has been an increase in the gap between classes in the United States of America. How would Thoreau’s interpretation of a rudimentary lifestyle in today’s United States of America possibly appear? In what ways would his two year project in Concord be altered if it were to occur now, what impacts would he face in order to achieve this lifestyle? In relation with present day America, how does Thoreau’s project reflect (or differ from) life during the COVID19 pandemic?
At the end of the chapter, Economy, Thoreau talks about jobs. He speaks of his time “school-keeping” and that he “did not teach for the good of my fellow-men, but simply for a livelihood, this was a failure.” (69) He then explains how he wanted to pick huckleberries or grow herbs but how even this is some sort of business and that “the whole curse of trade attaches to the business.” (70) Thoreau wanted a job where he would have plenty free time and decided that being a “day laborer” was the best option. (70) Thoreau wraps up this thought by saying that “to maintain oneself on this Earth is not a hardship but a pastime.” (70) In conclusion, Thoreau believes that one should work for enjoyment, not for livelihood. My question is: How would the world look different today if everyone was able to do whatever they want, have unlimited free time, and choose their job based on what they enjoy? What would you decide to do if this were the case? How would this even be possible… robots?
In Economy, Thoreau writes “I long ago lost a hound, a bay horse, and a turtle dove, and am still on their trail.” (16). I am curious about the significance of the hound, bay horse, and turtle dove, and what they could symbolize. The symbolism of these items can have a various amount of possible interpretations and create numerous meanings to his statement. One possible interpretation that I believe could be a possibility for the hound and bay horse would be hunting. Hounds and horses are traditionally used in hunting, so losing either during a hunt would make finding their target much more difficult. Turtle doves in the past have typically been used to symbolize love and faithfulness. Overall, I believe they represent personal losses with which others can empathize. Whatever the hound, horse, and turtle dove mean, I feel it sounds as if Thoreau knows that he will never find them. What do you think that these symbols represent and what could the significance of them and this statement be?
Throughout the beginning of Walden, in the chapter Economy, Thoreau highlights the ways in which economics plays heavily into his decision to go to walden pond and construct a home and live as an experiment. More specifically, Thoreau does a thorough cost-benefit analysis of living at walden pond versus living as a student in the dorms at Harvard, which he went to school. Ultimately, he concludes that it is cheaper to live off of the land than to pay to live in dorms, offering a harsh criticism of the institution of higher education and its contributions to a debt society which Thoreau believed to be the structure of “civilized society”. Thoreau’s response and philosophy is clearly generated from a libertarian point of view, and his intention within the Economy chapter can likely be concluded to be that students and the general public have the responsibility to pull themselves up from their bootstraps and make what they want out of themselves. One passage that sticks out is on page 27 when Thoreau states; “On applying to the assessors, I am surprised to learn that they cannot at once name a dozen in the town who own their farms free and clear. If you would know the history of these homesteads, inquire at the bank where they are mortgaged. The man who has actually paid for his farm with labor on it is so rare that every neighbor can point to him. I doubt if there are three such men in Concord.” In the passage, Thoreau goes on to say that in the current structure of society the vast majority of merchants and farmers fail under the guidelines he has established, that ownership and being free of debt is the ultimate goal. To this he lays the blame on the individual, because it is more convenient to play into the system than to overcome it, though he argues that it is achievable enough that his audience can and should go against this structure. In what ways is this applicable today, if at all? If Thoreau were alive today, would his views be any different from what they are in this book? Is it justified to place the majority of the blame or responsibility on the individual? What lines can we draw between the society that Thoreau is talking about and our society today, and what does debt society today look like? In what ways can we not conform to debt society today?
In chapter 1, Economy, Thoreau critiques materialism and the tendency of people to purchase an excess of things that they have no need for at all, and that this want for material things of no substance only continues to increase. Thoreau also tells the story of his journey to distance himself from society and live only on necessities and off of the land and what these experiences have taught him. He claims that “…many of the so called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind” and “…the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meager life than the poor” (8). He goes on to explain that this excessive need to own more and more things leads people to devote more and more time to labor in order to be able to purchase more things. “He has no time to be anything but a machine” (3). This only leads to unhappiness as they are never satisfied and spend all of their time laboring and miss out on the very essence of what life is meant to be. Thoreau states that people are “…so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them” (3). Given that this work was published a couple hundred years ago, how do you think Thoreau would feel about the state of society today, considering the fact that materialism and excess has increased more than tenfold not only when it comes to physical items but with the growth and production of our food as well?
