In Thoreau’s contemplation of the ‘necessaries of life,’ he delves into the intricate relationship between man, nature, and the essential elements for survival – Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel. Drawing from his insights, consider the profound connection he establishes between external elements and the preservation of ‘vital heat’ within us. How does Thoreau’s exploration of these necessities prompt us to reflect not only on the physical aspects of survival but also on the metaphorical ‘fire’ within ourselves? Furthermore, how might this perspective resonate with contemporary notions of comfort, excess, and the choices individuals make in pursuit of a meaningful life?
Bonus Question (because I am soooo inquisitive): What does an Elysian Life mean to you? In living under the notion of creating a sustainable future that not only supports ourselves but our community, what are the contributing factors that are non-negotiable to living a blissful life all while maintaining the mindset of justice and devotion to radical change?
Excerpt from text I used to write this question (page 5):
“ By the words, necessary of life, I mean whatever, of all that man obtains by his own exertions, has been from the first, or from long use has become, so important to human life that few, if any, whether from savageness, or poverty, or philosophy, ever attempt to do without it. . . . The necessaries of life for man in this climate may, accurately enough, be distributed under the several heads of Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel; for not till we have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success. Man has invented not only houses but clothes and cooked food; and possibly from the accidental discovery of the warmth of fire, and the consequent use of it, at first a luxury, arose the present necessity to sit by it. We observe cats and dogs acquiring the same second nature. By proper Shelter and Clothing we legitimately retain our own internal heat; but with an excess of these, or of Fuel, that is, with an external heat greater than our own internal, may not cookery properly be said to begin? . . . In cold weather we eat more, in warm less. The animal heat is the result of a slow combustion, and disease and death take place when this is too rapid; or for want of fuel, or from some defect in the draught, the fire goes out. Of course the vital heat is not to be confounded with fire; but so much for analogy. It appears, therefore, from the above list, that the expression, animal life, is nearly synonymous with the expression, animal heat; for while Food may be regarded as the Fuel which keeps up the fire within us and Fuel serves only to prepare that Food or to increase the warmth of our bodies by addition from without Shelter and Clothing also serve only to retain the heat thus generated and absorbed. The grand necessity, then, for our bodies, is to keep warm, to keep the vital heat in us. What pains we accordingly take, not only with our Food, and Clothing, and Shelter, but with our beds, which are our night-clothes, robbing the nests and breasts of birds to prepare this shelter within a shelter, as the mole has its bed of grass and leaves at the end of its burrow! The poor man is wont to complain that this is a cold world; and to cold, no less physical than social, we refer directly a great part of our ails. The summer, in some climates, makes possible to man a sort of Elysian life.
Fuel, except to cook his Food, is then unnecessary; the sun is his fire, and many of the fruits are sufficiently cooked by its rays; while Food generally is more various, and more easily obtained, and Clothing and Shelter are wholly or half unnecessary. At the present day, and in this country, as I find by my own experience, a few implements, a knife, an axe, a spade, a wheelbarrow, etc., and for the studious, lamplight, stationery, and access to a few books, rank next to necessaries, and can all be obtained at a trifling cost. Yet some, not wise, go to the other side of the globe, to barbarous and unhealthy regions, and devote themselves to trade for ten or twenty years, in order that they may live — that is, keep comfortably”
Walden – “Economy” (Henry David Thoreau)
Carlye Durham 1/23/24
When reading the first chapter of Walden, I immediately picked up on this egotistical tone to the way Thoreau writes, specifically regarding the way he views lifestyles, either others’ or his own. He does acknowledge the notion that just because things have been done a certain way in the past, does not mean that there is only one way to do things, which I think is a wonderful outlook to have, especially when discussing sustainable development. Additionally, I appreciate that he highlights the fact that the working class of America is confined to their jobs through the construct of a capitalist, GDP-centric society, and often feel as if they must work their entire lives to afford basic necessities. However, I also noticed that Thoreau is very critical of individuals’ inability to change or take control of their own lives. He even suggests that people may not be aware of other lifestyle opportunities or modes of living. This statement may be true for some, however I feel like Thoreau fails to recognize that the sociopolitical and economic spheres of America were designed to promote internalized power constructs to keep the poor in poverty and to make the rich richer. No, Thoreau, not everybody has another choice. He even states that the working class in America are regarded as machines to produce labor and goods, but ignores the root cause of this problem, instead placing the responsibility on the shoulders of struggling individuals and communities who have been given few opportunities to advance their “place” in the world. I wonder how Thoreau’s outlooks on poverty and lifestyles would be different if he took others’ experiences into consideration, rather than just his own personal lifestyle experiences? How would his ideals possibly look different in the context of today’s society? Did anyone else interpret his message differently, and if so, how?
Early on in “Economy,” Thoreau asserts that “the old have no very important advice to give the young” (9). He presents himself as a proponent of progress and new techniques and inventions, yet only as they apply to the fulfillment of a simple and self-sustaining mode of living. I wonder if he would consider his own ideas unimportant and how his views might change if he were alive today. For example, it’s easy to say that Thoreau would be a fan of modern iterations of minimalism and off-the-grid living. However, because these ways of life are often rooted in the idea of returning to an older paradigm, would he really be a fan? I also think it would be interesting to think through his possible reaction to the modern practice of having a certain aesthetic without following through on the tenets of that idea (ex: mainstream minimalism as a social media trend rather than a way of life).
While reading Thoreau, the egotistical and idealistic tones of the narrator create a pattern throughout the text that engages the reader in a question of morality, and what it means to be a member of a created society. While reading all I could think about was what Thoreau would think of the modern world, and if he would still adhere to the same beliefs that he learned while taking up his residence at Walden Pond if he were here to see how the world has evolved so far. He elaborates on the idea of his text not necessarily being for everyone, and explains that not everyone will benefit from reading this text. “I trust that none will stretch the seams in putting on the coat, for it may do good service for whom it fits.” This line in particular made me take a step back and think about my own life, and the choices I make and how I spread knowledge. Thoreau is saying that essentially not one size fits all, and this book may benefit some, and be of no concern to others. Throughout Sustainable Development we constantly push the idea of adhering to a certain belief (even if we don’t directly say that) to help better the planet in a way that we deem fit. We believe that if everyone thought the way we did, the problems of climate change would not be so severe. That line however made me kind of stop in my tracks, and take a step back in my own mind. I want to know how the rest of you interpreted that line and if it shifted any perspectives in your own mind. Would society be better off adhering to a single belief in the name of the greater good? What are the benefits of discourse in this setting in particular? Would Thoreau still uphold this belief in the modern world? Why or why not?
Something that keeps returning to my mind, particularly following Tuesday’s class, is the question of poverty as understood in the chapter “Economy”. Both material and spiritual poverty seem to arise as key themes in this chapter. Thoreau suggests that minimalistic living centered around subsistence in order to make room for more self-fulfilling pursuits is favorable to the societal conventions he perceives. His voluntary material poverty, he suggests, allows him to become rich spiritually, emotionally, and even physically (just not materially). The conflict thus becomes, who is this viable for? Are there limits to his perceptions of poverty and societal conventions? He seems to outline that his audience is not the “well-employed” or those comfortable in their material existence, yet he also implies his writings are not aimed to preach to “the Chinese and Sandwich Islanders” (p. 3-4). So, is this message of turning to minimalistic living geared towards the unhappy middle class? Thoreau writes, “The farmer is endeavoring to solve the problem of a livehlihood by a formula more complicated than the problem itself” and later, “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.” (p.31-32). Essentially, by spending our lives laboring for more than we practically need, we are spiritually impoverishing ourselves by creating chains to the material; dependency on excess. In SD we often discuss reducing consumption patterns in favor of a more fulfilling, anti-capitalist and decolonial existence. If the actual practice of reducing consumption patterns and dependency on a flawed system is not viable for everyone, how do we make the change? Who gets to advocate what ways of life? The question that keeps arising in my own mind in regards to Thoreau’s privilege of having the time and resources to conduct the Walden experiment is: does it matter? Does how he was able to conduct the experiment matter as much as his findings? Do his material conditions and apparent individualistic, self-indulging nature matter if we can take something valuable from his writings?
” The portionless, who struggle with
no such unnecessary inherited encumbrances, find it
labor enough to subdue and cultivate a few cubic
feet of flesh.
But men labor under a mistake. The better part of
the man is soon ploughed into the soil for compost. By
a seeming fate, commonly called necessity, they are
employed, as it says in an old book, laying up treas-
ures which moth and rust will corrupt and thieves
break through and steal. It is a fool’s life, as they will
find when they get to the end of it, if not before.” (Walden, 5)
I would like to highlight the quote “By a seeming fate, commony called necessity, they are employed.” In tuesday’s class, we discussed how luxury is now often seen as a neccessity, and at the end of the quote, living in this manner is called “a fool’s life.”
“. . . so occupied
with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse
labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked
by them. Their fingers, from excessive toil, are too
clumsy and tremble too much for that. Actually, the
laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day
by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest rela-
tions to men; his labor would be depreciated in the
market. ”
This reminds me of Kafka. Do we live for ourselves, or for a determined identity within society defined by our labor? What would Thoreau argue is what we labor/live for, and how do we address what exactly that is?
I fully understand Thoreau’s stance on not identifying with larger social structures and wanting to be apart from his community of over-consumers. Thoreau as a transcendentalist, takes the approach to look towards nature for ethical guidance and by looking at nature we are looking and learning about ourselves. He has no reverence for elders for wisdom to learn about life or how to carry ourselves through life (111). He also refers to us as being sojourners in nature and that the time spend in nature is enough to find basic needs and work. “The very simplicity and nakedness of man’s life in the primitive ages imply this advantage at least, that they left him still but a sojourner in nature. When he was refreshed with food and sleep, he contemplated his journey again. He dwelt, as it were, in a tent in this world, and was either threading the valleys, or crossing the plains, or climbing the mountain tops. 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.” (132) Is this his justification for solitude? In SD we are all in somewhat of an agreement that community is important and key for sustainable development, so what would Thoreau have to say about that? Does he think that a time of solitude and simplicity makes us better community members?
In The writing of Thoreau he has many ideas on how we should treat the working man or also known as laborers. Thoreau expressed how many men are so occupied with their own labor that they will never see the fruits of their labor. This is something I have personally seen with people retiring at 60 then maybe if they’re lucky getting 20 years left to live their life. With that being said how would we go about changing the current system so laborers can see the fruits of their labor.
Excerpt I used page 6 Economy ch
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. Their Fingers, from excessive toil, are too clumsy and tremble too much for that. Actually, 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. How can he remember well his ignorance which growth requires who has so often to use his knowledge? We should feed and clothe him gratuitously sometimes, and recruit him with our cordials, before we judge him. The finest qualities of our nature, like the bloom on fruits, can be preserved only be the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another thus tenderly
Thoreau clearly has his critiques surrounding the educational institution from his experience with Cambridge College and education at his time in general. The critique that I will focus my question on surrounds the idea of a student “playing life” or “studying life” rather than “living” it. Approaching this question from the lens of Thoreau, is imbalance between students “studying” versus “living” see at the institution of Appalachian State? If so, what are some examples of this? In the sustainability department? Some departments more than others? How could the educational system change to incorporate more “living” into our curriculum (51)?
Two quote that stuck out to me regarding this critique are as follows: “Which would have advanced the most at the end of a month,-the boy who had made his own jackknife from the ore which he had dug and smelted, reading as much as would be necessary for this,-or the boy who had attended the lectures on metallurgy at the Institute in the mean while, and had received a Rodgers’ penknife from his father?” The second quote by Thoreau on his own education: “To my astonishment I was informed on leaving college that I had studied navigation!-why, if I had taken one turn down the harbor I should have known more about it” (51-52).
