One of the quotes that stood out to me the most was, “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” (6,7). Do you agree with this idea and how does it apply to our current culture?
I would personally say that I agree with this quote in todays time and culture. I would say this because on page 64 he describes a woman gifting him a rug, this is an example of comfort of life. While we don’t need this item it is something that makes us as humans feel more comfortable and ‘at home’. I would also say that some example applies to today’s society.
I agree with this idea whole-heartedly. I have heard many a time that the more possessions or material wealth one has, the more he has to worry about. On page 35, Thoreau writes, “But lo! men have become the tools of their tools. The man who independently plucked the fruits when he was hungry is become a farmer; and he who stood under a tree for shelter, a housekeeper. We now no longer camp as for a night, but have settled down on earth and forgotten heaven”. This quote outlines the idea that instead of tending to themselves and using earth’s materials just for their sustainment, men are now tending to earthly things which are distracting them from contemplating their existence, or philosophizing higher, more important ideas. I think that today, this is very true in many aspects of society. We waste our time on our phones and using social media watching videos and what our friends are doing rather than spending time on more important things; we get wrapped up so much in making increasing amounts of money that we oftentimes don’t realize that the time we spend on this is trivial and unimportant, and that our jobs can be rather pointless. For example, I work at a country club where my services are not even slightly necessary, but I spend my time here to make money to pay rent and pay for other necessities of my own. This time spent at the club could be spent on meditating or yoga, or any other thing that I could be doing to contemplate existence or better myself.
Later on in the chapter, we see Thoreau’s dislike of how people talk about the good they did. “Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly overrated: and it is our selfishness that overrated it. A robust poor man, one sunny day here in Concord, praised a fellow townsman to me, because, as he said, he was kind to the poor; meaning himself.(pg 72) Earlier on in the page, Thoreau also shares his grievances with the reader and how some boast about giving a tenth of their profits to charities. Thoreau argues it would be better to give nine-tenths of their profits to charities. Through this Thoreau seems to argue that most people are only charitable to make themselves feel better and that where philanthropy is most often noticed is by only the people who gain from it. And by this notion, these people aren’t truly being charitable but rather are using another means of making themselves feel better about who they are. Do you agree? Or disagree? Or do you feel that this only applies to certain people, places, or cultures?
About halfway through “Economy,” Thoreau expresses a pretty bizarre yet deep and observant analogy: “We have adopted Christianity merely as an improved method of agriculture”(p. 35). Agriculture can be defined as “the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products.” Is Thoreau saying that Christianity was adopted solely to “feed” and cultivate humans so that they can continue to be of use for society and/or the market? Resulting in goods and services? How do you interpret this analogy?
Furthermore, Thoreau was raised in a religious Christian household and was baptized as an infant. From the information I found, it seems that Thoreau remained religious the rest of his life, although he did not care much for man-made churches. In stating that “We have adopted Christianity merely as an improved method of agriculture,” and by being Christian (as far as I know), does Thoreau admit to being a machine for industrialized society?
I am also intrigued by Thoreau’s relationship with God, religion, and spirituality. Toward the end of “Economy”, Thoreau said “Our manners have been corrupted by communication with the saints. Our hymn-books resound with a melodious cursing of God and enduring Him forever.”(pg.74). Expressing a sort of frustration with structural religion, yet Thoreau doesn’t express doubt about a higher being. If Thoreau had it his way, how would society worship this higher being?
In the chapter “Where I Lived and What I Lived For,” on page 89, Thoreau expresses, “And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accidents, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter,- we never need read another. One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?”
What do we think he means by this? Is he referring to desensitization regarding tragedies? What about the idea that ignorance is bliss? He continues on to say, “To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip..” Does this apply to our current timeline? Is our news important, or is it simply just gossip as Thoreau says? What is the line that separates news from gossip?
On page 32 in Economy Thoreau is commenting on our cultural obsession with ‘the house.’ He compares the wigwam of the native americans which is very small and cheap to produce compared to a modern western-style house, but still houses all the necessities of life while allowing for the resident to connect with and move about nature and the world more easily. He contrasts this with the New England farm house saying “when the farmer has got his house, he may not be richer but poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him.” Later on the same page he says “… houses are such unwieldy property that we are often imprisoned rather than housed by them.” With the current state of the housing market, as well as rent prices and student debt, I believe Thoraeu’s comments about ‘the house’ still ring very true to this day. Do you agree that houses do more harm than good, limiting human experience and often times imprisoning us in the economic system? And are there other modern conveniences that we take for granted without understanding all the negative aspects? I’d like to propose cars and phones as possible others.
In response to your question Andrew, my opinion is; Yes, I feel ‘bigger than needed’ homes are an imprisonment to some sort. It’s more to clean, more to heat or cool, more electricity, more furniture – more everything and to accomplish all the ‘more’ requires earning more money to take care of those things. The other aspect of having ‘more than we need’ in my opinion is, WHY do we really need more? Is it for ourselves or is it to prove or show others that you have it? I also feel the same with phones and cars. Not so long ago, our world as we know it today functioned just fine without those luxury’s. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy the luxury and ease that we have of today, but I dont feel that life would end if they were no longer available.
I think choices of what one prefers will continue to be available. The real goal exists in knowing what suits you, and pursuing it with everything you have without distraction.
Given the introduction to Henry David Thoreau this week, it is evident that his experimental lifestyle dictates his perspective in writing. In “Economy,” Thoreau abandons the luxuries often known to man and defines what he deems to be true necessities: food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Thoreau speaks of the desperation of men and makes one reconsider the role nature plays in living one’s life. The reading references him turning down assistance or support from other individuals. “I find it still better economy to retreat behind some curtain which nature has provided than to add a single item to the details of housekeeping” (pg. 64). Observation shows that Thoreau sits at the side of nature and invites it into his lifestyle. I believe he does this to push beyond the constraints of comfortability that many men often fall prey to. How does this curtain, provided by nature, speak to the condition of men that Thoreau shares? Does living in a way that requires the help of others or means outside of nature constitute an ineffectual way to live?
Thoreau’s “Economy” captures the significance of a minimalist lifestyle. The more materials one acquires, and the more time spent laboring to acquire, the greater the unrest of an individual. The parameters of Thoreau’s experiment are limited. Simplified from “civilized society”, but more than a life built from scratch. In the beginning, he speaks of inheritance as a misfortune (4,5). Walden’s pond is no inheritance, but an opportunity for two years and two months. There, he had an abundance of fuel, access to water, given seed and corn, and a hired team (52). However, Thoreau says, “I was more independent than any farmer in Concord, for I was not anchored to a house or farm, … my house had been burned or my crops failed, I should have been nearly as well off as before” (53). I interpret this as nearly well off – spiritually.
It is not lost on the readers; he speaks from 1845 Concord. Thoreau stated, “[tools and property] are more easily acquired than got rid of” (4,5). These “luxuries” of the past, are they still luxuries today? Would he have succeeded without similar circumstances; property, seed, fuel, things he was provided? I believe it applies today that we live above our means and suffer for it, in a sense. The contemporary question of a Thoreau lens; can one live in a society today without becoming a slave to it?
I was wondering how he afforded his building project and two-year sabbatical at Walden Pond. He seemed by his journals very frugal and meticulous. Noted, he wrote this when pursuing the building of a second home in town. I do not believe anyone is a slave to society, for what then would society be but an outdated one.
At the beginning of this week we dive into the introduction of who Thoreau is outside of his writings. He was a man of his own thoughts and feelings regardless of what anyone else was saying. In our first chapter he appears to use the letter “I” in every other sentence. As a kid I was always taught to never overuse because it can often lead to self-importance or vagueness. But in his writing you get a since of independent ideas rather than someone else’s words. Such as in his two year project at Walden Pond, where he argues that excess possessions require excess labor to purchase and care for them. On page 64 he writes “ I find it better economy to retreat behind some curtain which nature has provided”. He believes that minimizing one’s needs against their own wants is imperative to one’s life. He states are necessities make up food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. So we as humans can live off these things rather than our wants in life.