Thoreau explains that his purpose at Walden Pond was not to live cheaply but rather to “transact some private business with the fewest obstacles” (17). He explains his desire to acquire strict business habits and to trade “with the Celestial Empire”. Thoreau considers the habits of his life as economic functions in this passage and continues to frame his time at Walden with this perspective. In SD, we often reference the fact that eco is derived from oikos, meaning home, and onomy referencing “management” – therefore economy representing the management of our homes. In this way, does Thoreau offer a perspective that thrusts his life into this broader picture of what the economy is – the management of our selves and our society? Or, does this perspective reduce Thoreau’s life in some way?
In Thoreau’s Economy, he criticizes consumerism and how the quest for material possessions takes away time which could be spent living one’s life. Thoreau doesn’t see the point of spending many hours working at a job so that he can buy things that don’t add to the intrinsic value of his life and ultimately takes away his freedom. In this chapter, he shows how there is more than one way to maintain one’s personal economy. I believe the reason people choose to limit themselves to one path of living is because western society worships and celebrates financial success and material gain rather than intrinsic success and spiritual fulfillment. Those who live like Thoreau are deemed poor and unsuccessful. Because of this stigma, “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” always wanting more out of life, but not finding it in the places they are conditioned to believe it exists in materialistically (PG8). So many people are striving for what society deems successful, not what would actually give them the most out of life. I believe the best way to rebel against materialism is to alter the western societal definition of success. I pose the question: How can Westerners in the 21st century use Thoreau’s anti-materialist philosophy to provoke a cultural shift away from consumerism in order to free themselves from the stigma created by the narrow definition of success in capitalist society? In recent years, there has been a more open platform for a critique of capitalism that hasn’t existed in the past. For this to happen, there had to have been events throughout history that have exposed faults in this system and have allowed for cultural changes to take place and progress towards a new ideology. What events must take place for there to be a platform for the critique of the association of wealth with success?
Thoreau is well acquainted with the farmers of his area and I find his observations on the economic station of the farmers of his day to be strikingly similar to that of contemporary independent farmers- continuously struggling to pay off long standing loans and being caught in multi-generational debt, with seemingly no recourse to break the cycle but wanting desperately not to lose the family farm and legacy. “It is true, the encumbrances sometimes outweigh the value of the farm, so that the farm itself becomes one great encumbrance, and still a man is found to inherit it, being well acquainted with it, as he says. … The man who has actually paid for his farm is so rare that every neighbor can point to him. I doubt if there are three such men in Concord.” (27, Signet Classic Edition)
I wonder what Thoreau would think of the modern state of agriculture. What would he think of the dearth of mid-size farms and the virtual monopoly of industrial agriculture? Maybe he would be scandalized that food quality held such a lowly station in American mind. However, I think perhaps he would be unfazed, saying something like, “Let the corporations have it; Grow just enough food for yourself and your family on your own.” Thoreau was clearly a proponent of subsistence farming, and there is a growing micro-farming/ home vegetable gardening movement in the United States. What would Thoreau say to the idea of community and home farming as a political act? And, what role do small to medium-sized private, independent farms play in communities seeking to be more self reliant?
In Thoreau’s chapter, Economy, he talks about the necessities to life. When he talked about clothing, he said “It would be easier for them to hobble to town with a broken leg than with a broken pantaloon” (20). This quote made me stop reading and think about this because it did not make sense to me. In a literal sense, it would be more difficult to walk to town with a broken leg than a broken pantaloon, but Thoreau is conveying their obsession with unnecessary items which leads to their obsession of other people’s opinions. Does this materialistic mindset stem from human nature or society’s influence on human behavior? Thoreau said “I have heard of a dog that barked at every stranger who approached his master’s premises with clothes on, but was easily quieted by a naked thief” (20). He is explaining how clothes can be constricting because people judge based on what they see rather than how they act. What would our society look like if we truly stuck to Thoreau’s claim that food and shelter are the only necessities to life? Are our thoughts actually our own or are we constantly being pushed and influenced to behave in a certain way without realizing it?