Throughout his writing, Thoreau critiques the current status quo of the working society and economy. In the early pages of the first chapter he makes connections to Roman mythology, specifically the myth of Hercules and his 12 labors. Thoreau states that:
“The twelve labors of Hercules were trifling in comparison with those which my neighbors have undertaken; for they were only twelve and had an end; but I could never see that these men slew or captured any monsters or finished any labor” (pg. 4).
Here Thoreau points out that at least there was an end to Hercules’s work, while in comparison to the working individual today, they get stuck in the system and end up essentially working their life away, always postponing what they are truly passionate about. I think this is something that many people can relate to in the present day. How often have you had something you wanted to do in life but you always put a boundary around it like “I have to finish this first”, or “once I have a certain job and income I will”? How can we as a society start to change this frame of mind that everything has to be perfectly in order before you can pursue your passions?
Also connected to this on pg. 13 Thoreau says that “Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to mankind.” What are some ways we see this phenomena show up in current day life? As a producer of many luxuries and “must have” items is capitalism then a hindrance to mankind?
Early on in “Economy,” Thoreau asserts that “ When we consider what, to use the words of the catechism, is the chief end of man, and what are the true necessaries and means of life, it appears as if men had deliberately chosen the common mode of living because they preferred it to any other. . . . “(8). He also states “Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.” What are examples of the common mode of living and the comforts of life in the 1800s? What are examples of the common mode of living and comforts of life now? What would Thoreau think of them? Would he cut us some slack for living in this society where we work our butts off or blame us for not escaping these societal norms?
“We are made to exaggerate the importance of what work we do; and yet how much is not done by us! Or, what if we had been taken sick? How vigilant we are! Determined not to live by faith if we can avoid it; all the day long on the alert, at night we unwillingly say our prayers and commit ourselves to uncertainties. So thoroughly and sincerely are we compelled to live, reverencing our life, and denying the possibility of change” (pg. 12).
Throughout Thoreau’s “Economy”, he insinuates how our struggles with consumerism as a society are directly linked to our anxieties over not having enough. He expresses that people are so tied to their work that they fail to fully enjoy the fruits of their labor because they are so consumed with having something better. The desire to constantly have more is also what necessitates feelings of anxiety over lack of productivity. Thoreau seems to be very critical of people who fail to question what they are working for. Furthermore, rather than trusting that there is always a factor of unknown, he brings attention to our need for control. Even though we could work our entire lives to save money, we could one day die without being able to “enjoy” what the money could provide.
This leaves me wondering, in our current ways of living, is a change of mindset the solution to overconsumption? Is it feasible to believe that society as a whole will ever have the urge to become more minimalistic? In doing so, would it alleviate current problems we face such as global pollution?
In “Economy” Thoreau shows that he does not like to conform to social norms. In class we discussed some examples of this like quitting his teaching job because they wanted him to cane students and refusing to pay taxes to protest slavery. In the chapter he discusses that he doesn’t listen to old people saying, “Age is no better, hardly so well, qualified far an instructor as youth” (pg. 8) and “I have lived some thirty years on this planet, and have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable advice from my seniors” (pg.9). Listening to and respecting your elders is a social norm for many cultures, and although I don’t always agree with some older people there are definitely benefits to talking and listening to them about their experiences. I wonder why Thoreau feels so strongly that there is no benefit to their advice? Or have I misinterpreted what he is saying here?
Economy offers insight into Henry Thoreau’s life, particularly his college experiences at Harvard, his return to Concord, the influence of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and the societal changes in Concord during the 1830s. Thoreau’s education at Harvard, marked by his diverse studies, shaped his intellectual interests. The main questions I came across from this reading were; How did Thoreau’s experiences at Harvard influence his later critiques of education and societal norms? What role did economic factors, such as the panic of 1837, play in shaping Thoreau’s life choices and career path? It also brought up the influence of Ralph Waldo Emerson on Thoreau’s philosophical views, especially in terms of transcendentalism and individualism. I thought Thoreau embraced these concepts, promoting the idea that people should trust their intuition, be self-reliant, and seek spiritual connections with nature. Emerson’s philosophy of individualism and the belief in finding truth within oneself deeply shaped Thoreau’s own philosophical views. Epically since from the article we were able to follow along with Thoreau’s growth, his views shifted from time to time. Thoreau’s interest in nature and literature evolved during his college years, and how did it manifest in his later works? Personally I feel a strong connection to nature so it was very interesting to tie in my personal experiences to how he sees it through his personal lens.
The readings this week from Walden written by Thoreau start off with the pond experiment and ends off by using a lot of different ways to explain how living life could and should be for people. Some quotes show the different steps he is advising a person to take, “begin where you are and such as you are, without aiming mainly to become of more worth, and with kindness aforethought go about doing good” (p.160, I have a weird online copy). What is he trying to get across and does it relate to how he says that “every man is tasked to make his life, even in its details, worthy of the contemplation of his most elevated and critical labor” (p.172)? Another part of the focus was around choosing to live in poverty characteristics and distinguish how it’s like to live in those ways even while being pretty well set financially. He even goes on to say that “instead of three meals a day, if it be necessary eat but one; instead of a hundred dishes, five; and reduce other things in proportion” (p.173). So, with that in mind what is his view on living in poverty? Excluding the fact that he was financially stable and was choosing to live this way.
Weekly Question: Henry David Thoreau
1/24/24
Kobe Early
I want to tailor my question toward what was discussed in the classroom on Tuesday. That is: what is Henry David Thoreau’s target audience and what is his political ideology based on the given chapters?
I believe the avenue towards analyzing how he behaves and the way he analyzes those more dispossessed. Thoreau does embrace a range of astute observations regarding the impacts of lower socio-economic class and how it affects all members of society. Thoreau makes an observation that two men traveling, one with capital, who can travel freely, only needing to carry the money itself, and one without, who must work at stops along the way, depleting resources between each trek. While it is possible for both to live a fulfilling life— one is bound and has no option, but to work which takes away his ability to hike time & energy wise. Thoreau is anti the superfluous labor, which enhances the load for working people, but acknowledges the technological benefits we all reap from it. He envisions a world where the structuring of resources can be organized with less superfluous labor. This point of view is less hierarchical than what we have today and seeks to balance production and consumption with seasons. All these more naturalist reasons would point away from contemporary capitalism and popular culture. While Thoreau points towards engagement with the environment, the practical way he lives in the Walden Cabin does not reflect cooperative or collaborative means. He sits alone most days, with 3 chairs in total. His experiment appears to be more of a vacuum. While people do visit and he rarely does work— he does not meaningfully cooperate or collaborate with other people. A key feature of the environment and how people interact with it is the avenue in which people cooperate and collaborate. He does recollect the factors of isolationism in chapters Sound and Solitude, he doesn’t advocate for bridging that gap to where I would say he advocates for cooperation and collaboration.
“All this is very selfish, I have heard some of my townsmen say. I confess that I have hitherto indulged very little in philanthropic enterprises. I have made some sacrifices to a sense of duty, and among others have sacrificed this pleasure also. Some have used all their arts to persuade me to undertake the support of some poor family in the town; and if I had nothing to do — for the devil finds employment for the idle” (pg. 54)
In his free time, he does not donate or volunteer resources to those who are disproportionately struggling. He makes it seem like it is a burden— something to be escaped instead of embraced resource-wise. For these reasons I’d put Thoreau under the umbrella of libertarianism/anarchism with a naturalist point of view, but not an advocate for collective ownership based on his behavior. Since he does not demonstrate meaningful collaboration with other people.
When first reading “Walden” I was not very aware of the backstory or motives behind this so-called experience. I wasn’t aware that Thoreau was simply a few miles from the town he once lived, nor was I aware that this experiment only lasted two years and he came from a wealthy family. The more I researched and the more that I read, I became less impacted by what he had to say. The biggest thing that stood out to me was his arrogance at how good he was at being “poor”. There are two quotes that I think highlight my point adequately. “At the present day, and in this country, as I find by my own experience, a few implements, a knife, an axe, a spade, wheelbarrow, and for the studious a lamplight, stationary, and access to a few books, rank next to necessities, and can all be obtained at a trifling cost”. A trifling cost looks different to everyone based on how much money you have to begin with. So to say that these are the only things that are necessities to a man who has never been without them, and assuming they are cheap to everyone, displays a lack of awareness to the true nature of poverty.
“Most of the luxuries, and so called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind”. In my opinion having luxuries and creature comforts does not mean that you can’t elevate yourself or the rest of mankind to a more grateful state of being. Material things and expensive luxuries do not determine a person’s enlightenment or life experience as an individual. In my experience if you start with nothing, you can carry that spirit with you until you have what you consider to be something. My question is that do you think Thoreau’s writings would have been more meaningful if he wrote from a place of a lifetime without, as opposed to his “voluntary poverty” as he calls it. Could his work be of greater impact by using physical poverty as a mouthpiece for reduced pride and self elevation over the things of life both material and not material?
In the chapter “Economy” of Thoreau’s book “Walden”, He talks about a lot about farmers and their struggles, and how “unfortunate” it is that they were burdened with it. In the excerpt I chose to use from the book he states…
“Why should they begin digging their 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. How many a poor immortal soul have I met well nigh crushed and smothered under its load, creeping down the road of life, pushing before it a barn seventy-five feet by forty, its Augean stables never cleansed, and one hundred acres of land, tillage, mowing, pasture, and wood-lot!” (p.5)
Thoreau writes as if it is some mandatory obligation forced onto these people but does not seem to consider how some of them may choose or want this lifestyle. Of couse farming is not for everybody and it is a difficult occupation, but Thoreau seems to view it as a misfortune to be a farmer. My question is has Thoreau ever been in the farmers shoes or experienced farming in any aspect? Or what qualifies in his mind as to what is a unfortunate or worth-while occupation to have?
In Thoreau’s “Economics” chapter, he discusses various topics such as living simply, connection to nature, self-sufficiency, consumerism, and materialism. One quote that stood out to me was “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” This is a famous quote by Thoreau, but it sparks a lot of questions and self-reflecting in my mind. Thoreau explores the concept of autonomy in the sense that civilization is too dependent on external factors.
Sometimes I find it hard to relate to older texts because they feel disconnected, but when Thoreau criticizes consumer culture, I feel as though we are not so far apart. He believed that wealth and possessions do not lead to true happiness. Consumer culture has boomed since the time he wrote this, and it is interesting to look at today due to social media and different forms of marketing. Over-consumerism is a huge issue, mostly in the global north, and it is engraved into your brain from a young age. This leads me to my question:
Since Thoreau had such an issue with consumer culture in the late 1800s, how do you think he would react if he saw the extent to which consumer culture has reached? Further, do you believe that his response would be the same as his opinion of the 1800s?
In the chapter, “Where I Lived and What I Live For,” Thoreau talks at length about the insignificance of paying attention to the news. For instance, he states, “I am sure that I never read any memorable news in the newspaper” (p. 89). Of those who do read the daily news, Thoreau believes that, “By closing the eyes and slumbering, and consenting to be deceived by shows, men establish and confirm their daily life of routine and habit everywhere, which still is built on purely illusory foundations” (p. 91). I partially agree with him because I believe that a large part of the news, especially today, is full of fear-mongering and shock factor so that headlines will attract people, almost as if it is entertainment rather than news; however, there are many news stories that are extremely important to pay attention to. In the 21st century climate change, a very urgent crisis that must be recognized and acted upon, is talked about in the news everyday. Even with the high numbers of people that do pay attention and act upon news of the climate crisis, non-believers and purposefully ignorant people still present a huge barrier to mitigating and reversing climate change. I wonder what sort of situation we would be in today if we all paid heed to Thoreau’s advice and ignored the threat of climate change in exchange for blissful ignorance?