What are the true ‘luxuries’ from back then to present day? Are they still the same or have they changed? Have our wants versus needs changed? If so what is a necessity today?
Throughout Economy, Thoreau continuously talks about living a simple and minimalist life. On page 35, Thoreau says, “The very simplicity and nakedness of a man’s life in the primitive ages imply this advantage, at least, that they left him still but a sojourner in nature.” I understand his thinking behind maintaining a minimalist lifestyle and how when we obtain luxuries, our minds become fixed on wanting more and more. Thoreau uses fashion as an example of his view of simplicity. He states, “Let him who has work to do recollect that the object of clothing is, first, to retain the vital heat, and secondly, in this state of society, to cover nakedness, and he may judge how much of any necessary or important work may be accomplished without adding to his wardrobe (20).” This quote means to me that clothing should only be used as a necessity to stay warm and cover our naked bodies and we should never desire more than that. I agree with Thoreau’s philosophy of simplicity and how our wants have no real benefit but I also questioned this philosophy as well. Does simplicity restrict and hinder creativity? Fashion is often a form of expression and a way to show the uniqueness of a person’s mind, but how can humans display their creativity in such simplicity? Furthermore, how is Thoreau’s view on simplicity connected to his view on nature?
Throughout this week’s readings, I have been impressed with Thoreau’s words regarding loneliness and content-ness. In the quote, “I would rather sit on a pumpkin and have it all to myself than be crowded on a velvet cushion. I would rather ride on earth in an ox cart, with a free circulation, than go to heaven in the fancy car of an excursion train and breathe a malaria all the way,” with this sort of tone around the surrounding words that suggest this looming toxicity in being crowded (35). In later chapters, Thoreau makes it clear that there is peace, for him, in being alone, through the quote, “I have, as it were, my own sun and moon and stars, and a little world all to myself” (123). He continues on to talk about the most pleasant of hours being “during the long rainstorms in the spring or fall” which allowed his thoughts to have time to “rot and unfold themselves” (125).
Is it possible that Thoreau sees a connection between materialism and loneliness, and what might that look like? If Thoreau feels no amount of loneliness, and also doesn’t see a need for unnecessary material, is the connection that material = loneliness, or that material = trying to avoid feelings of loneliness? Could his “velvet cushion” represent all unnecessary material, while his pumpkin represents something of multiple uses that others might not find beauty in? What might Thoreau suggest to someone struggling with the feeling of being alone? Would it be to first immerse oneself in Nature, or to rid oneself of all unnecessary material?
I really like that you make the connection between materials and loneliness. Thoreau could have easily described sitting alone on a pumpkin or on a crowded pumpkin, but he chose two different objects. I think he was subtly hinting that material things often attract more people and cause that over crowded feeling. He is also pointing out that material things are often used to avoid feeling loneliness because materials things attract people, so technically you aren’t lonely physically, but if you can’t make deeper connections, you are still lonely emotionally.
Throughout this chapter it is evident in my opinion that Thoreau criticizes or better ‘breaks down’ the things that people “want” vice what people “need”. I agree with him for the most part, because why do we “want” luxury items that provide no more benefit of heat, food, clothing or fuel? One thing that stuck out in this particular reading that friends of mine and myself have talked about was on page 25, when he talked about ‘fades’ for lack of better terms. Seems like we are always in competition with each other too ‘one up’ each other. Is this just natural human competition to have/be the best? For the younger generations, I think the majority would feel this way, but for older generations, they seem content with only having what they “need”.
Just from my opinion here! But I think that society, as a whole, has shifted to a heavily materialistic mindset. We are conditioned to feel this need to “one up” because it gives us authority over one another. Even if this isn’t something we as individuals necessarily want, it’s ingrained in our psyche. This shift is definitely of recent decades, I think social media plays an extensive role in the reasoning for so. Being able to have constant access to what richer/more talented/fortunate people have or what they are doing is unhealthy. (side note: social media is fake! and their lives aren’t even that good anyway) With the intensive access to social media being, obviously, a recent addition to our everyday lives’, it makes sense as to why older generations don’t suffer the same fate.
Throughout the Economy chapter of Walden, Thoreau establishes a minimalist, free, and self-sufficient lifestyle as the good life. On page 67, he writes “laborers should work until they pay for themselves and get their free papers.” Thoreau makes it clear he is not fond of labor, speaking of the accompanied lack of leisure and thought as well as a general depreciation of it. Yet, inheriting land, farms, and livestock, which could be a means for Thoreau’s vision of a good life, is seen as unideal as “these are more easily acquired than gotten rid of” (5). While perhaps what one inherits could be above minimal, one could utilize it for the purpose of self-sufficiency and freedom. Thoreau on many occasions asserts that the development of this ideal lifestyle should be an individual process as “A man who travels alone can start to-day; but he who travels with another must wait til that other is ready, and it may be a long time before they get off”. Nevertheless, through the lesson on Thoreau’s upbringing, while much of his abilities to achieve this lifestyle came from labor, much of his opportunity was not achieved individually, rather through his father’s pencil factory and his comradery with Ralph Waldo Emerson. If Thoreau was not entirely self-made, why does he emphasize the importance of individualism in the process of developing his version of the Good Life? Is developing a minimalist, self-sufficient lifestyle possible when one does it alone? If there is a specific way this livelihood must be achieved, how does that impact the freedom of livelihood that Thoreau argues in favor of? Lastly, as Thoreau seems to dictate rules of his lifestyle, is he anti-establishment or attempting to build a separate establishment?
Thoreau is indeed an idealist and perhaps even overly romantic. I admit I came into reading Walden with a predetermined critique of his privilege and lack of systemic thinking. My critique has not changed, however, I do enjoy the way he writes as well to a certain extent the ways in which he poses his arguments as situated against the government and seemingly capitalism (?). I am glad I was provided with the context of his political theory as a transcendentalist and possibly even an anarchist. Regardless of whether or not these are retrospective labels, his writing is certainly emblematic of them. Additionally, his writing is that of a provocateur, going on tangents that are not particularly politically correct throughout his writing. One moment that stood out, in particular, was his tangent on the idea of voluntary poverty (14). It seemed as though he was describing the poverty of culture as well as a poverty of spirituality in the modern, western world, but he also seems to be describing (perhaps ironically and or intentionally) economic poverty as well. Another provocation that I fell victim to was the conception of clothing (22) as a symbol of the ills of modernity. Unlike his provocation regarding poverty, I felt this one to be shallow and underdeveloped. He hovered around the rituals and baseline outlooks on clothing and centered his thoughts and feelings on clothing rather than providing a systemic example of clothing as an ill of humanity. Perhaps it was a metaphor, but if that be the case, it was lost on me. So to my question: How do these provocations further his argument against modern (read western) modes of development? Do these provocations take away from his argument and remove the reader from his side? Or does he not necessarily want the reader on his side? I wonder what the benefit of that would be if it were the case?
Throughout Economy, Thoreau narrates on the lives of poor people and government assistance. He speaks about these things as if he doesn’t necessarily hate them, but pities them. He specifically mentions poor students in the first several pages. Additionally, he seems to pity the man that inherited land. On page 4, he begins, “I see youngmen […] whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of.[…] who made them serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty acres, when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin digging their own graves as soon as they are born? They have got to live a man’s life, pushing all these things before them, and get on as well as they can.”
Thoreau pities men who are legally tied to land, and must labor to live, describing how “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.” This quote makes me think of people who are basically stuck in their life, whether by circumstance, or simply resigned that their lives will not evolve past what they are currently. I particularly like the quote, “It is never too late to give up our prejudices. No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof.” This quote proclaims that no matter how someone is set in their way of thinking or living, they can always actively choose to change that. On page 86, Thoreau states that he went to the woods because he “wished to live deliberately, to face only the essential facts of life.” I can only imagine what he would think about the current world, where our lives are often very frivolous and perhaps less deliberate than any of us would like. These couple of quotes brought to mind several questions that I have. What would Thoreau think of the work culture now (hustle culture, work till you die, work from home, etc.)? How did the way Thoreau lead his life counteract the “quiet desperation” that he describes as the fate of man?