In Thoreau’s first chapter economy he talks about consumerism and its negative effects on people, he goes on to talk about how society and technology are advancing however it seems to be that intellectually people are staying the same, “While civilization has been improving our house, it has not equally improved the men who are the inhabit them” (34). What this quote means to me is that people are not changing for the better, instead the human race is learning how to advance technology so that more money can be made rather than trying to advance technology to better mankind, we see this in today’s society, we are at the peak of human knowledge and technology, yet so many people in this world are still suffering. My question is that will we ever get past this point of consumerism, will we see the day that we are not just advancing technology but we are our advancing our world to help other people? Furthermore Thoreau was just at the tip of the ice burg of consumerism the early 1800’s I wonder if he ever thought that society would be this intertwined with consumerism to the point where it is ruining our world. For this consumerist society to end do we have to stray away from capitalism and run our economies in a different manner? Would eventually we end back up in the vicious cycle of consumerism?
In the first chapter of Walden, Thoreau implies that unhappiness is the result of owning unnecessary things and wasting time working to buy these things. Thoreau says that the objects humans own really own them, “And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him” (19). He talks about how unnecessary objects steal time from people. Time is lost through the labor humans endure to earn money to purchase an object, time is also lost through the upkeep of that object, use, or storage. Thoreau explains this idea when he says, “A lady once offered me a mat, but as I had no room to spare within the house, nor time to spare within or without to shake it, I declined it, preferring to wipe my feet on the sod before my door. It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil” (35). Do you feel trapped by society or impeded mentally and physically by objects, technologies, luxuries, etc.? Why or why not? Do you think the objects people own prevent them from experiencing a more human existence? How and why? How do you think Thoreau views time and reality differently when in Concord as opposed to his time spent at Walden Pond?
In Economy, Thoreau said, “I see young men, my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of”. This thought in itself really highlights how differently Thoreau’s mindset is to most other individuals, typically people envy people’s inheritance when it comes to materialistic objects. He then goes onto talking about those whose lives are committed to labor are living foolish lives. What would it take for society to transform our mindsets away from thinking our entire purpose is labor? Growing up you are always asked about your future and what job you are going to have, in Thoreau’s example the young men and townsmen are predestined to work on farms due to their inheritance, our culture has always revolved around this idea of performing labor for gain.According to Thoreau, if we switched to a less labor focused model globally mankind would be better off, do you agree with this theory on labor? If so how could our world make this switch with our current stage of technology and our current livelihoods?
The Walden’s chapter Economy, Thoreau states that human’s four necessities in life (page 8) are food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Thoreau connects these four concepts to consumerism.
Thoreau explains that people who have riches are the ones who are defined as the consumers because of their ability to purchase luxuries such as the newest clothes (Page 14-15). Whereas on the other side of the spectrum there are the the poor who are not as rich in funds. He indicates that when they are rich people, there are poor people on the other side (Page 20). This statement he addresses has not changed since the development of industry and technology. Over time Thoreau says “The civilized man is a more experienced and wise savage (Page 23),” Although Thoreau gives credit to the development and growth of inventions, from this quote Thoreau is saying that even though society has grown to be more efficient with technological advances, there are still people who are wealthy and those who are not.
Thoreau suggests that human’s attempt to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor is the use of philanthropy, which he states is driven/overrated by selfishness and self-interest. Instead philanthropy should be consistent, ongoing, priceless, and unconscious (Page 44). What are examples of what philanthropy looks like when done correct (in practice)? And if the advances in mankind including technology do not seem to decrease the gap between rich and poor people, then what can? Are their any barriers to decreasing the gap between rich and poor people?
In Walden’s Economy, Thoreau condemns consumerism as it has corrupted society. He further explains that capitalism has indoctrinated people into believing that their satisfaction can only come from the wealth they accumulate and how they are able to spend it. Thoreau asserts that those who allow themselves to engage with this capitalist ideology are enslaving themselves, which is arguably the most severe form of slavery. “I sometimes wonder that we can be so frivolous, I may almost say, as to attend to the gross but somewhat foreign form of servitude called Negro Slavery, there are so many keen and subtle masters that enslave both North and South. It is hard to have a Southern overseer; it is worse to have a Northern one, but most of all when you are the slave-driver of yourself” (pg. 6). Would you consider our current society to be enslaved by capitalism and the material possessions we obtain from it? Why or why not? Is enslaved an appropriate word to use in this context?