In his home at Walden Pond, Thoreau lives near the Fitchburg Railroad, and often reflects on the track and its train in his essays. His constant reflection on the railroad in his work indicates that the invention takes up space in his mind, and is likely representative of a larger concept. What is the significance of the railroad to Thoreau? What does it symbolize, and how does he feel about it?
Here are some excerpts pertaining to railroads that may provide insight into Thoreau’s feelings:
“I have learned that the swiftest traveller is he who goes afoot… Instead of going to Fitchburg, you will be working here the greater part of the day. And so, if the railroad reached round the world, I think that I should keep ahead of you; and as for seeing the country and getting experience of that kind, I should have cut your acquaintance altogether,” (p. 50).
“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? And if railroads are not built, how shall we get to Heaven in season? 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,” (p. 87).
“… if some have the pleasure of riding on a rail, others have the misfortune to be ridden upon,” (p. 88).
“The whistle of the locomotive penetrates my woods summer and winter… Up comes the cotton, down goes the woven cloth; up comes the silk, down goes the woolen; up come the books, but down goes the wit that writes them,” (p. 109).
“I do not mean to insist here on the disadvantage of hiring compared with owning, but it is evident that the savage owns his shelter because it costs so little, while the civilized man hires his commonly because he cannot afford to own it; nor can he, in the long run, any better afford to hire.” Pg. 29
“Granted that the majority are able at last either to own or hire the modern house with all its impoverishment. While civilization has been improving our houses, it has not equally improved the men who are to inhabit them. It has created palaces, but it was not so easy to create noblemen and kings.” Pg. 32
Thoreau spends some time in his chapter ‘Economy’ talking about houses by comparing the “civilized man” to the “savages”. He makes remarks such as how the cost of a home takes a man 10 to 15 years of labor to obtain. The amenities of a new home are enjoyed by a “civilized” man even though he is poor. The “savage” having built his own home has no amenities but is not poor. Thoreau is currently living in a cabin that he built himself, I believe he is biased toward the home of the “savage”. I believe that this is also a jab at one’s character. The man who builds his own home will be objectively superior to the man who toils to buy his own as he has the skills to do so without the need for civilization. Would Thoreau agree with me?
Within “Economy”, I was especially interested in what Thoreau had to say about consumerism and his ideas on non-conformity. Of course, with how deep into consumer culture we are in the modern day I found it interesting that he was able to point out what so many people are saying now, back in 1845 at Walden. It made me think back to the conversation we had in class too about Thoreau’s feelings on moving/thinking/feeling/acting outside of society’s norms too. By pointing out society’s need for material items, he also calls out what really are the necessities of life: food, shelter, clothing and fuel. With these four things, any one human could survive in 1845… does this still hold true today? Has the convenience of modern society forced humans to require more in orderto survive? On page 256-27 of “Economy”, Thoreau writes saying,
“We may imagine a time when, in the infancy of the human race, some enterprising mortal crept into a hallow in a rock for shelter. Every child begins the world again, to some extent, and loves to stay outdoors, even in wet and cold. It plays house, as well as horse, having an instinct for it/ Who does not remember the interest with which when young, he looked at shelving rocks, or any approach to a cave? It was the natural yearning of that portion of our most primitive ancestor which still survived in us. From the cave we have advanced to roofs of plam leaves, of bark and boughs, of linen woven and stretched… At last we know notwhat it is to live in the open air, and our lives are more domestic in more sense than we think.”
Is it as easy to “other” oneself from society with our expanded communication and globalized nature? As humans become more exposed to society and everything it has to offer, I’m not sure it’s so easy to take a step back and really, truly think for oneself. I wonder if one can truly isolate themselves from society like Thoreau calls for… are our thoughts truly original anymore?
In “Economy,” Thoreau argues that excess possessions not only require excess labor to purchase them, but they also oppress us spiritually with worry and constraint. Since people suppose they need to own things, they feel forced to devote all their time to labor, and the result is the loss of inner freedom. The quote that I find most revealing of Thoreau’s attitude about these topics reads:
“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. Their fingers, from excessive toil, are too clumsy and tremble too much for that” (3).
The question that comes to mind is whether people are to blame if they are so occupied with “superfluously coarse labors of life” simply because their survival depends upon it and not because they seek excesses out of life. The late-stage capitalist hellscape in which we live in the current year is extremely different from the kind of world in the mid-1800s in which Thoreau lived, and because of this, I wonder how much the ideas he discusses in his work truly withstand the test of time. While consumer culture has indeed become a dominant aspect of modern life, especially in the Western world, I believe that fewer people would want to work more simply to enjoy excess material possessions when many people are already overworked and underpaid as it is. Also, in a world where nature is slowly being taken away from us and replaced with a concrete landscape, how are we meant to reject materialism and reconnect with nature? All that is left of nature nowadays has become monetized and turned into yet another component of the capitalist system, so it is becoming impossible to even enjoy nature without having the material means to access it at all. I believe that Thoreau’s ideas do not hold up in the modern world and that he would not hold these same beliefs if he knew how most people lived in the current day.
Thoreau argues that having too many commodities and possessions implies working in excess amounts to afford them and will eventually bring up concern and limitation, ultimately burdening our spirituality. People lose their inner freedom because they believe they must obtain abundant possessions, which drives them to working nonstop. According to Thoreau, farmers are similarly tied to their farms as inmates are tied to jails. People are bound when they work longer than required to survive when only food, housing, clothes, and fuel are the only four requirements that Thoreau lists. “Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life. Are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind” (13). Only a person ready to accept nature’s essentials can live off the land successfully because these needs are provided for in large quantities. But any attempt at luxury will not get anyone anywhere in terms of individual and spiritual improvement.
What do you think Thoreau considered luxury in his time of the mid-1800s? Would any of these luxuries that Thoreau thought were unnecessary and hindering be considered necessary now? What do you think Thoreau would think of overconsumption and consumerism as we experience in today’s world?
On pages 92 and 93 of the chapter “Where I Lived…” in Walden, Thoreau writes of a slow kind of lifestyle, one where the day is passed with the same tempo of nature, urging readers to consider a lifestyle where what we know, what we own, and what we do, are limited. In his description of the news, he writes of the redundancy of events taking place in far off places, calling out the predictable patterns of things far and wide and the little relevance he finds in them. His mantra, “simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!” is echoed in his attention to the present moment, urging readers not to exist within moments past or future, but in the now.
Within his words, I find a call to a certain part of myself rooted in the child-like observation of things. The part of me that would spend a day climbing trees with little worry on the “productivity” of it all. The part content with aimless wandering, with silent conversations, with boredom. When Thoreau speaks of reality as the “hard bottom” of existence, beyond the “mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance…” it is there that I find peace with such a seemingly idle existence as one with no particular aim. But like Thoreau says, “It is something to be able to paint a particular picture, or to carve a statue, and so to make a few objects beautiful; but it is far more glorious to carve and paint the very atmosphere and medium through which we look, which morally we can do. To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts.” To come to each day with an understanding of renewal, and that nothing really matters but the grounding of yourself in reality, is to live as fully as possible.
How can an existence such as the one Thoreau describes be beneficial for the world and for sustainability? Is he simply stating that everyone should stop working on meaningless things and instead live frugally and thus happily? In what ways could we all live a little more grounded in reality? Would the adoption of this mantra by more people be a net good or net bad for society?
In the section titled “Visitors” Thoreau details his impressions and meetings with a French-Canadian wood chopper and postmaker whom he introduces with the sentiment that “a more simple and natural man it would be hard to find”(145).
Thoreau spills a great deal of describing this man’s uniquely simplistic lifestyle and his jovial demeanor, notwithstanding the internal contradictions of his mind. The Canadian truly believes Homer to be a great writer, despite a failure to understand his work. The Canadian has beautiful handwriting, and has red and transcribed messages for other people, yet he never considers writing his own thoughts because he wouldn’t know what order to put them in or how to get the spelling straight. The Canadian suggests there are “…men of genius in the lowest grades of life, however permanently humble and illiterate who take their own view or do not pretend to see at all,…” yet never considers that he himself might be one of those men (150). Given that Thoreau leads into this statement with the observation of a townsman that this Canadian resembles a “prince in disguise,“ it is clear he feels the Canadian is one of these humble men of genius.
I want to know the significance of Thoreau’s inclusion of the Canadian. Does he see the Canadian as a foil to himself or as a kindred spirit? Does Thoreau perceive the simplicity of the Canadian as a flaw, or is he one of the ‘well employed’ men he cautions against adopting the tenants of Walden?
In “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For,” Thoreau muses about the morning and how he believes it affects a person’s state of mind. To Thoreau, morning is when a person is the most creative and intellectual; he uses a quote from the Vedas- “all intelligences awake with the morning” (89). He goes on to explain how morning is a state of mind in and of itself; morning can last all day for someone who is truly “awake.” I can see where he is coming from on this point. I interpreted this idea of being “awake” as being present in the moment and thinking critically about the world and one’s experiences. I disagree with Thoreau on his next point that only one in a million people is “awake enough for effective intellectual exertion” (90) and only one in a hundred million for “a poetic or divine life” (90). He believes most people are only “awake enough for physical labor” (90). He bases these statistics on the fact that he has “never yet met a man who was quite awake” (90). This all seems pretty condescending. I wonder how he can tell who is “awake” and who is not and why he presumes to be the judge of that. Does he believe himself to be the one in a hundred million? Is he making a critique of the exploitative capitalist system that we live and work under and how it might prevent someone from fully being able to engage with the world because they have to spend all their energy working to survive? Or is he placing full responsibility on the individual, implying that they choose to spend all their energy on physical labor and are therefore incapable of thinking critically?
In the chapter ” Economy ” of Thoreu’s book Walden, Thoreau highlights that the “necessities of life” which are food, shelter, clothing, and water are the key things to keeping the “fire lit” within a human or sustaining human life. Leaving no room for materialistic wants or needs. He also highlights the thought that humans come from nature yet put themselves above it rather than living with it. Further, he explains that living a simplistic life is pertinent to human development when forming connections to nature and escaping the capitalistic and materialistic nature of society. From my understanding, Thoreau only lived at Walden Pond for roughly two years and then went on to share the findings of his experiment of living a simplistic lifestyle with the public. With urbanization and industrialization in the last 200 years, the world and its landscapes have drastically changed in a manner and to an extent that Thoreau could not have predicted. Given the differences between the time of Thoreau’s Walden experiment and the modern-day, how realistic do you think Thoreau’s proposed simplified model of life is? In the post-modern capitalistic landscape, what relevant points and ideas can be gleaned from Thoreau’s work? What faults or inapplicable points can be found in Thoreau’s outline? Is it sustainable in today’s landscape?
Thoreau mentions at times in his “Economy” chapter that the way of life living in the woods is far more fulfilling than to follow the norms of society… For example; go to school, graduate, go to college, graduate, find a good job that makes you a lot of money, etc. However, if Thoreau’s life from the woods is more successful and valuable, why do you think he stopped? He mentions in the very beginning of his story on page 3, “When I wrote the following pages, or rather the bulk of them, I lived alone, in the woods, a mile from any neighbor, in a house which I had built myself, on the shore of Walden Pond, in Concord, Massachusetts, and earned my living by the labor of my hands only. I lived there two years and two months. At present I am a sojourner in civilized life again.”