In the chapter, “Where I Lived and What I Lived For”, Thoreau tells us his intentions of writing about his experience. He writes “As I have said, do not propose to write and ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up” (pg.80). This stood out to me because I have found his writing thus far extremely arrogant and self riotous. Do you think he uses this style of writing on purpose? Is it used to capture his audiences attention? Do you disagree with my opinion on his style of writing?
On page 51, Thoreau states: “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.” Much of the themes of this first chapter have equated a mindless consumer lifestyle of excess with evil. This makes me wonder how many others from his time were able to sense or understand that the beginnings of industrialization, and the consumer society were influencing every aspect of life. Even something as simple as a floor mat he had no room for presented him with a moral question of necessity. I would guess that anyone else would’ve taken that mat, after all it was free.
Thoreau’s writing has some duality that becomes more apparent more as the book reads on. Thoreau balances the idea of complete dedication to nature and living in the present and the ideas that come from the traditional standard of living such as ideas of commerce and the town of Concord. In Thoreau’s chapter “Where I Lived, and What I Lived for” he writes, “But I would say to my fellows, once and for all, As long as possible live free and uncommitted” (79). Later in his chapter “Sounds” he writes, “Commerce and unexpectedly confident and serene, adventurous, and unwearied. It is very natural in its methods withal, far more so than many fantastic enterprises and sentimental experiments, and hence its singular success. I am refreshed and expanded when the freight train rattles past me, and I smell the stores which go dispensing their odors all the way form Long Wharf to Lake Champlain” (113). He later goes on to say that he feels more alone than ever once the train cars pass. This duality of saying that nature is completely fulfilling while also perhaps very lonely for him creates questions. If we were to ask him if the feeling of loneliness was human’s true nature or a stray from human nature, how would Thoreau respond? Would he say the origination of this feeling of loneliness is from his upbringing? Human nature? A stray from the fulfillment that nature brings? other responses?
Thoreau writes on pages 91 and 92, “In short, I am convinced, both by faith and experience, that to maintain one’s self on this earth is not a hardship but a pastime, if we will live simply and wisely; as the pursuits of the simpler nations are still the sports of the more artificial. It is not necessary that a man should earn his living by the sweat of his brow, unless he sweats easier than I do.” His writing is sometimes hard to understand but simply I believe he is saying that life on earth should be something that is enjoyed, rather than something that is painful. Do you agree with this statement? Do you think that this idea was easier to support during the time period in which he lived vs. the time period we are in now? If you do agree, how can this idea of enjoying life be implemented as a core value in creating a sustainable future?
I also underlined this quote but more out of frustration than intrigue. We learned in class that he came from humble beginnings and if my memory is correct he experienced poverty at some points in his life. With this being said I felt that in this excerpt he irresponsibly minimizes the toll that poverty takes on people. I thought that it was arrogant for him to proclaim that life is not a hardship when the constraints of systemic oppression are ever present in society. In this statement, he also ignores his privilege as a white able-bodied man; maybe if he was a minority he would not have made this statement.
There were a lot of quotes in the chapter on Economy that hit hard and are relevant today. One of my favorites is, “As for Clothing, to come at once to the practical part of the question, perhaps we are led oftener by the love of novelty and regard for the opinions of men, in procuring it, than by a true utility.” I can’t help but wonder, if HDT noticed people living in excess in their clothing choices in his day, what would he think of how we live today? He even says, “yet I am sure that there is greater anxiety, commonly, to have fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a sound conscience.” Given that the materials for clothes in his day were procured through slave labor, I can’t help but wonder the absolute fit he would throw over seeing our modern day sweat shops and ills of “fast fashion”.
While I was reading Walden this week I questioned where Thoreau’s minimalist attitude stemmed from. There are hints of this in every chapter from his thoughts about furniture to people he advocates for simplicity and argues that less is more. For example, this quote exemplifies his stance against unnecessary consumption, I could never tell from inspecting such a load whether it belonged to a so-called rich man or a poor one; the owner always seemed poverty-stricken. Indeed, the more you have of such things the poorer you are.” (p. 62) He mentions being influenced by eastern wisdom which made me think that maybe his strong stance against materialism stems from the Buddhist principle of Dukkha, the belief that all suffering originates from forms of attachments and desires. I would argue that whether or not Thoreau drew from Buddhism directly that his views can be historically linked to Buddhist doctrine. Do you agree? If not where do you think these views originate?
Thoreau’s intended audience for his text stood out to me as something important when engaging with his writing. The questions of who is his intended audience, and how he perceives them are what I am specifically making reference to. In class discussion, my peers discussed his readers coming from an intellectual background, however, was Thoreau’s (intended) audience bigger than this? Was he addressing people he assumed to challenge and or disagree with him? Thoreau states, “As for the rest of my readers, they will accept such portions as apply to them. I trust that none will stretch the seams in putting on the coat, for it may do good service to him whom it fits” (4). Does this line communicate deeper feelings of mistrust and defensiveness towards readers, presumably meaning that Thoreau expects an audience with conflicting ideals? What does this reflect about his character in general? Arrogance?
In “Economy” Thoreau writes “I sometimes despair of getting anything quite simple and honest done in the world by the help of men. They would have to be passed through a powerful press first, to squeeze their old notions out of them,..” I feel that this sentiment aligns with some emotions felt by a lot of sustainable development practionors, as many unsustainable aspects of society are deeply ingrained and supported through propaganda. Even to “squeeze their old notions out” seems like an immense undertaking, without touching on what material changes would need to be made for a better, more sustained world. Elsewhere in “Economy”, Thoreau comments on day laborers and farmers as examples of the desperation of labor that cannot be fulfilled or ended. What does this mean for the labor we have selected for ourself? Or is there a dignity or nobility or lack of desperation in labor that is ment to benefit others, beyond mere exploitation, even if it may not be fulfilled in our lifetimes?
To me, I thought that him going out into the woods alone to step away from the world and all the conformity that it has shown in his years on earth he purposely chose July 4th. The day that America celebrates its independence. I may not know Thoreau but I feel as if he chose July 4th on purpose. He knows what it represents and if I were a betting man I would bet that he did that because he would not want to partake in people celebrating a constitution that he didn’t agree with. He says “it’s never too late to give up prejudices Living”, “the Greater part of what my neighbors call good I believe in my soul it’s bad”(10), and many more references that can be tied back to how he feels the strains of living did not match the modes of his life in any way. Do you think this was a mere coincidence or on purpose that he chose the day of independence to go and seek his own?
Hey Nate, I really like your response and how you used the context clues, such as the date he left, to make your own assumptions and craft your own perspective. I do think there is significance in the date he chose due to the fact that he was in search for everything he did NOT need while the average American spends their life in search of everything they DO need. Or at-least think they need. Americans must get over the stigma of one needs the latest and greatest stuff to please the “money buys happiness” stigma. Additionally, social media intensifies that stigma and I know Thoreau is turning in his grave watching people post “highlight reels” of their life on a frequent basis. This book is a little more philosophical than my average read so I am having to process each page as its own rather than a processing chapters at a time. Thoreau’s perspective and mindset is a little out there but there a lot of key foundations one can takeaway and I am excited to delve more into those. Is there a good middle ground in regard to Thoreau’s thought process that we can use when looking at not only environmental issues but issues as an economy as well?
I did not get very far into the chapter without coming to a halt to write this post with some questions. It started on page 12 when Thoreau began the discussion of our basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Thoreau points out many examples of how we have gone too far in each of these categories, specifically fuel; he brings up an experience of Darwin saying how Europeans can be “far from too warm while sitting close to a fire” while “savages can be streaming with perspiration far off from the fire.” What confuses me is that Thoreau lists clothing as a necessary need, but then the tone of the analysis above implies that the “savages” are being praised for their resiliency and ability to produce heat without clothing or the warmth of the fire. I suppose my main question is what message is Thoreau trying to portray on this page? It seems almost like he is countering his own argument with this example. Is this example more about the Europeans dependency on clothing and fire combined, whereas the “savages” need neither. This is also my first time reading Thoreau, so I may be reading into the details too much.