Thoreau is often praised for this “experiment” of his- living in the woods, sustaining himself using nature and nature alone, rejecting the ideals of society- and has prompted many to reconsider the conception of what a normal life should/does look like. He encourages the criticism of capitalistic society and the challenging of our ignorance towards the possibility of living “a fool’s life” (5) by bowing to the needs of the market and laboring for the benefit of others. With this in mind, why do you think he referred to this as “civilized life” (3)? Is he simply using these words because it is what others would consider to be “civilized life” or does he mean to imply that his experiment really was just an experiment and that he does not intend to spark any type of movement or inspire a mass rejection of the societal norms which were at hand? Given that plenty of people- probably including a handful of SD students- take his writing to be some holy rulebook, should this challenge their perception of Thoreau and the decision to live off of the earth in solitude?
In Walden, Thoreau uses the example of building a house to make several points about economy and society at the time. He states that it should be “Simple”, as to not mean unfulfilling, but to mean that in many ways’ life should be simpler as to allow for its protagonist to live a life more in the moment and connect to universal aspect that are involved with life. He says ideas of style and fashion are simply just fads, which will come and go but ultimately enslave the public in a chase for an unrealistic idea of happiness or prosperity (19). Thoreau also speaks to the future generations which will “inherit farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools” (8) from their forefathers; saying how they are committed to the grave before they are even born. This is to say that they never would have the experience of living outside of and establishment, and therefore never truly know how to “live deliberately” (65). Thoreau finally says, “We have built for this world a family mansion, and for the next, a family tomb” (27). This is to say that the actions of today will have repercussions in the future. Are we living in this “tomb” which Thoreau is speaking about? Have we as an economy and a society “inherited” a life of that is condemned to the limitation of consumption and style? If Yes is answered to the former questions, then are we to blame our forefathers for their faults and to sit helpless in our tomb? Or do we, like the audience of Thoreau’s day, still have the ability to change and “live” before we die?
In Walden, Thoreau speaks a lot to a simplified life and self-reliance. He seems to view having excess as almost a type of violence to a persons’ mind and freedom. In the chapter “Where I Lived, And What I Lived For,” Thoreau states that “a man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone”(106). I understand this to mean that the wealth of someone is determined by the things they can live without. Thoreau goes on to explain that he never got his fingers “burned by possession”(106). He speaks often of respect to land and living “free and uncommitted”(109). Do you agree that possession of anything or of too many things is harmful to a persons’ mind/freedom? Should people have the right to own land or should land be a common space that we all share? Where should the line be drawn between respecting nature and survival?
Henry David Thoreau says in Economy, “Public opinion is a weak tyrant, compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines or rather indicates, his fate.” (12) He often brings up the idea of societal prisons. It seems as if Thoreau was saying that societal standards do not benefit us in a positive way. If anything these standards just put people in boxes and drive them crazy. He continues this theme when he says, “Age is no better… qualified for an instructor as youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost. One may almost doubt if the wisest man has learned any thing of absolute value by living.” (12) Thoreau is pushing societal standards constantly on this page, he is making us question the way in which we value the information we receive. Elderly opinions are quickly taken seriously and held to a higher standard because of the quantity of years they have lived, not the quantity of them. How do we self-emancipate and liberate ourselves from the hard set standards that are created by the old and “wise”, when this has been the structure of our society globally for thousands of years. How do humans find a way to value their own self-awareness and freely choose their own path diverted from the one that they are expected to take?