We know this story was written solely to spread Thoreau’s knowledge of the land, how he trusted it and lived off of it for so long, and what he personally gained from doing so. It seemed that Thoreau found success in this lifestyle, otherwise he wouldn’t have done it for so long. Why would he have wanted to move back into ”civilization”?
Throughout ‘Economy’ the themes of transcendentalism and individualism are emphasized by Throeua’s writing. His background and education heavily influenced his studies, as works by Emerson rooted his belief system in nature. Instead of looking for tools to solve problems transcendentalists value turning to nature for what you need. The ideals of self sufficiency and lowering anxious consumerism are both values Thoreau believes in, and seeking more elsewhere is distracting from nature. Our current world is overrun by consumerism and overproduction, a system built off of human technology and the exploitation of nature. Older technologies are now being combatted with newer, more sustainable technologies. Thoreau on page 132 says “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” (132). Given his transcendentalist values do you think Thoreau would embrace the technological solutions to issues we have today or not? If not, could anything be said to Thoreau to convince him technology is a tool needed for our current world? Or could sustainable technology be a positive thing to Thoreau at all?
In this chapter, Thoreau expresses his views on forging one’s own path and harboring a sense of individualism. At the same time, during this experiment, he relied on his connections with the local community for socialization aspects as well as other things. Though he did discuss his relationship with the local community during this experiment in positive ways, he also critiqued their (as well as the rest of society’s) sense of modernization through their material and consumer habits. Based on his words and values, what do you think he would suggest we do to solve some of the environmental issues we are facing? Do you think his opinions on self-sufficiency and individualism would impact his willingness to support more community-based solutions? On page 29, he states “…the cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.” Do you think he would resent the capitalist society we have today and, because of that, steer away from bigger, more collective action as it requires the use of some of these more modern tools and will, in one way or another, impact life either directly or indirectly?
Emily Duhon
In the first chapter of Walden’s “Economy,” Thoreau considers the basic needs of existence: clothing, food, shelter, and fuel. Thoreau delves into the complex connection between these substances and the maintenance of “vital heat” in human beings. He argues that only until these basic needs are met can the real issues of life be tackled. Thoreau explores the effects of excesses, social conventions, and the desire for comfort in life. He promotes a more straightforward, deliberate style of living that is in line with one’s particular ideals and the natural world, challenging traditional ideas of work, riches, and the chase of material belongings. Thoreau’s observations challenge readers to reevaluate their lifestyle decisions and choices by highlighting the connection between one’s inner “fire” and physical survival.
Questions:
1. How does the emphasis on the necessities of life challenge contemporary attitudes towards comfort, excess, and pursuing a meaningful life?
2. In what ways can his insights influence our choices and lifestyle in a modern context?
The early chapters of Walden present Thoreau’s ascetic approach in his experiment at Walden Pond through his renunciation of conventional societal norms. Through his critique of the materialistic and consumerist lifestyle, he suggests that society’s understanding of fulfillment and freedom has been distorted. Man has lost touch with what truly matters and has become disconnected from nature. Thus, Thoreau withdrew himself from civilization and immersed himself into a lifestyle of “voluntary poverty” in which he chooses to build a life with only the necessities for the betterment of himself… “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. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life,…”
Thoreau was a political man focused on living a life of freedom that went beyond himself. He intentionally left behind his life of luxury and comfort for one that brings him closer nature and the world around him. The Walden Pond experiment can be perceived as Thoreau’s political protest against what life has come to mean under the capitalist economy. That said, his spiritual process might come as an example of political asceticism. I understand this as asceticism having the power to change the individual, so it must have the power to influence a society. This suggests that asceticism has the ability to transform politics to better reflect our true values.
How does Thoreau’s experiment at Walden Pond critique the social and political structures that define modern society and governance systems? How is this individual experience part of his commitment to justice and challenging political structures?
Sense reading the chapter Economy one passage that Walden wrote has particularly stood out to me. The passage states, “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 sweat easier than I do” (pg. 67). This short passage summarizes Thoreau’s main theme of simplicity that was explored in the chapter. Thoreau believes that simplifying material items will enhance his readers’ lives. Which I agree with. The theme of simplifying material items reminds me of a video I watch in another class. The video was filmed a couple decades ago, the washing machine was just invented, and people were being interviewed on their thoughts on the new invention. One man stated, why would I ever buy a washing machine, they are so expensive, I would have to devote more time making money to afford it then the time it takes to wash clothes by hand. This interview was simpler to Thoreau’s observation on the door mat; “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, declined it, preferring to wipe my feet on the sod before my door. It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil” (pg 64). I believe this evil that Thoreau is referring to is overconsumption. Once we begin to over consume on items that are supposed to make our lives easier, like a washing machine or a doormat, we then lose time and money paying them off, so it is best to avoid overconsumption all together. Could the “beginnings of evil” mean something else? Do you agree with Thoreau’s ideology of simplicity? Do you think we could ever live without “lifebettering” technologies like the washing machine and return to a more manual labor lifestyle? I also wonder what Thoreau would think of social media like TikTok where influencers are paid to promote products and overconsumption instead of simplicity?
Weekly Question Kendall Wade 1/24/24
Walden “Economy”
In the reading, Thoreau states “By the words, necessary of life, I mean whatever, of all that man obtains by his own exertions, has been from the first, or from long use has become so important to human life, that few, if any, whether from savageness, or poverty, or philosophy, ever attempt to do without it.” In this small quote, I took that Thoreau does not adhere to the idea of social determinism. Stemming from Anne Elise’s question in class and the fact that in SD we talk a lot about traditional knowledge as well as the importance of culture in the ways we view/interact with our environment around us. How would he view SD classes/conversations? Is his view still applicable today? If our identities are “self-made”, how do people of color fit into this narrative of escaping social determinism?
Throughout the chapter, I was fascinated with Thoreau writing about ideas that I often grapple with in my many Sustainable Development courses I’ve taken throughout the years. Two quotes in particular stuck out to me as relating to one another in a way I’d love to connect:
“It is never too late to give up our prejudices. No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true to-day may turn out to be falsehood to-morrow, mere smoke of opinion, which some had trusted for a cloud that would sprinkle fertilizing rain on their fields.” (pg. 8)
“The life which is praised and regarded as successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at the expense of the others?” (pg. 18)
In this context, How does “what everybody echoes passes by as true today may turn out to be falsehood tomorrow” relate to the ever-changing theory of science? I’m also interested in understanding if the concept of sustainable development instead of development is borne from this?
“No man ever stood the lower in my estimation for having a patch in this clothes; 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. – It would be easier for them to hobble to town with a broken leg than with a broken pantaloon. Often if an accident happens to a gentleman’s legs, they can be mended; but if a similar accident happens to the legs of his pantaloons, there is no help for it; for he considers, not what is truly respectable, but what is respected (20-21)”.
Thoreau critiqued how people place more importance on appearance than moral character. He notes that commonly, people have more anxiety about how they are perceived by how they are dressed, instead of their own spirit and conscience. This observation carries over to modern times; people
express themselves by their wardrobe and appearance. While it is not inherently a bad trait, it has been capitalized on by fast fashion and celebrity/influencer culture.
Is being concerned with fashion and appearance part of our human nature, or is it a consequence of capitalist culture? Why do you think it feels like such an important part of social acceptance? What are some ways we can respect our desire to be accepted based on appearance, while avoiding the devastating effects that fast fashion and over consumption have on our environment?
I spent some time thinking about what we discussed last class in terms of who Thoreau intended his audience to be. We went over the quote “Perhaps these pages are more particularly addressed to poor students. As for the rest of my readers, they will accept such portions as apply to them,” and some of us believed that this meant he intended for individuals in our positions to be reading his work. I believe this could potentially be true, but for a different reason than previously discussed. Further in his book, Thoreau implies ‘poor’ to be the economically rich and civilized man, “But how it happens that he who is said to enjoy these things is so commonly a poor civilized man, while the savage, who has them not, is rich as a savage? (p.30)”. Given the fact that we have the opportunity to pursue higher education and partake in ‘civilized’ society, perhaps this would indeed be intended for us. I believe this expands into his opposition of universities when he expresses that authentic learning truly takes place when experiencing life first hand, “Even the poor student studies and is taught only political economy, while that economy of living which is synonymous with philosophy is not even sincerely professed in our colleges” (p. 50), and “How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying the experiment of living?” (p. 49).
He also advocates for the continuation of learning and education past adolescence, as well as the reading of classical pieces, “ For what are the classics but the noblest recorded thoughts of man? (p. 98)”. I feel this is slightly contradicting because in attending university, we are able to continue in our pursuit of knowledge, of which he is so passionate about; and we are also provided with access to literature written by the ‘classics’, of which earnestly wants us to explore. By disassociation with universities, as institutional as they may be, would this be following his ideology of truly embracing the human experience, or would it be in opposition to it because we would be without the knowledge of those that preceded us? He offers somewhat of a solution when he suggests the integration of education in society, “It is time that we had uncommon schools… It is time that villages were universities…Instead of noblemen, let us have noble villages of men. (p.106-107).”
Furthermore, is there really any instruction to pursue any of this when “..the old have no very important advice to give the young.. (p.9)”, which he expresses very early on? This is further elaborated on when Thoreau states“…I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or event earnest advice from my seniors…If I have any experience which I think valuable, I am sure to reflect that my mentors said nothing about (p.9)”, which is quite the statement given how frequently he references and quotes great philosophers. What do we make of this? **disclaimer: none of this is critical, just asking questions to allow for further interpretation and implementation into our lives**
Thoreau spends a good deal of time discussing trains and all of the things they symbolize to him. I would like to discuss this topic in greater detail. In my opinion, trains are a very fitting symbol for industrialization, globalization, and many other themes of traditional development. On page 109, Thoreau describes the extractive processes that trains facilitate and the dependence that they cultivate, writing, ‘As they come under one horizon, they shout their warning to get off the track to the other, heard sometimes through the circles of two towns. Here comes your groceries, country; your rations, countrymen! Nor is there any man so independent on his farm that he can say them nay. And here’s your pay for them! screams the countryman’s whistle; timber like long battering-rams going twenty miles an hour against the city’s walls, and chairs enough to seat all the weary and heavy-laden that dwell within them. With such huge and lumbering civility the country hands a chair to the city. All the Indian huckleberry hills are stripped, all the cranberry meadows are raked into the city.” Thoreau also describes the seemingly unstoppable momentum of trains and the laborers they “crush” underneath. On page 111, “There is no stopping to read the riot act, no firing over the heads of the mob, in this case. We have constructed a fate, an Atropos, that never turns aside.” From page 87-88, “We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us. Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man, an Irishman, or a Yankee man. The rails are laid on them, and they are covered with sand, and the cars run smoothly over them.” despite his criticisms, however, Thoreau also seems to have a certain level of admiration for the trains, calling them “demigods” and “a race now worthy to inhabit (the earth)” (p. 110). He also says of commerce that it is “unexpectantly confident and secure, alert, 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” (pp. 112-113). Do you think that Thoreau was purposefully using his discussion of trains to talk about larger themes of industrialization and development? What do you think he meant through his description of the trains? What do you think he thought about industrialization and commercialization?