One theme I’ve noticed within these first few chapters of “Walden”, is Thoreau’s ideal that living outside of the crowded and often materialistic and unfocused lifestyle, can be incredibly beneficial and eye opening in regards to intention and awareness throughout ones lifespan. For example, one quote that caught my eye in “Where I Live, and What I Lived For”, is as follows; “When we are unhurried and wise, we perceive that only great and worthy things have any permanent and absolute existence, that petty fears and petty pleasures are but the shadow of reality.” (pg. 91). I think in this passage, Thoreau is not only referring to our connection with nature and the environment outside of our often materialistic society, but to our general understanding of our place in the world as humans and individuals in a much larger picture as well. Do you think this ideal is something that continues to apply to our modern society and we could benefit from striving for? Additionally, is this a goal that you think most would find easily achievable or somewhat daunting?
Hey Stella, Your post really intrigued me. I think that many people in modern society struggle with the ideal of place and purpose. In my experience it can be overwhelming trying to place yourself within the scope of society, where you belong, who you are, who you want to be, etc. This Thoreau quote is very interesting because I think it is so open for interpretation. The first thing that pops into my mind is wealth. When you are poor, it is a constant struggle to put food on the table, pay your rent, work long hours. I think it is hard to be “unhurried and wise” when you are in this mindset. This makes wealth and power seem great and like utmost accomplishments. On the other side of things, the wealthy have the freedom to actually keep their heads up and be who they want to be. Many times this will lead to pleasures like cars, houses, and boats. However, they do have that financial freedom to be unhurried and don’t worry about petty worries that most people do. This sense of freedom allows them to pursue their own sense of self. I don’t think that this ideal can apply to our society because most people are “trapped” in the system and live their lives thinking that the proper life is to live how to system taught you. It doesn’t promote a sense of self.
One major theme that Thoreau touches on is the importance of self reliance. Thoreau believes that material possessions and things found outside of what nature can provide are a luxury. This means that nature provides what Thoreau identifies as the four necessities: food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Anything used outside of these is a form of luxury that takes away from individual growth and improvement. Thoreau believes that independence from human society is the base for self reliance. This self-reliance coming from both physical, mental, and economic needs. Thoreau goes through the journey of building up from nothing, even borrowing an ax in order to get started. Does accepting help from others hinder the self-reliance journey? Or is it an okay step to take in order to reach complete independence? Ultimately my question is, is it possible in today’s society to be completely self reliant? Would self reliance even be possible as a student attending college? Are there ways in which we can be more self reliant in order to be more sustainable?
Walden serves as a great introduction to some of Thoreau’s key philosophical ideologies. There are many passages in chapter 1 that represent individualism and self-reliance- emblematic of many other American transcendentalists from his era. Some examples of these themes include his denunciation of partaking in philanthropic acts (56), the self-cultivation of his home and surrounding land for means of sustenance (45), and his fervent dismissal of material items and subsequent dedication to a minimalist lifestyle (8). The culmination of these assertions show that Thoreau was not interested in relying on the kindness of others, the market, the state, or material items for the guarantee of his success, and instead intended to build his life around the reliance of his own person. Walden was written in 1854, which was a period of significant change and conflict for those who lived in the United States. Slavery was rampant, settlers were expanding westward, and the country was in the midst of foraging its own identity. When considering the book’s historical context, do you think that it is coincidental that Thoreau was an adamant individualist? How would you compare Thoreau’s definition of individualism to the more traditional definition of American individualism?
After reading the first part of Thoreau’s “Walden” this week, I picked up a theme of perspective in his writing. He goes to the woods to gain a better perspective on life through a lens not clouded by every day luxuries enjoyed by his fellow man. He discovers that many of the things deemed necessary in society may just be luxuries from a different perspective and that food, water, shelter, and fuel are the only true necessities. He writes, “One farmer says to me, ‘You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with;’ and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle.” (8) How can this idea of perspective be applied in a more modern society where people experience even greater and more lavish everyday luxuries than in Thoreau’s time?
Thoreau prioritizes self reliance and thinks luxury can be a hindrance more than help to individual improvement. On page 47 he states, “I intend to build me a house which will surpass any on the main street in Concord in grandeur and luxury, as soon as it pleases me as much and will cost me no more than my present one. I thus found that the student who wishes for a shelter can obtain one for a lifetime at an expense not greater than the rent which he now pays annually.” I find it interesting reading page 47 (among other passages) in the context of today and that he contradicts his own beliefs. Do you feel that you can trust the author/narrator, Thoreau? Is he intentionally arranging these moments for the reader to think metaphorically? If Thoreau were alive today do you think he would be able to build shelter of grandeur with the same expense he would pay for rent?
In Thoreau’s Economy chapter towards the end he talks about philanthropy and how helping your neighbors can be “goodness tainted”. He states “if their philanthropy does not help us in our best estate, when are we most worthy to be helped?” Thoreau is trying to say it is best to help those with things they need the most, perhaps with a shower rather than money for a homeless man, as he states on page 71. He believes it might be the opposite of charity to bestow things upon a person who did not ask for those items. He then goes on to state “he who bestows the largest amount of money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.” and “his goodness must not be partial and transitory act, but a constant superfluity…. this is a charity that hides a multitude of sins.” i found this perspective on aid and philanthropy very intriguing, but I wonder if this is still relevant today. do you agree with Thoreau that philanthropy a cast off of our griefs? If philanthropy is overrated, what else can we do to help others? What kind of philanthropy is the most impactful in today’s society? Does philanthropy help society?
A quote that stood out to me from the “Economy” chapter was on pg. 67, “In short, I am convinced, both by faith and experience, that to maintain one’s self on this earth is not a hardship but a pastime, if we will live simply and wisely; as the pursuits of the simpler nations are still the sports of the more artificial.” I found this intriguing because I feel that everyone has had moments where they think maintaining themselves can be a hardship, but really it should be viewed as a pastime. We are only given one life, why not treat every moment as a learning experience. Do you agree with this? Or do you view this quote differently?
Hi everyone. I have enjoyed reading Walden thus far, his writing to me is simple, informative, and sincere. One can only wonder what those two years really were like for him. Writing tends to capture one’s reflections truly in the moment words are put on to a page, and most often like here, this is a retrospective act resulting from memory and notes. Considering his short life span of forty-five years, one has to assume there were a lot of unspoken fears contained, believed to be a large part of the brilliance of the work. One of the reasons it has lasted as a classic. “While civilization has been improving our houses, it has not equally improved the men who are to inhabit them (Thoreau 32).” A poignant comment, also a timeless assessment. What do you think he means by this, and the long term repercussions of the truth it may pertain to?
A quote of interest for me from our reading was page 27 in “economy”. “Many a man is harassed to death to pay rent of a larger and more luxurious box who would not have frozen to death in such a box as this”. While referring to a much more expensive and luxurious home to keep you out of the elements and comfortable, he is communicating it to us as a “box”. This a very basic and mainstream definition of a dwelling and communicates to us that we don’t need luxury as a people but instead give it to those of a higher class. The hardship explained is in relation to the weather but it is made out as needed hardship.
A quote that intrigued me the most was “one generation abandons the enterprises of another like stranded vessels.” (pg. 7) I like this quote because I could agree heavily with it, but I think recently with this climate change issue could be seen as one example of a carried on issue from the generation before us to now. Other than that, everything that the generation before believed in or worked for has been abandoned due to the act changing in self intrest through political and social intrests. I think this is what Thoreau is trying to say.
While reading Walden and Thoreau’s writing it was clear that he is a very minimalistic and simple person. He advocates for simplicity whether it be in his thoughts about shelter and material goods or his about people and our place in the environment. We can see this in the quote from Economy where he says “with respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor.” (8) Through this we can see how Thoreau believes that when we continue to focus on our want for material goods, we lose some of the wisdom that comes with leading a simple life. Do you think this is a practical way for everyone to live? Why or why not?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
One of the quotes that stood out to me the most was, “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” (6,7). Do you agree with this idea and how does it apply to our current culture?