the second “quantity” is supposed to be “quality”
In Walden, Thoreau repeatedly speaks of human’s connection to material object. Thoreau reasons that “men have become tools to their tools” which limits humans capacity, attachment to the material object limits human’s expansiveness: “we… have settled down on earth and forgotten heaven” (31). Thoreau rejects this limitation by abandoning attachment to material possessions. Material possessions ranging from comfort and convenience to company. This rejection for both can be seen with the statement: “I would rather sit on a pumpkin and have it all to myself than be on a crowded velvet couch” (30). However, we see a progression of this thinking. While in Economy Thoreau wanted merely a pumpkin, in Visitors “I had three chairs in my house; one for solitude, two for friendship, three for society” (115). This seems to show a recognition that life can’t be lived entirely in solitude on one’s pumpkin; life might also need to be lived in friendship and in society. I think where Thoreau had a natural bent towards solitude, today’s readers might be too dependent on friendship and society. The three chairs are a reminder that all three are needed, in balance; but today’s readers can still be challenged to move towards the pumpkin ideal, to not require anything besides what nature provides. How can we find that balance? Is it possible to find that balance? Does solitude limit our expansiveness or increase it?
In reading Thoreau, it forces me to really look at my own life. What do I have that I don’t need? Am I just following the model that society shows me I should follow? Am I one of the people leading lives of quiet desperation? This especially strikes me today, as I’ve sat at my computer doing schoolwork for hours, and longed to be outside doing anything else. What is this all for, and am I just following what everyone is doing around me? I am working hard in school to get a job so I can make money and purchase material objects. Why does society value those who go to school and get a job and make lots of money? One quote that struck me is on pg. 5-6. Thoreau explains that the necessities of humans haven’t changed over the years from our ancestors. He explains that “it would be some advantage to live a primitive and frontier life, and this makes me wonder, why does society push this life where we go to school and make money to buy things? If the primitive life is the good life, then why am I following this model that leads me to quiet desperation? I think it is because the economy needs us to spend money to sustain itself. Being happy and self-sufficient hurts the economy because we don’t want to go buy things and put money into the economy. When we are happy and self-sufficient, we do not depend on this materialistic model. My final question is, what would Thoreau think about the model of life that I am living? What would he think about modern society and the value of getting a college education?
Thoreau writes in the “Economy” chapter of Walden that “There is some of the same fitness in a man’s building his own house that there is in a bird’s building its own nest. Who knows but if men constructed their dwellings with their own hands, and provided food for themselves and families simply and honestly enough, the poetic faculty would be universally developed, as birds universally sing when they are so engaged? … I have never in all my walks came across a man engaged in so simple and natural an occupation as building his house (p. 37-38).” Is Thoreau’s emphasis on autonomy and re-centering ourselves on nature and meeting our basic needs applicable to our modern context, or is it a romanticized view of the past and “simpler times”? Even if building our own homes and/or growing or own food is not realistic, what themes or ideas from Thoreau’s argument could we apply to our lives?
Thoreau wrote “We might as well omit to study nature because she is old.” (page 92) What do you think Thoreau meant by this? Obviously he himself studies nature to a degree so this could merely be a metaphor for understanding that nature is a force beyond our control, but if Thoreau was faced with the issues of today, do you think he would hold true to this stance of merely observing nature rather than studying and altering it, or even trying to save it? If so, why? If not, where do you think he would stand? Also, as a group of individuals studying nature to a degree, but more specifically how to save it and move forward as it struggles, how do you feel about this statement?
In Economy, Thoreau says “I too had woven a kind of basket of a delicate texture, but I had not made it worth any one’s while to buy them. Yet not the less, in my case, did I think it worth my while to weave them, and instead of studying how to make it worth men’s while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the necessity of selling them” (19). Thoreau seems to be arguing that it is more beneficial to him to be less successful in life, at least based on traditional measures of success. Do you think he would prescribe this way of limited success and simple self-sufficiency to everyone, or would he give different recommendations to different people? Would you prefer this sort of lifestyle to a more successful one, or is there another lifestyle you would choose?