“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. Their fingers, from excessive toil, are too clumsy and tremble too much for that. Actually, 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.” (pg. 6)
Very early on in his book, Thoreau expressed his personal critique on the lives of modern humans. He takes intentional mentions of aspects such as the true “freedom” of America, materialism, the agonizing labor forced upon people, and how all of this twists and reshapes the average person into a manufacturing machine, forced to live under this false guise of freedom, safety, happiness, and wealth. This type of social analysis was an enlightened revelation for the time and raises questions regarding how this lifestyle has changed over the years since its publication. What I propose for our class session today is less of a question and more of a discussion topic, in that I would like to bring forth the ways in which capitalism, technology, socioeconomic factors, etc. have developed the modern human tradition and behaviors. This includes but is not limited to the relationships we have with fellow humans, animals, and the environment as a whole, materialism and its wide-range of effects, the veil of false promises under capitalism, and anything else of the sort!
“It must be shown that it has produced better dwellings without making them more costly; and the cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.” Walden Ch 1. Economy Henry David Thoreau.
One of Thoreau’s ideas that really resonated with me was how he compared the costs of living not making up for the increased quality of life from modern commodities. The analogy he uses with the Native American home and the European American home was really easy to understand and seems to particularly ring true in today’s time because of the difficulty to become a homeowner in America. The way it exposes the arbitrariness of the American dream with its ideal house is something I can see more visiting non-western countries and experiencing beautiful living spaces that aren’t the American norm. The American home is full of standards of comfort that society applies but the standard of our success and happiness can’t be measured by a society that values property and capital as the end all be all. Concepts like inherited properties could tie families to one direct way of life and through taxation of something potentially considered a burden degrades the concept of the American home, specifically the socially enforced commodities.
My question for this week would have to be as Thoreau struggles with his journey to return to nature would this return to nature and use of its ecosystems resources really be possible in a world so globally affected for humans, specifically could every human have access to an experience like this and also use natural resources that Thoreau considered “borrowed” sustainably and ethically.
I don’t fully agree with Thoreau’s insistence on self sufficiency. It’s on some level contradictory. As an example, he professes the virtues of building one’s own house but had a team of people hired with money to help him raise it. Humans are social beings and it’s through his own education that he developed the literary and philosophical background and frameworks to understand the world in the way he did.
Of course he’s writing with nuance and on broader terms than the specifics of self-sufficiency and his main point is that one should strive to question the basic assumptions of society – especially regarding debt and work. Thoreau argues that the point of life is to be alive and fully experience the basic necessities at their core – not to get caught up in the pursuit of money and the ever-changing whims of society. He laments people’s tendency to do any extraordinary amount of work to accumulate even modest amounts of wealth. To spend their whole lives working to barely pay off a mortgage. He also mentions fashion and superficial appearances – how many people would rather be seen in public with a broken leg than a ripped pair of pants.
In the example of Thoreau’s house – other people helped with the step that he couldn’t achieve on his own – raising the walls. How can community action today empower people to practice more intentional living? How can we build a world less concerned with capital and more concerned with people and community?
During Thoreau’s writings he is constantly critiquing the ideas of being simplistic and staying in one place even when you are absolutely miserable, when you are able to change it. Thoreau’s experiment has him experiencing voluntary poverty. While he was from a wealthy family and just a few miles from the town, it is still a very interesting look into what others think from sides that one is not from. He found that a lot of the ‘necessities’ that people believed were so, actually could be survived without, and can live with mostly just things from the land. Going back to the beginning of this paragraph, people who are miserable in these places that maybe able to change it, keep getting caught up in the ideas of having everything that they think is that thing of necessity but really just continues to hold them back in that situation and place.
What do you think the people of these upper society thought of these ideas at that time?
“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” (Thoreau 9). Does he mean that we are ignorant to the unfolding of our modern society, one that can only be evaluated through art and the scrutiny of both pain and pleasure? How does one transform the machine society operates within, for even Thoreau said complete isolation from society oftentimes is a recipe for insanity? In order to achieve self-actualization within the parameters of the abundance given inherently to society and the self, must we remain on this wheel of humanity, but live within it with truth, courage and love?
In “Solitude”, Thoreau muses on his experience with isolation. Finding himself a mile away from his nearest neighbor, he relishes in long rainy afternoons alone, and days of work in the fields. Thoreau is very critical of the established norms of social interaction.
“Society is commonly too cheap. We meet at very short intervals, not having had time to acquire any new value for each other. We meet at meals three times a day, and give each other a new taste of that old musty cheese that we are. We have had to agree on a certain set of rules, called etiquette and politeness, to make this frequent meeting tolerable and that we need not come to open war.”
I find his experiences and interpretations of isolation extremely interesting. In the quote, Thoreau describes the way in which social interactions are normalized as brief, insubstantial, and surface level. I think this is a complaint that many might have today. Thoreau seems to reject this unattractive social dynamic by recusing himself from it, and engaging in conversation with the self and with nature. I agree that introspection creates a more established sense of self, and that coming to a new understanding of one’s role in larger systems might create a more enriching feeling of connection than you might find in neighborly small talk. However, I don’t agree with an outright dismissal of social custom. Thoreau knows as well as any of us that a life of complete self sufficiency and independence is far from realistic- his experiment is not a perpetual one. Humans are meant to be social. Brief interactions like the ones he describes can be incredibly meaningful if approached with intention, and learning to manage small interactions with people you find unpleasant or boring is a necessary part of community building and strengthens the social fabric. I understand that Thoreau is likely more critical of the structures that leave us with little time to engage beyond these short-lived niceties, which I agree with, but I don’t think that means they are invaluable or degrading. My questions for the week would be- How can we find ways to create more enriching relationships, even with people we might not be close with? What are the limiting factors to social interaction in the modern day? Do you think developing these small scale interactions is important, or do you agree more with Thoreau?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Weekly Question: Kendall Wilson
In Thoreau’s contemplation of the ‘necessaries of life,’ he delves into the intricate relationship between man, nature, and the essential elements for survival – Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel. Drawing from his insights, consider the profound connection he establishes between external elements and the preservation of ‘vital heat’ within us. How does Thoreau’s exploration of these necessities prompt us to reflect not only on the physical aspects of survival but also on the metaphorical ‘fire’ within ourselves? Furthermore, how might this perspective resonate with contemporary notions of comfort, excess, and the choices individuals make in pursuit of a meaningful life?
Bonus Question (because I am soooo inquisitive): What does an Elysian Life mean to you? In living under the notion of creating a sustainable future that not only supports ourselves but our community, what are the contributing factors that are non-negotiable to living a blissful life all while maintaining the mindset of justice and devotion to radical change?
Excerpt from text I used to write this question (page 5):
“ By the words, necessary of life, I mean whatever, of all that man obtains by his own exertions, has been from the first, or from long use has become, so important to human life that few, if any, whether from savageness, or poverty, or philosophy, ever attempt to do without it. . . . The necessaries of life for man in this climate may, accurately enough, be distributed under the several heads of Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel; for not till we have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success. Man has invented not only houses but clothes and cooked food; and possibly from the accidental discovery of the warmth of fire, and the consequent use of it, at first a luxury, arose the present necessity to sit by it. We observe cats and dogs acquiring the same second nature. By proper Shelter and Clothing we legitimately retain our own internal heat; but with an excess of these, or of Fuel, that is, with an external heat greater than our own internal, may not cookery properly be said to begin? . . . In cold weather we eat more, in warm less. The animal heat is the result of a slow combustion, and disease and death take place when this is too rapid; or for want of fuel, or from some defect in the draught, the fire goes out. Of course the vital heat is not to be confounded with fire; but so much for analogy. It appears, therefore, from the above list, that the expression, animal life, is nearly synonymous with the expression, animal heat; for while Food may be regarded as the Fuel which keeps up the fire within us and Fuel serves only to prepare that Food or to increase the warmth of our bodies by addition from without Shelter and Clothing also serve only to retain the heat thus generated and absorbed. The grand necessity, then, for our bodies, is to keep warm, to keep the vital heat in us. What pains we accordingly take, not only with our Food, and Clothing, and Shelter, but with our beds, which are our night-clothes, robbing the nests and breasts of birds to prepare this shelter within a shelter, as the mole has its bed of grass and leaves at the end of its burrow! The poor man is wont to complain that this is a cold world; and to cold, no less physical than social, we refer directly a great part of our ails. The summer, in some climates, makes possible to man a sort of Elysian life.
Fuel, except to cook his Food, is then unnecessary; the sun is his fire, and many of the fruits are sufficiently cooked by its rays; while Food generally is more various, and more easily obtained, and Clothing and Shelter are wholly or half unnecessary. At the present day, and in this country, as I find by my own experience, a few implements, a knife, an axe, a spade, a wheelbarrow, etc., and for the studious, lamplight, stationery, and access to a few books, rank next to necessaries, and can all be obtained at a trifling cost. Yet some, not wise, go to the other side of the globe, to barbarous and unhealthy regions, and devote themselves to trade for ten or twenty years, in order that they may live — that is, keep comfortably”
Walden – “Economy” (Henry David Thoreau)
Carlye Durham 1/23/24
When reading the first chapter of Walden, I immediately picked up on this egotistical tone to the way Thoreau writes, specifically regarding the way he views lifestyles, either others’ or his own. He does acknowledge the notion that just because things have been done a certain way in the past, does not mean that there is only one way to do things, which I think is a wonderful outlook to have, especially when discussing sustainable development. Additionally, I appreciate that he highlights the fact that the working class of America is confined to their jobs through the construct of a capitalist, GDP-centric society, and often feel as if they must work their entire lives to afford basic necessities. However, I also noticed that Thoreau is very critical of individuals’ inability to change or take control of their own lives. He even suggests that people may not be aware of other lifestyle opportunities or modes of living. This statement may be true for some, however I feel like Thoreau fails to recognize that the sociopolitical and economic spheres of America were designed to promote internalized power constructs to keep the poor in poverty and to make the rich richer. No, Thoreau, not everybody has another choice. He even states that the working class in America are regarded as machines to produce labor and goods, but ignores the root cause of this problem, instead placing the responsibility on the shoulders of struggling individuals and communities who have been given few opportunities to advance their “place” in the world. I wonder how Thoreau’s outlooks on poverty and lifestyles would be different if he took others’ experiences into consideration, rather than just his own personal lifestyle experiences? How would his ideals possibly look different in the context of today’s society? Did anyone else interpret his message differently, and if so, how?
Weekly Question – Anne Elise
Early on in “Economy,” Thoreau asserts that “the old have no very important advice to give the young” (9). He presents himself as a proponent of progress and new techniques and inventions, yet only as they apply to the fulfillment of a simple and self-sustaining mode of living. I wonder if he would consider his own ideas unimportant and how his views might change if he were alive today. For example, it’s easy to say that Thoreau would be a fan of modern iterations of minimalism and off-the-grid living. However, because these ways of life are often rooted in the idea of returning to an older paradigm, would he really be a fan? I also think it would be interesting to think through his possible reaction to the modern practice of having a certain aesthetic without following through on the tenets of that idea (ex: mainstream minimalism as a social media trend rather than a way of life).
Weekly question: Walden
Ren Pommarane
While reading Thoreau, the egotistical and idealistic tones of the narrator create a pattern throughout the text that engages the reader in a question of morality, and what it means to be a member of a created society. While reading all I could think about was what Thoreau would think of the modern world, and if he would still adhere to the same beliefs that he learned while taking up his residence at Walden Pond if he were here to see how the world has evolved so far. He elaborates on the idea of his text not necessarily being for everyone, and explains that not everyone will benefit from reading this text. “I trust that none will stretch the seams in putting on the coat, for it may do good service for whom it fits.” This line in particular made me take a step back and think about my own life, and the choices I make and how I spread knowledge. Thoreau is saying that essentially not one size fits all, and this book may benefit some, and be of no concern to others. Throughout Sustainable Development we constantly push the idea of adhering to a certain belief (even if we don’t directly say that) to help better the planet in a way that we deem fit. We believe that if everyone thought the way we did, the problems of climate change would not be so severe. That line however made me kind of stop in my tracks, and take a step back in my own mind. I want to know how the rest of you interpreted that line and if it shifted any perspectives in your own mind. Would society be better off adhering to a single belief in the name of the greater good? What are the benefits of discourse in this setting in particular? Would Thoreau still uphold this belief in the modern world? Why or why not?