I would personally say that I agree with this quote in todays time and culture. I would say this because on page 64 he describes a woman gifting him a rug, this is an example of comfort of life. While we don’t need this item it is something that makes us as humans feel more comfortable and ‘at home’. I would also say that some example applies to today’s society.
I agree with this idea whole-heartedly. I have heard many a time that the more possessions or material wealth one has, the more he has to worry about. On page 35, Thoreau writes, “But lo! men have become the tools of their tools. The man who independently plucked the fruits when he was hungry is become a farmer; and he who stood under a tree for shelter, a housekeeper. We now no longer camp as for a night, but have settled down on earth and forgotten heaven”. This quote outlines the idea that instead of tending to themselves and using earth’s materials just for their sustainment, men are now tending to earthly things which are distracting them from contemplating their existence, or philosophizing higher, more important ideas. I think that today, this is very true in many aspects of society. We waste our time on our phones and using social media watching videos and what our friends are doing rather than spending time on more important things; we get wrapped up so much in making increasing amounts of money that we oftentimes don’t realize that the time we spend on this is trivial and unimportant, and that our jobs can be rather pointless. For example, I work at a country club where my services are not even slightly necessary, but I spend my time here to make money to pay rent and pay for other necessities of my own. This time spent at the club could be spent on meditating or yoga, or any other thing that I could be doing to contemplate existence or better myself.
Later on in the chapter, we see Thoreau’s dislike of how people talk about the good they did. “Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly overrated: and it is our selfishness that overrated it. A robust poor man, one sunny day here in Concord, praised a fellow townsman to me, because, as he said, he was kind to the poor; meaning himself.(pg 72) Earlier on in the page, Thoreau also shares his grievances with the reader and how some boast about giving a tenth of their profits to charities. Thoreau argues it would be better to give nine-tenths of their profits to charities. Through this Thoreau seems to argue that most people are only charitable to make themselves feel better and that where philanthropy is most often noticed is by only the people who gain from it. And by this notion, these people aren’t truly being charitable but rather are using another means of making themselves feel better about who they are. Do you agree? Or disagree? Or do you feel that this only applies to certain people, places, or cultures?
About halfway through “Economy,” Thoreau expresses a pretty bizarre yet deep and observant analogy: “We have adopted Christianity merely as an improved method of agriculture”(p. 35). Agriculture can be defined as “the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products.” Is Thoreau saying that Christianity was adopted solely to “feed” and cultivate humans so that they can continue to be of use for society and/or the market? Resulting in goods and services? How do you interpret this analogy?
Furthermore, Thoreau was raised in a religious Christian household and was baptized as an infant. From the information I found, it seems that Thoreau remained religious the rest of his life, although he did not care much for man-made churches. In stating that “We have adopted Christianity merely as an improved method of agriculture,” and by being Christian (as far as I know), does Thoreau admit to being a machine for industrialized society?
I am also intrigued by Thoreau’s relationship with God, religion, and spirituality. Toward the end of “Economy”, Thoreau said “Our manners have been corrupted by communication with the saints. Our hymn-books resound with a melodious cursing of God and enduring Him forever.”(pg.74). Expressing a sort of frustration with structural religion, yet Thoreau doesn’t express doubt about a higher being. If Thoreau had it his way, how would society worship this higher being?
In the chapter “Where I Lived and What I Lived For,” on page 89, Thoreau expresses, “And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accidents, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter,- we never need read another. One is enough. If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?”
What do we think he means by this? Is he referring to desensitization regarding tragedies? What about the idea that ignorance is bliss? He continues on to say, “To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip..” Does this apply to our current timeline? Is our news important, or is it simply just gossip as Thoreau says? What is the line that separates news from gossip?
On page 32 in Economy Thoreau is commenting on our cultural obsession with ‘the house.’ He compares the wigwam of the native americans which is very small and cheap to produce compared to a modern western-style house, but still houses all the necessities of life while allowing for the resident to connect with and move about nature and the world more easily. He contrasts this with the New England farm house saying “when the farmer has got his house, he may not be richer but poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him.” Later on the same page he says “… houses are such unwieldy property that we are often imprisoned rather than housed by them.” With the current state of the housing market, as well as rent prices and student debt, I believe Thoraeu’s comments about ‘the house’ still ring very true to this day. Do you agree that houses do more harm than good, limiting human experience and often times imprisoning us in the economic system? And are there other modern conveniences that we take for granted without understanding all the negative aspects? I’d like to propose cars and phones as possible others.
In response to your question Andrew, my opinion is; Yes, I feel ‘bigger than needed’ homes are an imprisonment to some sort. It’s more to clean, more to heat or cool, more electricity, more furniture – more everything and to accomplish all the ‘more’ requires earning more money to take care of those things. The other aspect of having ‘more than we need’ in my opinion is, WHY do we really need more? Is it for ourselves or is it to prove or show others that you have it? I also feel the same with phones and cars. Not so long ago, our world as we know it today functioned just fine without those luxury’s. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy the luxury and ease that we have of today, but I dont feel that life would end if they were no longer available.
I think choices of what one prefers will continue to be available. The real goal exists in knowing what suits you, and pursuing it with everything you have without distraction.
Given the introduction to Henry David Thoreau this week, it is evident that his experimental lifestyle dictates his perspective in writing. In “Economy,” Thoreau abandons the luxuries often known to man and defines what he deems to be true necessities: food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Thoreau speaks of the desperation of men and makes one reconsider the role nature plays in living one’s life. The reading references him turning down assistance or support from other individuals. “I find it still better economy to retreat behind some curtain which nature has provided than to add a single item to the details of housekeeping” (pg. 64). Observation shows that Thoreau sits at the side of nature and invites it into his lifestyle. I believe he does this to push beyond the constraints of comfortability that many men often fall prey to. How does this curtain, provided by nature, speak to the condition of men that Thoreau shares? Does living in a way that requires the help of others or means outside of nature constitute an ineffectual way to live?
Thoreau’s “Economy” captures the significance of a minimalist lifestyle. The more materials one acquires, and the more time spent laboring to acquire, the greater the unrest of an individual. The parameters of Thoreau’s experiment are limited. Simplified from “civilized society”, but more than a life built from scratch. In the beginning, he speaks of inheritance as a misfortune (4,5). Walden’s pond is no inheritance, but an opportunity for two years and two months. There, he had an abundance of fuel, access to water, given seed and corn, and a hired team (52). However, Thoreau says, “I was more independent than any farmer in Concord, for I was not anchored to a house or farm, … my house had been burned or my crops failed, I should have been nearly as well off as before” (53). I interpret this as nearly well off – spiritually.
It is not lost on the readers; he speaks from 1845 Concord. Thoreau stated, “[tools and property] are more easily acquired than got rid of” (4,5). These “luxuries” of the past, are they still luxuries today? Would he have succeeded without similar circumstances; property, seed, fuel, things he was provided? I believe it applies today that we live above our means and suffer for it, in a sense. The contemporary question of a Thoreau lens; can one live in a society today without becoming a slave to it?
I was wondering how he afforded his building project and two-year sabbatical at Walden Pond. He seemed by his journals very frugal and meticulous. Noted, he wrote this when pursuing the building of a second home in town. I do not believe anyone is a slave to society, for what then would society be but an outdated one.
At the beginning of this week we dive into the introduction of who Thoreau is outside of his writings. He was a man of his own thoughts and feelings regardless of what anyone else was saying. In our first chapter he appears to use the letter “I” in every other sentence. As a kid I was always taught to never overuse because it can often lead to self-importance or vagueness. But in his writing you get a since of independent ideas rather than someone else’s words. Such as in his two year project at Walden Pond, where he argues that excess possessions require excess labor to purchase and care for them. On page 64 he writes “ I find it better economy to retreat behind some curtain which nature has provided”. He believes that minimizing one’s needs against their own wants is imperative to one’s life. He states are necessities make up food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. So we as humans can live off these things rather than our wants in life.