My question pertains to the Economy chapter of Walden. Thoreau begins Walden by explaining the reasoning behind his choice to live in the way that he did, and in doing so, he makes reference to his ideal of simplicity. l believe that Thoreau would define simplicity as living as closely within nature and “natural law” as possible. Transcendentalism is a school of thought that views nature and “natural law” as sublimely beautiful, and even divine. This school of thought also separates humanity from nature, and views human activity as subordinate to the natural sublime. Thoreau argues that by pursuing simplicity and obeying “natural law”, one learns to treat oneself with the delicacy and tenderness required to truly flourish. In this chapter, Thoreau makes his affinity for the natural world, as well as his distaste for human activity, known. He does so by making the argument that the human economy traps us into a system of ever-increasing needs, which necessitates ever-increasing labor. In contrast, participating in the natural economy by creating a subsistent relationship with the land reduces one’s needs to the essential, and, in doing so, allows for more moral and satisfying labor, as well as fostering a spiritual connection to the land, all of which leads to an increased capacity for human and natural flourishing. This is the logic that troubles me, and so l would like to trouble it in return. This logic is based on the premise that there is an overarching “natural law” that can be understood by humans and used to map out a course for the ideal way of living. It is also constructed on the premise that there is a divide that exists between the nature and humanity (commonly referred to as the nature/culture divide). These are both premises that l disagree with. l would argue that although we can observe patterns in nature, these patterns are not constant enough, nor are they understood fully enough, to suggest a constant set of laws (aside from physical laws) that could provide an ideal way of living. The idea that there could be an ideal way of living is problematic itself. l would also argue that there is no real divide between nature and human activity, as humans are a part of the natural system, and, in fact they are the most influential species within the natural system. Although Thoreau might disagree with human economic activity and human aesthetics, l believe it is wrong to label them as unnatural. l also disagree with what l perceive to be an individualist undertone in Thoreau’s argument. ln detaching from the human world and choosing to live in isolation, Thoreau cuts himself of from the vital human need for community, and pursues only the flourishing of himself. My question is this: Is it possible to amend the idea of simplicity and simple life to extend beyond the individual? Or in other words, is it possible to develop a regenerative, or even a spiritual relationship with nature without enforcing a nature/culture divide?
Thoreau is quite frank about how he thinks of his elders. He does not value much of the advice he has received from his elders, even saying “I have lived some thirty years on this planet, and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors” (9).
Thoreau also acknowledges the limits that his writings has, as he is only able to write from his own experience, and completely unable to understand the diversity of experiences that each human has. This being said, Thoreau writes in a rather matter-of-fact manner. One example of this is on page 14, where he wrote “many of the so called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hinderances to the elevation of mankind” (14).
In the diverse society that we live in, with the multitude of problems currently facing the US, how is Thoreau’s work relevant? Has he become a senior that has little valuable advice to offer to the world? If he were living in our current society, would he continue to advocate that most people live lives of unnecessary extravagance? Or would he be putting his effort into other issues, like environmental or social ones?
Thoreau, in his Economy chapter, mentions that it is a burden many men are born to inherent “farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than gotten rid of…Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born… But men labor under a mistake. The better part of the man is soon plowed into the soil for compost” (24). He even goes on to say that the chief is the end of man and that men choose this life because they feel there is no other choice (26). The choice that Thoreau chose, and encourages others to as well, is to embrace a more simplistic, “frontier and primitive life” (28). Is Thoreau able to hold and encourage this position through his own privilege? Where do those who enjoy their toil and work fall in place?
I found it pleasantly surprising how much Thoreau’s disdain for wage labor was highlighted throughout this chapter. Before reading any of his work I assumed that his journey at Walden Pond was more of an individualistic colonial fantasy experiment, but reading this chapter made me understand that he had more compassion for the working class and other marginalized groups than I had anticipated. Thoreau also seems to share this compassion for other species aside from humans. He wrote, “nature and human life are as various as our several constitutions. Who shall say what prospect life offers to another?” (10). I wonder if despite this statement he still held some anthropocentric speciesist feelings. Are some natural beings more valuable than others? Who designates this value? What does “valuing” an organism even look like?
Thoreau, for decades, has been symbolic of a simple and independent existence, even being linked with ideas like “minimalism” and “tiny homes”, modern trends based on ancient ideals. Thoreau states on page eighty-five, “…but I would say, to my fellows, once and for all, as long as possible live free and uncommitted.” Thoreau is also well known for saying, “Simplify, Simplify.” (page 93), he obviously led a simple life and would encourage others to do so as well, and has, there are people who now dedicate their lives to living simply in tiny homes or in many other capacities. Considering these to be some of his more well-known principle philosophies, how do you think he would respond to the excess of wealth, material belongings, pollution, and overall consumption of today’s world?