Ellen Kraai Weekly Question 1/23 – Walden
Something that keeps returning to my mind, particularly following Tuesday’s class, is the question of poverty as understood in the chapter “Economy”. Both material and spiritual poverty seem to arise as key themes in this chapter. Thoreau suggests that minimalistic living centered around subsistence in order to make room for more self-fulfilling pursuits is favorable to the societal conventions he perceives. His voluntary material poverty, he suggests, allows him to become rich spiritually, emotionally, and even physically (just not materially). The conflict thus becomes, who is this viable for? Are there limits to his perceptions of poverty and societal conventions? He seems to outline that his audience is not the “well-employed” or those comfortable in their material existence, yet he also implies his writings are not aimed to preach to “the Chinese and Sandwich Islanders” (p. 3-4). So, is this message of turning to minimalistic living geared towards the unhappy middle class? Thoreau writes, “The farmer is endeavoring to solve the problem of a livehlihood by a formula more complicated than the problem itself” and later, “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.” (p.31-32). Essentially, by spending our lives laboring for more than we practically need, we are spiritually impoverishing ourselves by creating chains to the material; dependency on excess. In SD we often discuss reducing consumption patterns in favor of a more fulfilling, anti-capitalist and decolonial existence. If the actual practice of reducing consumption patterns and dependency on a flawed system is not viable for everyone, how do we make the change? Who gets to advocate what ways of life? The question that keeps arising in my own mind in regards to Thoreau’s privilege of having the time and resources to conduct the Walden experiment is: does it matter? Does how he was able to conduct the experiment matter as much as his findings? Do his material conditions and apparent individualistic, self-indulging nature matter if we can take something valuable from his writings?
” The portionless, who struggle with
no such unnecessary inherited encumbrances, find it
labor enough to subdue and cultivate a few cubic
feet of flesh.
But men labor under a mistake. The better part of
the man is soon ploughed into the soil for compost. By
a seeming fate, commonly called necessity, they are
employed, as it says in an old book, laying up treas-
ures which moth and rust will corrupt and thieves
break through and steal. It is a fool’s life, as they will
find when they get to the end of it, if not before.” (Walden, 5)
I would like to highlight the quote “By a seeming fate, commony called necessity, they are employed.” In tuesday’s class, we discussed how luxury is now often seen as a neccessity, and at the end of the quote, living in this manner is called “a fool’s life.”
“. . . so occupied
with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse
labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked
by them. Their fingers, from excessive toil, are too
clumsy and tremble too much for that. Actually, the
laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day
by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest rela-
tions to men; his labor would be depreciated in the
market. ”
This reminds me of Kafka. Do we live for ourselves, or for a determined identity within society defined by our labor? What would Thoreau argue is what we labor/live for, and how do we address what exactly that is?
Mary Quinn Fullwood
Walden, “Economy”
I fully understand Thoreau’s stance on not identifying with larger social structures and wanting to be apart from his community of over-consumers. Thoreau as a transcendentalist, takes the approach to look towards nature for ethical guidance and by looking at nature we are looking and learning about ourselves. He has no reverence for elders for wisdom to learn about life or how to carry ourselves through life (111). He also refers to us as being sojourners in nature and that the time spend in nature is enough to find basic needs and work. “The very simplicity and nakedness of man’s life in the primitive ages imply this advantage at least, that they left him still but a sojourner in nature. When he was refreshed with food and sleep, he contemplated his journey again. He dwelt, as it were, in a tent in this world, and was either threading the valleys, or crossing the plains, or climbing the mountain tops. 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.” (132) Is this his justification for solitude? In SD we are all in somewhat of an agreement that community is important and key for sustainable development, so what would Thoreau have to say about that? Does he think that a time of solitude and simplicity makes us better community members?
Weekly question Alex Smith
In The writing of Thoreau he has many ideas on how we should treat the working man or also known as laborers. Thoreau expressed how many men are so occupied with their own labor that they will never see the fruits of their labor. This is something I have personally seen with people retiring at 60 then maybe if they’re lucky getting 20 years left to live their life. With that being said how would we go about changing the current system so laborers can see the fruits of their labor.
Excerpt I used page 6 Economy ch
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. Their Fingers, from excessive toil, are too clumsy and tremble too much for that. Actually, 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. How can he remember well his ignorance which growth requires who has so often to use his knowledge? We should feed and clothe him gratuitously sometimes, and recruit him with our cordials, before we judge him. The finest qualities of our nature, like the bloom on fruits, can be preserved only be the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another thus tenderly
Weekly Question : Joe Davis
Thoreau clearly has his critiques surrounding the educational institution from his experience with Cambridge College and education at his time in general. The critique that I will focus my question on surrounds the idea of a student “playing life” or “studying life” rather than “living” it. Approaching this question from the lens of Thoreau, is imbalance between students “studying” versus “living” see at the institution of Appalachian State? If so, what are some examples of this? In the sustainability department? Some departments more than others? How could the educational system change to incorporate more “living” into our curriculum (51)?
Two quote that stuck out to me regarding this critique are as follows: “Which would have advanced the most at the end of a month,-the boy who had made his own jackknife from the ore which he had dug and smelted, reading as much as would be necessary for this,-or the boy who had attended the lectures on metallurgy at the Institute in the mean while, and had received a Rodgers’ penknife from his father?” The second quote by Thoreau on his own education: “To my astonishment I was informed on leaving college that I had studied navigation!-why, if I had taken one turn down the harbor I should have known more about it” (51-52).
Weekly Question: Alena Dastur
Throughout his writing, Thoreau critiques the current status quo of the working society and economy. In the early pages of the first chapter he makes connections to Roman mythology, specifically the myth of Hercules and his 12 labors. Thoreau states that:
“The twelve labors of Hercules were trifling in comparison with those which my neighbors have undertaken; for they were only twelve and had an end; but I could never see that these men slew or captured any monsters or finished any labor” (pg. 4).
Here Thoreau points out that at least there was an end to Hercules’s work, while in comparison to the working individual today, they get stuck in the system and end up essentially working their life away, always postponing what they are truly passionate about. I think this is something that many people can relate to in the present day. How often have you had something you wanted to do in life but you always put a boundary around it like “I have to finish this first”, or “once I have a certain job and income I will”? How can we as a society start to change this frame of mind that everything has to be perfectly in order before you can pursue your passions?
Also connected to this on pg. 13 Thoreau says that “Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to mankind.” What are some ways we see this phenomena show up in current day life? As a producer of many luxuries and “must have” items is capitalism then a hindrance to mankind?
Weekly Question: Ella Harris
Early on in “Economy,” Thoreau asserts that “ When we consider what, to use the words of the catechism, is the chief end of man, and what are the true necessaries and means of life, it appears as if men had deliberately chosen the common mode of living because they preferred it to any other. . . . “(8). He also states “Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind.” What are examples of the common mode of living and the comforts of life in the 1800s? What are examples of the common mode of living and comforts of life now? What would Thoreau think of them? Would he cut us some slack for living in this society where we work our butts off or blame us for not escaping these societal norms?
“We are made to exaggerate the importance of what work we do; and yet how much is not done by us! Or, what if we had been taken sick? How vigilant we are! Determined not to live by faith if we can avoid it; all the day long on the alert, at night we unwillingly say our prayers and commit ourselves to uncertainties. So thoroughly and sincerely are we compelled to live, reverencing our life, and denying the possibility of change” (pg. 12).
Throughout Thoreau’s “Economy”, he insinuates how our struggles with consumerism as a society are directly linked to our anxieties over not having enough. He expresses that people are so tied to their work that they fail to fully enjoy the fruits of their labor because they are so consumed with having something better. The desire to constantly have more is also what necessitates feelings of anxiety over lack of productivity. Thoreau seems to be very critical of people who fail to question what they are working for. Furthermore, rather than trusting that there is always a factor of unknown, he brings attention to our need for control. Even though we could work our entire lives to save money, we could one day die without being able to “enjoy” what the money could provide.
This leaves me wondering, in our current ways of living, is a change of mindset the solution to overconsumption? Is it feasible to believe that society as a whole will ever have the urge to become more minimalistic? In doing so, would it alleviate current problems we face such as global pollution?
Weekly Question: Alissa Odom
Weekly question: McKinzie Sturgell
In “Economy” Thoreau shows that he does not like to conform to social norms. In class we discussed some examples of this like quitting his teaching job because they wanted him to cane students and refusing to pay taxes to protest slavery. In the chapter he discusses that he doesn’t listen to old people saying, “Age is no better, hardly so well, qualified far an instructor as youth” (pg. 8) and “I have lived some thirty years on this planet, and have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable advice from my seniors” (pg.9). Listening to and respecting your elders is a social norm for many cultures, and although I don’t always agree with some older people there are definitely benefits to talking and listening to them about their experiences. I wonder why Thoreau feels so strongly that there is no benefit to their advice? Or have I misinterpreted what he is saying here?
Economy offers insight into Henry Thoreau’s life, particularly his college experiences at Harvard, his return to Concord, the influence of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and the societal changes in Concord during the 1830s. Thoreau’s education at Harvard, marked by his diverse studies, shaped his intellectual interests. The main questions I came across from this reading were; How did Thoreau’s experiences at Harvard influence his later critiques of education and societal norms? What role did economic factors, such as the panic of 1837, play in shaping Thoreau’s life choices and career path? It also brought up the influence of Ralph Waldo Emerson on Thoreau’s philosophical views, especially in terms of transcendentalism and individualism. I thought Thoreau embraced these concepts, promoting the idea that people should trust their intuition, be self-reliant, and seek spiritual connections with nature. Emerson’s philosophy of individualism and the belief in finding truth within oneself deeply shaped Thoreau’s own philosophical views. Epically since from the article we were able to follow along with Thoreau’s growth, his views shifted from time to time. Thoreau’s interest in nature and literature evolved during his college years, and how did it manifest in his later works? Personally I feel a strong connection to nature so it was very interesting to tie in my personal experiences to how he sees it through his personal lens.
Week 1: Grady Vardeman
Weekly Question: Sam Platt
The readings this week from Walden written by Thoreau start off with the pond experiment and ends off by using a lot of different ways to explain how living life could and should be for people. Some quotes show the different steps he is advising a person to take, “begin where you are and such as you are, without aiming mainly to become of more worth, and with kindness aforethought go about doing good” (p.160, I have a weird online copy). What is he trying to get across and does it relate to how he says that “every man is tasked to make his life, even in its details, worthy of the contemplation of his most elevated and critical labor” (p.172)? Another part of the focus was around choosing to live in poverty characteristics and distinguish how it’s like to live in those ways even while being pretty well set financially. He even goes on to say that “instead of three meals a day, if it be necessary eat but one; instead of a hundred dishes, five; and reduce other things in proportion” (p.173). So, with that in mind what is his view on living in poverty? Excluding the fact that he was financially stable and was choosing to live this way.
Weekly Question: Henry David Thoreau
1/24/24
Kobe Early
I want to tailor my question toward what was discussed in the classroom on Tuesday. That is: what is Henry David Thoreau’s target audience and what is his political ideology based on the given chapters?