What are the true ‘luxuries’ from back then to present day? Are they still the same or have they changed? Have our wants versus needs changed? If so what is a necessity today?
Throughout Economy, Thoreau continuously talks about living a simple and minimalist life. On page 35, Thoreau says, “The very simplicity and nakedness of a man’s life in the primitive ages imply this advantage, at least, that they left him still but a sojourner in nature.” I understand his thinking behind maintaining a minimalist lifestyle and how when we obtain luxuries, our minds become fixed on wanting more and more. Thoreau uses fashion as an example of his view of simplicity. He states, “Let him who has work to do recollect that the object of clothing is, first, to retain the vital heat, and secondly, in this state of society, to cover nakedness, and he may judge how much of any necessary or important work may be accomplished without adding to his wardrobe (20).” This quote means to me that clothing should only be used as a necessity to stay warm and cover our naked bodies and we should never desire more than that. I agree with Thoreau’s philosophy of simplicity and how our wants have no real benefit but I also questioned this philosophy as well. Does simplicity restrict and hinder creativity? Fashion is often a form of expression and a way to show the uniqueness of a person’s mind, but how can humans display their creativity in such simplicity? Furthermore, how is Thoreau’s view on simplicity connected to his view on nature?
Throughout this week’s readings, I have been impressed with Thoreau’s words regarding loneliness and content-ness. In the quote, “I would rather sit on a pumpkin and have it all to myself than be crowded on a velvet cushion. I would rather ride on earth in an ox cart, with a free circulation, than go to heaven in the fancy car of an excursion train and breathe a malaria all the way,” with this sort of tone around the surrounding words that suggest this looming toxicity in being crowded (35). In later chapters, Thoreau makes it clear that there is peace, for him, in being alone, through the quote, “I have, as it were, my own sun and moon and stars, and a little world all to myself” (123). He continues on to talk about the most pleasant of hours being “during the long rainstorms in the spring or fall” which allowed his thoughts to have time to “rot and unfold themselves” (125).
Is it possible that Thoreau sees a connection between materialism and loneliness, and what might that look like? If Thoreau feels no amount of loneliness, and also doesn’t see a need for unnecessary material, is the connection that material = loneliness, or that material = trying to avoid feelings of loneliness? Could his “velvet cushion” represent all unnecessary material, while his pumpkin represents something of multiple uses that others might not find beauty in? What might Thoreau suggest to someone struggling with the feeling of being alone? Would it be to first immerse oneself in Nature, or to rid oneself of all unnecessary material?
I really like that you make the connection between materials and loneliness. Thoreau could have easily described sitting alone on a pumpkin or on a crowded pumpkin, but he chose two different objects. I think he was subtly hinting that material things often attract more people and cause that over crowded feeling. He is also pointing out that material things are often used to avoid feeling loneliness because materials things attract people, so technically you aren’t lonely physically, but if you can’t make deeper connections, you are still lonely emotionally.
Throughout this chapter it is evident in my opinion that Thoreau criticizes or better ‘breaks down’ the things that people “want” vice what people “need”. I agree with him for the most part, because why do we “want” luxury items that provide no more benefit of heat, food, clothing or fuel? One thing that stuck out in this particular reading that friends of mine and myself have talked about was on page 25, when he talked about ‘fades’ for lack of better terms. Seems like we are always in competition with each other too ‘one up’ each other. Is this just natural human competition to have/be the best? For the younger generations, I think the majority would feel this way, but for older generations, they seem content with only having what they “need”.
Just from my opinion here! But I think that society, as a whole, has shifted to a heavily materialistic mindset. We are conditioned to feel this need to “one up” because it gives us authority over one another. Even if this isn’t something we as individuals necessarily want, it’s ingrained in our psyche. This shift is definitely of recent decades, I think social media plays an extensive role in the reasoning for so. Being able to have constant access to what richer/more talented/fortunate people have or what they are doing is unhealthy. (side note: social media is fake! and their lives aren’t even that good anyway) With the intensive access to social media being, obviously, a recent addition to our everyday lives’, it makes sense as to why older generations don’t suffer the same fate.
Throughout the Economy chapter of Walden, Thoreau establishes a minimalist, free, and self-sufficient lifestyle as the good life. On page 67, he writes “laborers should work until they pay for themselves and get their free papers.” Thoreau makes it clear he is not fond of labor, speaking of the accompanied lack of leisure and thought as well as a general depreciation of it. Yet, inheriting land, farms, and livestock, which could be a means for Thoreau’s vision of a good life, is seen as unideal as “these are more easily acquired than gotten rid of” (5). While perhaps what one inherits could be above minimal, one could utilize it for the purpose of self-sufficiency and freedom. Thoreau on many occasions asserts that the development of this ideal lifestyle should be an individual process as “A man who travels alone can start to-day; but he who travels with another must wait til that other is ready, and it may be a long time before they get off”. Nevertheless, through the lesson on Thoreau’s upbringing, while much of his abilities to achieve this lifestyle came from labor, much of his opportunity was not achieved individually, rather through his father’s pencil factory and his comradery with Ralph Waldo Emerson. If Thoreau was not entirely self-made, why does he emphasize the importance of individualism in the process of developing his version of the Good Life? Is developing a minimalist, self-sufficient lifestyle possible when one does it alone? If there is a specific way this livelihood must be achieved, how does that impact the freedom of livelihood that Thoreau argues in favor of? Lastly, as Thoreau seems to dictate rules of his lifestyle, is he anti-establishment or attempting to build a separate establishment?
Thoreau is indeed an idealist and perhaps even overly romantic. I admit I came into reading Walden with a predetermined critique of his privilege and lack of systemic thinking. My critique has not changed, however, I do enjoy the way he writes as well to a certain extent the ways in which he poses his arguments as situated against the government and seemingly capitalism (?). I am glad I was provided with the context of his political theory as a transcendentalist and possibly even an anarchist. Regardless of whether or not these are retrospective labels, his writing is certainly emblematic of them. Additionally, his writing is that of a provocateur, going on tangents that are not particularly politically correct throughout his writing. One moment that stood out, in particular, was his tangent on the idea of voluntary poverty (14). It seemed as though he was describing the poverty of culture as well as a poverty of spirituality in the modern, western world, but he also seems to be describing (perhaps ironically and or intentionally) economic poverty as well. Another provocation that I fell victim to was the conception of clothing (22) as a symbol of the ills of modernity. Unlike his provocation regarding poverty, I felt this one to be shallow and underdeveloped. He hovered around the rituals and baseline outlooks on clothing and centered his thoughts and feelings on clothing rather than providing a systemic example of clothing as an ill of humanity. Perhaps it was a metaphor, but if that be the case, it was lost on me. So to my question: How do these provocations further his argument against modern (read western) modes of development? Do these provocations take away from his argument and remove the reader from his side? Or does he not necessarily want the reader on his side? I wonder what the benefit of that would be if it were the case?
Throughout Economy, Thoreau narrates on the lives of poor people and government assistance. He speaks about these things as if he doesn’t necessarily hate them, but pities them. He specifically mentions poor students in the first several pages. Additionally, he seems to pity the man that inherited land. On page 4, he begins, “I see youngmen […] whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of.[…] who made them serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty acres, when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin digging their own graves as soon as they are born? They have got to live a man’s life, pushing all these things before them, and get on as well as they can.”
Thoreau pities men who are legally tied to land, and must labor to live, describing how “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.” This quote makes me think of people who are basically stuck in their life, whether by circumstance, or simply resigned that their lives will not evolve past what they are currently. I particularly like the quote, “It is never too late to give up our prejudices. No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof.” This quote proclaims that no matter how someone is set in their way of thinking or living, they can always actively choose to change that. On page 86, Thoreau states that he went to the woods because he “wished to live deliberately, to face only the essential facts of life.” I can only imagine what he would think about the current world, where our lives are often very frivolous and perhaps less deliberate than any of us would like. These couple of quotes brought to mind several questions that I have. What would Thoreau think of the work culture now (hustle culture, work till you die, work from home, etc.)? How did the way Thoreau lead his life counteract the “quiet desperation” that he describes as the fate of man?