In Economy, Henry David Thoreau speaks of philanthropy although I can’t tell if he’s speaking ill or speaking good of it. It’s near the end of the chapter, and in my eyes the most perplexing sentences are “There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted. It is human, it is divine, carrion. If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the Simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his good done to me,—some of its virus mingled with my blood. No,—in this case I would rather suffer evil the natural way.” A rather long quote, I know, but I’ll try and work it out for myself. I think that Thoreau is saying to be selfish, in a way. Later on he says to use any money on yourself first and to “not merely abandon it with them.” I think his ultimate point, however harsh, is that the person in need is not as poorly off as they may think they are. “Being superior to physical suffering, it sometimes chanced that they were superior to any consolation which the missionaries could offer…” He’s speaking to the resilience of the human body, mind, and spirit. He never outright dissuades philanthropy but he definitely doesn’t advocate for it either.
Which, I hope it should be known, I don’t necessarily agree with Thoreau here.
Throughout chapter 1 Economy, one theme or concept that kept jumping out at me was the relationship between man and work. I am not the best theoretical thinker so I am not sure if this is even correct but one of the ideas Thoreau is trying to get across is that if you work for what you have and succeed on your own, you would have a better appreciation and understand of what you have and the world around you. On the other hand though, in various parts of the chapter, he is contradicting that idea by telling us that man cannot succeed without others and that you would live an unsuccessful life if you pursue a life of labor on your own. There are various examples throughout the entire chapter but two examples include a passage from page 4 paragraph 2 where he talks about Brahmins doing penance through various extravagant methods but then exposing them as men that are continuously alone or the passage from page 6 paragraph three where he states that “the laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men; his labor would be depreciated in the market. He has no time to be anything but a machine. ” One of my questions is in relation to what Thoreau is actually trying to explain with this back and forth relations between man and work. Can a man be reach true integrity or become fully successful if he works alone for the benefit of himself? My second question pertains to Thoreau mentioning following the trails of the lost hound, a bay horse, and a turtledove and how it pertains to the travelers passing by. Are the animals a reference to some ideology of man or is it actually pertaining to the animals themselves?
Thoreaus separation from society does not solve societies issues but show Thoreaus privilege to be able to separate. Thoreau writes, ” In short, I went on thus for a long time (I may say it without boasting), faithfully minding my business, till it became more and more evident that my townsmen would not after all admit me into the list of town officers, nor make my place a sinecure with a moderate allowance. My accounts, which I can swear to have kept faithfully, I have, indeed, never got audited, still less accepted, still less paid and settled. However, I have not set my heart on that.” Thoreaus minimalistic message, yet not so minimalistic writing probably would have been more accessible to the educated/city folk than the country folk. Did Thoreau intend to change society by writing for those who had access? If not, then for who and why?
While Thoreau did not grow up wealthy, he still had the privilege of a family member being able to help him attend Harvard, when he could’ve studied elsewhere and saved the financial stress. I believe in his good intentions to go to Walden pond in search for a simpler lifestyle, but I cannot ignore my skepticism on his inner thoughts. His transcendentalist notions to go into nature for the search of a meaningful life based on self-reliance is commendable, but would he have been able to get there mentally without the financial help from Emerson and his family? Since the “mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” (7) within their capitalist ideologies, why did he not stay at Walden? Was he propelled to rejoin society because he felt he could capitalize on his experiences there by publishing his writings? He paralleled the lives of prisoners in jail cells to those who inherit farm land (3), and although I would invite Thoreau to tea, I would like to know his inner thoughts on such subjects. If he did not “inherit” his education from his aunt’s riches, would he feel the same way about this alternative lifestyle or would he be stuck in the mindset to acquire more? I understand that this was meant to be a temporary experience, but I wonder why he did not stay in that lifestyle if he had learned so much.