I believe the avenue towards analyzing how he behaves and the way he analyzes those more dispossessed. Thoreau does embrace a range of astute observations regarding the impacts of lower socio-economic class and how it affects all members of society. Thoreau makes an observation that two men traveling, one with capital, who can travel freely, only needing to carry the money itself, and one without, who must work at stops along the way, depleting resources between each trek. While it is possible for both to live a fulfilling life— one is bound and has no option, but to work which takes away his ability to hike time & energy wise. Thoreau is anti the superfluous labor, which enhances the load for working people, but acknowledges the technological benefits we all reap from it. He envisions a world where the structuring of resources can be organized with less superfluous labor. This point of view is less hierarchical than what we have today and seeks to balance production and consumption with seasons. All these more naturalist reasons would point away from contemporary capitalism and popular culture. While Thoreau points towards engagement with the environment, the practical way he lives in the Walden Cabin does not reflect cooperative or collaborative means. He sits alone most days, with 3 chairs in total. His experiment appears to be more of a vacuum. While people do visit and he rarely does work— he does not meaningfully cooperate or collaborate with other people. A key feature of the environment and how people interact with it is the avenue in which people cooperate and collaborate. He does recollect the factors of isolationism in chapters Sound and Solitude, he doesn’t advocate for bridging that gap to where I would say he advocates for cooperation and collaboration.
“All this is very selfish, I have heard some of my townsmen say. I confess that I have hitherto indulged very little in philanthropic enterprises. I have made some sacrifices to a sense of duty, and among others have sacrificed this pleasure also. Some have used all their arts to persuade me to undertake the support of some poor family in the town; and if I had nothing to do — for the devil finds employment for the idle” (pg. 54)
In his free time, he does not donate or volunteer resources to those who are disproportionately struggling. He makes it seem like it is a burden— something to be escaped instead of embraced resource-wise. For these reasons I’d put Thoreau under the umbrella of libertarianism/anarchism with a naturalist point of view, but not an advocate for collective ownership based on his behavior. Since he does not demonstrate meaningful collaboration with other people.
01/24/2024
Caitlin Langley
When first reading “Walden” I was not very aware of the backstory or motives behind this so-called experience. I wasn’t aware that Thoreau was simply a few miles from the town he once lived, nor was I aware that this experiment only lasted two years and he came from a wealthy family. The more I researched and the more that I read, I became less impacted by what he had to say. The biggest thing that stood out to me was his arrogance at how good he was at being “poor”. There are two quotes that I think highlight my point adequately. “At the present day, and in this country, as I find by my own experience, a few implements, a knife, an axe, a spade, wheelbarrow, and for the studious a lamplight, stationary, and access to a few books, rank next to necessities, and can all be obtained at a trifling cost”. A trifling cost looks different to everyone based on how much money you have to begin with. So to say that these are the only things that are necessities to a man who has never been without them, and assuming they are cheap to everyone, displays a lack of awareness to the true nature of poverty.
“Most of the luxuries, and so called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind”. In my opinion having luxuries and creature comforts does not mean that you can’t elevate yourself or the rest of mankind to a more grateful state of being. Material things and expensive luxuries do not determine a person’s enlightenment or life experience as an individual. In my experience if you start with nothing, you can carry that spirit with you until you have what you consider to be something. My question is that do you think Thoreau’s writings would have been more meaningful if he wrote from a place of a lifetime without, as opposed to his “voluntary poverty” as he calls it. Could his work be of greater impact by using physical poverty as a mouthpiece for reduced pride and self elevation over the things of life both material and not material?
Weekly Question: Karissa Scott
In the chapter “Economy” of Thoreau’s book “Walden”, He talks about a lot about farmers and their struggles, and how “unfortunate” it is that they were burdened with it. In the excerpt I chose to use from the book he states…
“Why should they begin digging their 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. How many a poor immortal soul have I met well nigh crushed and smothered under its load, creeping down the road of life, pushing before it a barn seventy-five feet by forty, its Augean stables never cleansed, and one hundred acres of land, tillage, mowing, pasture, and wood-lot!” (p.5)
Thoreau writes as if it is some mandatory obligation forced onto these people but does not seem to consider how some of them may choose or want this lifestyle. Of couse farming is not for everybody and it is a difficult occupation, but Thoreau seems to view it as a misfortune to be a farmer. My question is has Thoreau ever been in the farmers shoes or experienced farming in any aspect? Or what qualifies in his mind as to what is a unfortunate or worth-while occupation to have?
1/24/2023
Elizabeth Cassam
In Thoreau’s “Economics” chapter, he discusses various topics such as living simply, connection to nature, self-sufficiency, consumerism, and materialism. One quote that stood out to me was “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” This is a famous quote by Thoreau, but it sparks a lot of questions and self-reflecting in my mind. Thoreau explores the concept of autonomy in the sense that civilization is too dependent on external factors.
Sometimes I find it hard to relate to older texts because they feel disconnected, but when Thoreau criticizes consumer culture, I feel as though we are not so far apart. He believed that wealth and possessions do not lead to true happiness. Consumer culture has boomed since the time he wrote this, and it is interesting to look at today due to social media and different forms of marketing. Over-consumerism is a huge issue, mostly in the global north, and it is engraved into your brain from a young age. This leads me to my question:
Since Thoreau had such an issue with consumer culture in the late 1800s, how do you think he would react if he saw the extent to which consumer culture has reached? Further, do you believe that his response would be the same as his opinion of the 1800s?
1/24/24
Nicole Travers
In the chapter, “Where I Lived and What I Live For,” Thoreau talks at length about the insignificance of paying attention to the news. For instance, he states, “I am sure that I never read any memorable news in the newspaper” (p. 89). Of those who do read the daily news, Thoreau believes that, “By closing the eyes and slumbering, and consenting to be deceived by shows, men establish and confirm their daily life of routine and habit everywhere, which still is built on purely illusory foundations” (p. 91). I partially agree with him because I believe that a large part of the news, especially today, is full of fear-mongering and shock factor so that headlines will attract people, almost as if it is entertainment rather than news; however, there are many news stories that are extremely important to pay attention to. In the 21st century climate change, a very urgent crisis that must be recognized and acted upon, is talked about in the news everyday. Even with the high numbers of people that do pay attention and act upon news of the climate crisis, non-believers and purposefully ignorant people still present a huge barrier to mitigating and reversing climate change. I wonder what sort of situation we would be in today if we all paid heed to Thoreau’s advice and ignored the threat of climate change in exchange for blissful ignorance?
Opal Napier
In his home at Walden Pond, Thoreau lives near the Fitchburg Railroad, and often reflects on the track and its train in his essays. His constant reflection on the railroad in his work indicates that the invention takes up space in his mind, and is likely representative of a larger concept. What is the significance of the railroad to Thoreau? What does it symbolize, and how does he feel about it?
Here are some excerpts pertaining to railroads that may provide insight into Thoreau’s feelings:
“I have learned that the swiftest traveller is he who goes afoot… Instead of going to Fitchburg, you will be working here the greater part of the day. And so, if the railroad reached round the world, I think that I should keep ahead of you; and as for seeing the country and getting experience of that kind, I should have cut your acquaintance altogether,” (p. 50).
“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? And if railroads are not built, how shall we get to Heaven in season? 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,” (p. 87).
“… if some have the pleasure of riding on a rail, others have the misfortune to be ridden upon,” (p. 88).
“The whistle of the locomotive penetrates my woods summer and winter… Up comes the cotton, down goes the woven cloth; up comes the silk, down goes the woolen; up come the books, but down goes the wit that writes them,” (p. 109).
Weekly Discussion Question #1
Kadin Bertucci
“I do not mean to insist here on the disadvantage of hiring compared with owning, but it is evident that the savage owns his shelter because it costs so little, while the civilized man hires his commonly because he cannot afford to own it; nor can he, in the long run, any better afford to hire.” Pg. 29
“Granted that the majority are able at last either to own or hire the modern house with all its impoverishment. While civilization has been improving our houses, it has not equally improved the men who are to inhabit them. It has created palaces, but it was not so easy to create noblemen and kings.” Pg. 32
Thoreau spends some time in his chapter ‘Economy’ talking about houses by comparing the “civilized man” to the “savages”. He makes remarks such as how the cost of a home takes a man 10 to 15 years of labor to obtain. The amenities of a new home are enjoyed by a “civilized” man even though he is poor. The “savage” having built his own home has no amenities but is not poor. Thoreau is currently living in a cabin that he built himself, I believe he is biased toward the home of the “savage”. I believe that this is also a jab at one’s character. The man who builds his own home will be objectively superior to the man who toils to buy his own as he has the skills to do so without the need for civilization. Would Thoreau agree with me?
Weekly Question: Sophie Griengl-Schott
Within “Economy”, I was especially interested in what Thoreau had to say about consumerism and his ideas on non-conformity. Of course, with how deep into consumer culture we are in the modern day I found it interesting that he was able to point out what so many people are saying now, back in 1845 at Walden. It made me think back to the conversation we had in class too about Thoreau’s feelings on moving/thinking/feeling/acting outside of society’s norms too. By pointing out society’s need for material items, he also calls out what really are the necessities of life: food, shelter, clothing and fuel. With these four things, any one human could survive in 1845… does this still hold true today? Has the convenience of modern society forced humans to require more in orderto survive? On page 256-27 of “Economy”, Thoreau writes saying,
“We may imagine a time when, in the infancy of the human race, some enterprising mortal crept into a hallow in a rock for shelter. Every child begins the world again, to some extent, and loves to stay outdoors, even in wet and cold. It plays house, as well as horse, having an instinct for it/ Who does not remember the interest with which when young, he looked at shelving rocks, or any approach to a cave? It was the natural yearning of that portion of our most primitive ancestor which still survived in us. From the cave we have advanced to roofs of plam leaves, of bark and boughs, of linen woven and stretched… At last we know notwhat it is to live in the open air, and our lives are more domestic in more sense than we think.”
Is it as easy to “other” oneself from society with our expanded communication and globalized nature? As humans become more exposed to society and everything it has to offer, I’m not sure it’s so easy to take a step back and really, truly think for oneself. I wonder if one can truly isolate themselves from society like Thoreau calls for… are our thoughts truly original anymore?
Weekly Question (1/24/24) – Carter Sullivan
In “Economy,” Thoreau argues that excess possessions not only require excess labor to purchase them, but they also oppress us spiritually with worry and constraint. Since people suppose they need to own things, they feel forced to devote all their time to labor, and the result is the loss of inner freedom. The quote that I find most revealing of Thoreau’s attitude about these topics reads:
“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. Their fingers, from excessive toil, are too clumsy and tremble too much for that” (3).
The question that comes to mind is whether people are to blame if they are so occupied with “superfluously coarse labors of life” simply because their survival depends upon it and not because they seek excesses out of life. The late-stage capitalist hellscape in which we live in the current year is extremely different from the kind of world in the mid-1800s in which Thoreau lived, and because of this, I wonder how much the ideas he discusses in his work truly withstand the test of time. While consumer culture has indeed become a dominant aspect of modern life, especially in the Western world, I believe that fewer people would want to work more simply to enjoy excess material possessions when many people are already overworked and underpaid as it is. Also, in a world where nature is slowly being taken away from us and replaced with a concrete landscape, how are we meant to reject materialism and reconnect with nature? All that is left of nature nowadays has become monetized and turned into yet another component of the capitalist system, so it is becoming impossible to even enjoy nature without having the material means to access it at all. I believe that Thoreau’s ideas do not hold up in the modern world and that he would not hold these same beliefs if he knew how most people lived in the current day.