In the chapter, “Where I Lived and What I Lived For”, Thoreau tells us his intentions of writing about his experience. He writes “As I have said, do not propose to write and ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up” (pg.80). This stood out to me because I have found his writing thus far extremely arrogant and self riotous. Do you think he uses this style of writing on purpose? Is it used to capture his audiences attention? Do you disagree with my opinion on his style of writing?
On page 51, Thoreau states: “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.” Much of the themes of this first chapter have equated a mindless consumer lifestyle of excess with evil. This makes me wonder how many others from his time were able to sense or understand that the beginnings of industrialization, and the consumer society were influencing every aspect of life. Even something as simple as a floor mat he had no room for presented him with a moral question of necessity. I would guess that anyone else would’ve taken that mat, after all it was free.
Thoreau’s writing has some duality that becomes more apparent more as the book reads on. Thoreau balances the idea of complete dedication to nature and living in the present and the ideas that come from the traditional standard of living such as ideas of commerce and the town of Concord. In Thoreau’s chapter “Where I Lived, and What I Lived for” he writes, “But I would say to my fellows, once and for all, As long as possible live free and uncommitted” (79). Later in his chapter “Sounds” he writes, “Commerce and unexpectedly confident and serene, adventurous, and unwearied. It is very natural in its methods withal, far more so than many fantastic enterprises and sentimental experiments, and hence its singular success. I am refreshed and expanded when the freight train rattles past me, and I smell the stores which go dispensing their odors all the way form Long Wharf to Lake Champlain” (113). He later goes on to say that he feels more alone than ever once the train cars pass. This duality of saying that nature is completely fulfilling while also perhaps very lonely for him creates questions. If we were to ask him if the feeling of loneliness was human’s true nature or a stray from human nature, how would Thoreau respond? Would he say the origination of this feeling of loneliness is from his upbringing? Human nature? A stray from the fulfillment that nature brings? other responses?
Thoreau writes on pages 91 and 92, “In short, I am convinced, both by faith and experience, that to maintain one’s self on this earth is not a hardship but a pastime, if we will live simply and wisely; as the pursuits of the simpler nations are still the sports of the more artificial. It is not necessary that a man should earn his living by the sweat of his brow, unless he sweats easier than I do.” His writing is sometimes hard to understand but simply I believe he is saying that life on earth should be something that is enjoyed, rather than something that is painful. Do you agree with this statement? Do you think that this idea was easier to support during the time period in which he lived vs. the time period we are in now? If you do agree, how can this idea of enjoying life be implemented as a core value in creating a sustainable future?
I also underlined this quote but more out of frustration than intrigue. We learned in class that he came from humble beginnings and if my memory is correct he experienced poverty at some points in his life. With this being said I felt that in this excerpt he irresponsibly minimizes the toll that poverty takes on people. I thought that it was arrogant for him to proclaim that life is not a hardship when the constraints of systemic oppression are ever present in society. In this statement, he also ignores his privilege as a white able-bodied man; maybe if he was a minority he would not have made this statement.
There were a lot of quotes in the chapter on Economy that hit hard and are relevant today. One of my favorites is, “As for Clothing, to come at once to the practical part of the question, perhaps we are led oftener by the love of novelty and regard for the opinions of men, in procuring it, than by a true utility.” I can’t help but wonder, if HDT noticed people living in excess in their clothing choices in his day, what would he think of how we live today? He even says, “yet I am sure that there is greater anxiety, commonly, to have fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a sound conscience.” Given that the materials for clothes in his day were procured through slave labor, I can’t help but wonder the absolute fit he would throw over seeing our modern day sweat shops and ills of “fast fashion”.
While I was reading Walden this week I questioned where Thoreau’s minimalist attitude stemmed from. There are hints of this in every chapter from his thoughts about furniture to people he advocates for simplicity and argues that less is more. For example, this quote exemplifies his stance against unnecessary consumption, I could never tell from inspecting such a load whether it belonged to a so-called rich man or a poor one; the owner always seemed poverty-stricken. Indeed, the more you have of such things the poorer you are.” (p. 62) He mentions being influenced by eastern wisdom which made me think that maybe his strong stance against materialism stems from the Buddhist principle of Dukkha, the belief that all suffering originates from forms of attachments and desires. I would argue that whether or not Thoreau drew from Buddhism directly that his views can be historically linked to Buddhist doctrine. Do you agree? If not where do you think these views originate?
Thoreau’s intended audience for his text stood out to me as something important when engaging with his writing. The questions of who is his intended audience, and how he perceives them are what I am specifically making reference to. In class discussion, my peers discussed his readers coming from an intellectual background, however, was Thoreau’s (intended) audience bigger than this? Was he addressing people he assumed to challenge and or disagree with him? Thoreau states, “As for the rest of my readers, they will accept such portions as apply to them. I trust that none will stretch the seams in putting on the coat, for it may do good service to him whom it fits” (4). Does this line communicate deeper feelings of mistrust and defensiveness towards readers, presumably meaning that Thoreau expects an audience with conflicting ideals? What does this reflect about his character in general? Arrogance?
In “Economy” Thoreau writes “I sometimes despair of getting anything quite simple and honest done in the world by the help of men. They would have to be passed through a powerful press first, to squeeze their old notions out of them,..” I feel that this sentiment aligns with some emotions felt by a lot of sustainable development practionors, as many unsustainable aspects of society are deeply ingrained and supported through propaganda. Even to “squeeze their old notions out” seems like an immense undertaking, without touching on what material changes would need to be made for a better, more sustained world. Elsewhere in “Economy”, Thoreau comments on day laborers and farmers as examples of the desperation of labor that cannot be fulfilled or ended. What does this mean for the labor we have selected for ourself? Or is there a dignity or nobility or lack of desperation in labor that is ment to benefit others, beyond mere exploitation, even if it may not be fulfilled in our lifetimes?
To me, I thought that him going out into the woods alone to step away from the world and all the conformity that it has shown in his years on earth he purposely chose July 4th. The day that America celebrates its independence. I may not know Thoreau but I feel as if he chose July 4th on purpose. He knows what it represents and if I were a betting man I would bet that he did that because he would not want to partake in people celebrating a constitution that he didn’t agree with. He says “it’s never too late to give up prejudices Living”, “the Greater part of what my neighbors call good I believe in my soul it’s bad”(10), and many more references that can be tied back to how he feels the strains of living did not match the modes of his life in any way. Do you think this was a mere coincidence or on purpose that he chose the day of independence to go and seek his own?
Hey Nate, I really like your response and how you used the context clues, such as the date he left, to make your own assumptions and craft your own perspective. I do think there is significance in the date he chose due to the fact that he was in search for everything he did NOT need while the average American spends their life in search of everything they DO need. Or at-least think they need. Americans must get over the stigma of one needs the latest and greatest stuff to please the “money buys happiness” stigma. Additionally, social media intensifies that stigma and I know Thoreau is turning in his grave watching people post “highlight reels” of their life on a frequent basis. This book is a little more philosophical than my average read so I am having to process each page as its own rather than a processing chapters at a time. Thoreau’s perspective and mindset is a little out there but there a lot of key foundations one can takeaway and I am excited to delve more into those. Is there a good middle ground in regard to Thoreau’s thought process that we can use when looking at not only environmental issues but issues as an economy as well?
I did not get very far into the chapter without coming to a halt to write this post with some questions. It started on page 12 when Thoreau began the discussion of our basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Thoreau points out many examples of how we have gone too far in each of these categories, specifically fuel; he brings up an experience of Darwin saying how Europeans can be “far from too warm while sitting close to a fire” while “savages can be streaming with perspiration far off from the fire.” What confuses me is that Thoreau lists clothing as a necessary need, but then the tone of the analysis above implies that the “savages” are being praised for their resiliency and ability to produce heat without clothing or the warmth of the fire. I suppose my main question is what message is Thoreau trying to portray on this page? It seems almost like he is countering his own argument with this example. Is this example more about the Europeans dependency on clothing and fire combined, whereas the “savages” need neither. This is also my first time reading Thoreau, so I may be reading into the details too much.