I found some of Thoreau’s writing in the “Visitors” chapter to be a little snobbish and rude but with some valid considerations. Throughout the chapter he plays host to numerous visitors to Walden pond and tells us a variety of thoughts and opinions on the matter. His initial considerations on dwellings and visitors are agreeable enough, especially in the eyes of many young people today- “Many of our houses, both public and private, with their almost innumerable apartments, their huge halls and their cellars for the storage of wines and other munitions of peace, appear to me extravagantly large for their inhabitants. They are so vast and magnificent that the latter seem to be only vermin which infest them”. It is true, even more so today than in Thoreau’s time that many folks, especially the in the suburbs and wealthiest among us live in vast homes that would be unimaginable to Thoreau. Thoreau’s modest home, equipped with all of three chairs, appears to be a place where all are welcome, with the exception of beggars whom he deems “objects of charity” and clearly states he’d rather they not bother him. Coming from a man of wealth and education, you would think Thoreau might embrace philanthropy a bit more and extend a welcome to the poorest of society instead of nearly implying that they do not deserve the same respect or consideration. His commentary on a Canadian woodcutter is especially snarky. He initially praises the woodcutter for his “natural genius” and compares him as a Homeric figure but then proceeds to flip the script and refer to the man in animalistic terms for his crude lack of education. It seems often that Thoreau is the sort who spends a great deal of time thinking and considering the best and brightest possibilities for people but in flesh and blood reality his upbringing comes out and he is quick to dismiss those he considers beneath him. Does Thoreau attempt to pose any solutions for helping those who don’t seem to meet his standard, or are they too far gone for him to consider educating? Do his words and actions towards the poor or uneducated reflect poorly on him?
In the beginning of Economy, Thoreau states “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them.”(6)
This is one of the reasons he went to Walden Pond, to escape from social constructs, civilized society, and to live independently with less distractions, surviving solely on basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, ect. He then goes on to say “The life men praise and regard as successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at the expense of others?” (19) How can we encourage others to take the path less traveled and live a more sustainable lifestyle versus the capitalistic vision of a successful life?
Throughout Chapter 2, ‘Where I Lived, and What I lived For,’ Thoreau discusses a sort of spiritual revelation he has while living in Walden. He describes the solitude and peacefulness he felt being disconnected from the rest of society and its everyday trivialities, as well as the strong connection to nature he felt. He realizes how unnecessary working for a living is in order to live an exciting and meaningful life. He undergoes a spiritual awakening of sorts while staying at Walden. At one point, Thoreau writes, “To be awake is to be alive.” What does being “awake” mean to Thoreau? What does being “awake” mean to you?
Throughout Walden, how does Thoreau reflect on the principles of transcendentalism? While he has been living at Walden Pond he has embodied this determination to “rise above” in the physical world. He is looking at nature in a completely different connected way. In chapter 2, “I found myself suddenly neighbor to the birds; not by having imprisoned one, but having caged myself near then.” He seems to be that he is putting himself at an equal status to the birds, and not putting them in a cage as a common human desire. Through his stay, every day he transcends deeper into this new enlightenment, but how does this relate to and influence romanticism? In chapter 2, Thoreau talks about the need for self-awareness and determination to lead a meaningful life. “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 even in our soundest sleep. I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor.” In this quote, I believe he is saying that he has this spiritual wakefulness that pushes him to fulfill his goals for an ideal life.
“Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind”(12). It is clear that Thoreau was not the kind of person who practiced the same kind of materialism that is common in most American societies, but do you think it is possible that he went to an extreme? I can understand that living with a certain kind of luxury can cloud one’s view of the world, but I believe that there are also certain comforts that may give us a greater appreciation of the world we live in. I believe that a modern example of this is with the internet, we have the ability for endless learning at our fingertips. Do you think that if Thoreau was alive now he would change his views on certain luxuries?
In the “What I Lived For” text, Thoreau writes about his physical sense of place and a curiosity, so to speak, about what life means. He goes on to say, “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 was a man who strongly believed in living simply and that nature was powerful. He also believed that by making our lives more simplistic and leaving behind the more materialistic things behind, it would help us; help us in gaining respect for and understanding what life truly means. So, I chose this quote to explain how by choosing to live more simplistic and honor nature, Thoreau realized there was so much more to live for rather than living for the materialistic things of the world. In regards to this, my question for this week is would Thoreau say he really discovered what the meaning of life and contentment truly is? Or could he have just discovered the beginning of a spiritual-self-awakening; more like pure happiness within oneself?