One theme I’ve noticed within these first few chapters of “Walden”, is Thoreau’s ideal that living outside of the crowded and often materialistic and unfocused lifestyle, can be incredibly beneficial and eye opening in regards to intention and awareness throughout ones lifespan. For example, one quote that caught my eye in “Where I Live, and What I Lived For”, is as follows; “When we are unhurried and wise, we perceive that only great and worthy things have any permanent and absolute existence, that petty fears and petty pleasures are but the shadow of reality.” (pg. 91). I think in this passage, Thoreau is not only referring to our connection with nature and the environment outside of our often materialistic society, but to our general understanding of our place in the world as humans and individuals in a much larger picture as well. Do you think this ideal is something that continues to apply to our modern society and we could benefit from striving for? Additionally, is this a goal that you think most would find easily achievable or somewhat daunting?
Hey Stella, Your post really intrigued me. I think that many people in modern society struggle with the ideal of place and purpose. In my experience it can be overwhelming trying to place yourself within the scope of society, where you belong, who you are, who you want to be, etc. This Thoreau quote is very interesting because I think it is so open for interpretation. The first thing that pops into my mind is wealth. When you are poor, it is a constant struggle to put food on the table, pay your rent, work long hours. I think it is hard to be “unhurried and wise” when you are in this mindset. This makes wealth and power seem great and like utmost accomplishments. On the other side of things, the wealthy have the freedom to actually keep their heads up and be who they want to be. Many times this will lead to pleasures like cars, houses, and boats. However, they do have that financial freedom to be unhurried and don’t worry about petty worries that most people do. This sense of freedom allows them to pursue their own sense of self. I don’t think that this ideal can apply to our society because most people are “trapped” in the system and live their lives thinking that the proper life is to live how to system taught you. It doesn’t promote a sense of self.
One major theme that Thoreau touches on is the importance of self reliance. Thoreau believes that material possessions and things found outside of what nature can provide are a luxury. This means that nature provides what Thoreau identifies as the four necessities: food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Anything used outside of these is a form of luxury that takes away from individual growth and improvement. Thoreau believes that independence from human society is the base for self reliance. This self-reliance coming from both physical, mental, and economic needs. Thoreau goes through the journey of building up from nothing, even borrowing an ax in order to get started. Does accepting help from others hinder the self-reliance journey? Or is it an okay step to take in order to reach complete independence? Ultimately my question is, is it possible in today’s society to be completely self reliant? Would self reliance even be possible as a student attending college? Are there ways in which we can be more self reliant in order to be more sustainable?
Walden serves as a great introduction to some of Thoreau’s key philosophical ideologies. There are many passages in chapter 1 that represent individualism and self-reliance- emblematic of many other American transcendentalists from his era. Some examples of these themes include his denunciation of partaking in philanthropic acts (56), the self-cultivation of his home and surrounding land for means of sustenance (45), and his fervent dismissal of material items and subsequent dedication to a minimalist lifestyle (8). The culmination of these assertions show that Thoreau was not interested in relying on the kindness of others, the market, the state, or material items for the guarantee of his success, and instead intended to build his life around the reliance of his own person. Walden was written in 1854, which was a period of significant change and conflict for those who lived in the United States. Slavery was rampant, settlers were expanding westward, and the country was in the midst of foraging its own identity. When considering the book’s historical context, do you think that it is coincidental that Thoreau was an adamant individualist? How would you compare Thoreau’s definition of individualism to the more traditional definition of American individualism?
After reading the first part of Thoreau’s “Walden” this week, I picked up a theme of perspective in his writing. He goes to the woods to gain a better perspective on life through a lens not clouded by every day luxuries enjoyed by his fellow man. He discovers that many of the things deemed necessary in society may just be luxuries from a different perspective and that food, water, shelter, and fuel are the only true necessities. He writes, “One farmer says to me, ‘You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with;’ and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle.” (8) How can this idea of perspective be applied in a more modern society where people experience even greater and more lavish everyday luxuries than in Thoreau’s time?
Thoreau prioritizes self reliance and thinks luxury can be a hindrance more than help to individual improvement. On page 47 he states, “I intend to build me a house which will surpass any on the main street in Concord in grandeur and luxury, as soon as it pleases me as much and will cost me no more than my present one. I thus found that the student who wishes for a shelter can obtain one for a lifetime at an expense not greater than the rent which he now pays annually.” I find it interesting reading page 47 (among other passages) in the context of today and that he contradicts his own beliefs. Do you feel that you can trust the author/narrator, Thoreau? Is he intentionally arranging these moments for the reader to think metaphorically? If Thoreau were alive today do you think he would be able to build shelter of grandeur with the same expense he would pay for rent?
In Thoreau’s Economy chapter towards the end he talks about philanthropy and how helping your neighbors can be “goodness tainted”. He states “if their philanthropy does not help us in our best estate, when are we most worthy to be helped?” Thoreau is trying to say it is best to help those with things they need the most, perhaps with a shower rather than money for a homeless man, as he states on page 71. He believes it might be the opposite of charity to bestow things upon a person who did not ask for those items. He then goes on to state “he who bestows the largest amount of money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.” and “his goodness must not be partial and transitory act, but a constant superfluity…. this is a charity that hides a multitude of sins.” i found this perspective on aid and philanthropy very intriguing, but I wonder if this is still relevant today. do you agree with Thoreau that philanthropy a cast off of our griefs? If philanthropy is overrated, what else can we do to help others? What kind of philanthropy is the most impactful in today’s society? Does philanthropy help society?
Lily Ervin**
A quote that stood out to me from the “Economy” chapter was on pg. 67, “In short, I am convinced, both by faith and experience, that to maintain one’s self on this earth is not a hardship but a pastime, if we will live simply and wisely; as the pursuits of the simpler nations are still the sports of the more artificial.” I found this intriguing because I feel that everyone has had moments where they think maintaining themselves can be a hardship, but really it should be viewed as a pastime. We are only given one life, why not treat every moment as a learning experience. Do you agree with this? Or do you view this quote differently?
Hi everyone. I have enjoyed reading Walden thus far, his writing to me is simple, informative, and sincere. One can only wonder what those two years really were like for him. Writing tends to capture one’s reflections truly in the moment words are put on to a page, and most often like here, this is a retrospective act resulting from memory and notes. Considering his short life span of forty-five years, one has to assume there were a lot of unspoken fears contained, believed to be a large part of the brilliance of the work. One of the reasons it has lasted as a classic. “While civilization has been improving our houses, it has not equally improved the men who are to inhabit them (Thoreau 32).” A poignant comment, also a timeless assessment. What do you think he means by this, and the long term repercussions of the truth it may pertain to?
A quote of interest for me from our reading was page 27 in “economy”. “Many a man is harassed to death to pay rent of a larger and more luxurious box who would not have frozen to death in such a box as this”. While referring to a much more expensive and luxurious home to keep you out of the elements and comfortable, he is communicating it to us as a “box”. This a very basic and mainstream definition of a dwelling and communicates to us that we don’t need luxury as a people but instead give it to those of a higher class. The hardship explained is in relation to the weather but it is made out as needed hardship.
A quote that intrigued me the most was “one generation abandons the enterprises of another like stranded vessels.” (pg. 7) I like this quote because I could agree heavily with it, but I think recently with this climate change issue could be seen as one example of a carried on issue from the generation before us to now. Other than that, everything that the generation before believed in or worked for has been abandoned due to the act changing in self intrest through political and social intrests. I think this is what Thoreau is trying to say.
While reading Walden and Thoreau’s writing it was clear that he is a very minimalistic and simple person. He advocates for simplicity whether it be in his thoughts about shelter and material goods or his about people and our place in the environment. We can see this in the quote from Economy where he says “with respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor.” (8) Through this we can see how Thoreau believes that when we continue to focus on our want for material goods, we lose some of the wisdom that comes with leading a simple life. Do you think this is a practical way for everyone to live? Why or why not?