Weekly Question #1 – Abby Henderson
Thoreau argues that having too many commodities and possessions implies working in excess amounts to afford them and will eventually bring up concern and limitation, ultimately burdening our spirituality. People lose their inner freedom because they believe they must obtain abundant possessions, which drives them to working nonstop. According to Thoreau, farmers are similarly tied to their farms as inmates are tied to jails. People are bound when they work longer than required to survive when only food, housing, clothes, and fuel are the only four requirements that Thoreau lists. “Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life. Are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind” (13). Only a person ready to accept nature’s essentials can live off the land successfully because these needs are provided for in large quantities. But any attempt at luxury will not get anyone anywhere in terms of individual and spiritual improvement.
What do you think Thoreau considered luxury in his time of the mid-1800s? Would any of these luxuries that Thoreau thought were unnecessary and hindering be considered necessary now? What do you think Thoreau would think of overconsumption and consumerism as we experience in today’s world?
Weekly Question 1/24: Malcolm Vaughn
On pages 92 and 93 of the chapter “Where I Lived…” in Walden, Thoreau writes of a slow kind of lifestyle, one where the day is passed with the same tempo of nature, urging readers to consider a lifestyle where what we know, what we own, and what we do, are limited. In his description of the news, he writes of the redundancy of events taking place in far off places, calling out the predictable patterns of things far and wide and the little relevance he finds in them. His mantra, “simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!” is echoed in his attention to the present moment, urging readers not to exist within moments past or future, but in the now.
Within his words, I find a call to a certain part of myself rooted in the child-like observation of things. The part of me that would spend a day climbing trees with little worry on the “productivity” of it all. The part content with aimless wandering, with silent conversations, with boredom. When Thoreau speaks of reality as the “hard bottom” of existence, beyond the “mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance…” it is there that I find peace with such a seemingly idle existence as one with no particular aim. But like Thoreau says, “It is something to be able to paint a particular picture, or to carve a statue, and so to make a few objects beautiful; but it is far more glorious to carve and paint the very atmosphere and medium through which we look, which morally we can do. To affect the quality of the day, that is the highest of arts.” To come to each day with an understanding of renewal, and that nothing really matters but the grounding of yourself in reality, is to live as fully as possible.
How can an existence such as the one Thoreau describes be beneficial for the world and for sustainability? Is he simply stating that everyone should stop working on meaningless things and instead live frugally and thus happily? In what ways could we all live a little more grounded in reality? Would the adoption of this mantra by more people be a net good or net bad for society?
1/24/2024
Jason Schlachtun
In the section titled “Visitors” Thoreau details his impressions and meetings with a French-Canadian wood chopper and postmaker whom he introduces with the sentiment that “a more simple and natural man it would be hard to find”(145).
Thoreau spills a great deal of describing this man’s uniquely simplistic lifestyle and his jovial demeanor, notwithstanding the internal contradictions of his mind. The Canadian truly believes Homer to be a great writer, despite a failure to understand his work. The Canadian has beautiful handwriting, and has red and transcribed messages for other people, yet he never considers writing his own thoughts because he wouldn’t know what order to put them in or how to get the spelling straight. The Canadian suggests there are “…men of genius in the lowest grades of life, however permanently humble and illiterate who take their own view or do not pretend to see at all,…” yet never considers that he himself might be one of those men (150). Given that Thoreau leads into this statement with the observation of a townsman that this Canadian resembles a “prince in disguise,“ it is clear he feels the Canadian is one of these humble men of genius.
I want to know the significance of Thoreau’s inclusion of the Canadian. Does he see the Canadian as a foil to himself or as a kindred spirit? Does Thoreau perceive the simplicity of the Canadian as a flaw, or is he one of the ‘well employed’ men he cautions against adopting the tenants of Walden?
Weekly Question 1
Faye Guarino
In “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For,” Thoreau muses about the morning and how he believes it affects a person’s state of mind. To Thoreau, morning is when a person is the most creative and intellectual; he uses a quote from the Vedas- “all intelligences awake with the morning” (89). He goes on to explain how morning is a state of mind in and of itself; morning can last all day for someone who is truly “awake.” I can see where he is coming from on this point. I interpreted this idea of being “awake” as being present in the moment and thinking critically about the world and one’s experiences. I disagree with Thoreau on his next point that only one in a million people is “awake enough for effective intellectual exertion” (90) and only one in a hundred million for “a poetic or divine life” (90). He believes most people are only “awake enough for physical labor” (90). He bases these statistics on the fact that he has “never yet met a man who was quite awake” (90). This all seems pretty condescending. I wonder how he can tell who is “awake” and who is not and why he presumes to be the judge of that. Does he believe himself to be the one in a hundred million? Is he making a critique of the exploitative capitalist system that we live and work under and how it might prevent someone from fully being able to engage with the world because they have to spend all their energy working to survive? Or is he placing full responsibility on the individual, implying that they choose to spend all their energy on physical labor and are therefore incapable of thinking critically?
Margaux Lepine
In the chapter ” Economy ” of Thoreu’s book Walden, Thoreau highlights that the “necessities of life” which are food, shelter, clothing, and water are the key things to keeping the “fire lit” within a human or sustaining human life. Leaving no room for materialistic wants or needs. He also highlights the thought that humans come from nature yet put themselves above it rather than living with it. Further, he explains that living a simplistic life is pertinent to human development when forming connections to nature and escaping the capitalistic and materialistic nature of society. From my understanding, Thoreau only lived at Walden Pond for roughly two years and then went on to share the findings of his experiment of living a simplistic lifestyle with the public. With urbanization and industrialization in the last 200 years, the world and its landscapes have drastically changed in a manner and to an extent that Thoreau could not have predicted. Given the differences between the time of Thoreau’s Walden experiment and the modern-day, how realistic do you think Thoreau’s proposed simplified model of life is? In the post-modern capitalistic landscape, what relevant points and ideas can be gleaned from Thoreau’s work? What faults or inapplicable points can be found in Thoreau’s outline? Is it sustainable in today’s landscape?
Colby Kitts
Thoreau mentions at times in his “Economy” chapter that the way of life living in the woods is far more fulfilling than to follow the norms of society… For example; go to school, graduate, go to college, graduate, find a good job that makes you a lot of money, etc. However, if Thoreau’s life from the woods is more successful and valuable, why do you think he stopped? He mentions in the very beginning of his story on page 3, “When I wrote the following pages, or rather the bulk of them, I lived alone, in the woods, a mile from any neighbor, in a house which I had built myself, on the shore of Walden Pond, in Concord, Massachusetts, and earned my living by the labor of my hands only. I lived there two years and two months. At present I am a sojourner in civilized life again.”
We know this story was written solely to spread Thoreau’s knowledge of the land, how he trusted it and lived off of it for so long, and what he personally gained from doing so. It seemed that Thoreau found success in this lifestyle, otherwise he wouldn’t have done it for so long. Why would he have wanted to move back into ”civilization”?
Shae Schmalzbauer
Throughout ‘Economy’ the themes of transcendentalism and individualism are emphasized by Throeua’s writing. His background and education heavily influenced his studies, as works by Emerson rooted his belief system in nature. Instead of looking for tools to solve problems transcendentalists value turning to nature for what you need. The ideals of self sufficiency and lowering anxious consumerism are both values Thoreau believes in, and seeking more elsewhere is distracting from nature. Our current world is overrun by consumerism and overproduction, a system built off of human technology and the exploitation of nature. Older technologies are now being combatted with newer, more sustainable technologies. Thoreau on page 132 says “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” (132). Given his transcendentalist values do you think Thoreau would embrace the technological solutions to issues we have today or not? If not, could anything be said to Thoreau to convince him technology is a tool needed for our current world? Or could sustainable technology be a positive thing to Thoreau at all?
Ginger Perro
In this chapter, Thoreau expresses his views on forging one’s own path and harboring a sense of individualism. At the same time, during this experiment, he relied on his connections with the local community for socialization aspects as well as other things. Though he did discuss his relationship with the local community during this experiment in positive ways, he also critiqued their (as well as the rest of society’s) sense of modernization through their material and consumer habits. Based on his words and values, what do you think he would suggest we do to solve some of the environmental issues we are facing? Do you think his opinions on self-sufficiency and individualism would impact his willingness to support more community-based solutions? On page 29, he states “…the cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.” Do you think he would resent the capitalist society we have today and, because of that, steer away from bigger, more collective action as it requires the use of some of these more modern tools and will, in one way or another, impact life either directly or indirectly?
Emily Duhon
In the first chapter of Walden’s “Economy,” Thoreau considers the basic needs of existence: clothing, food, shelter, and fuel. Thoreau delves into the complex connection between these substances and the maintenance of “vital heat” in human beings. He argues that only until these basic needs are met can the real issues of life be tackled. Thoreau explores the effects of excesses, social conventions, and the desire for comfort in life. He promotes a more straightforward, deliberate style of living that is in line with one’s particular ideals and the natural world, challenging traditional ideas of work, riches, and the chase of material belongings. Thoreau’s observations challenge readers to reevaluate their lifestyle decisions and choices by highlighting the connection between one’s inner “fire” and physical survival.
Questions:
1. How does the emphasis on the necessities of life challenge contemporary attitudes towards comfort, excess, and pursuing a meaningful life?
2. In what ways can his insights influence our choices and lifestyle in a modern context?
Samia Pegram
The early chapters of Walden present Thoreau’s ascetic approach in his experiment at Walden Pond through his renunciation of conventional societal norms. Through his critique of the materialistic and consumerist lifestyle, he suggests that society’s understanding of fulfillment and freedom has been distorted. Man has lost touch with what truly matters and has become disconnected from nature. Thus, Thoreau withdrew himself from civilization and immersed himself into a lifestyle of “voluntary poverty” in which he chooses to build a life with only the necessities for the betterment of himself… “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. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life,…”
Thoreau was a political man focused on living a life of freedom that went beyond himself. He intentionally left behind his life of luxury and comfort for one that brings him closer nature and the world around him. The Walden Pond experiment can be perceived as Thoreau’s political protest against what life has come to mean under the capitalist economy. That said, his spiritual process might come as an example of political asceticism. I understand this as asceticism having the power to change the individual, so it must have the power to influence a society. This suggests that asceticism has the ability to transform politics to better reflect our true values.
How does Thoreau’s experiment at Walden Pond critique the social and political structures that define modern society and governance systems? How is this individual experience part of his commitment to justice and challenging political structures?
Weekly Question Jan 25: Winifred Rhea-Unruh
Sense reading the chapter Economy one passage that Walden wrote has particularly stood out to me. The passage states, “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 sweat easier than I do” (pg. 67). This short passage summarizes Thoreau’s main theme of simplicity that was explored in the chapter. Thoreau believes that simplifying material items will enhance his readers’ lives. Which I agree with. The theme of simplifying material items reminds me of a video I watch in another class. The video was filmed a couple decades ago, the washing machine was just invented, and people were being interviewed on their thoughts on the new invention. One man stated, why would I ever buy a washing machine, they are so expensive, I would have to devote more time making money to afford it then the time it takes to wash clothes by hand. This interview was simpler to Thoreau’s observation on the door mat; “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, declined it, preferring to wipe my feet on the sod before my door. It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil” (pg 64). I believe this evil that Thoreau is referring to is overconsumption. Once we begin to over consume on items that are supposed to make our lives easier, like a washing machine or a doormat, we then lose time and money paying them off, so it is best to avoid overconsumption all together. Could the “beginnings of evil” mean something else? Do you agree with Thoreau’s ideology of simplicity? Do you think we could ever live without “lifebettering” technologies like the washing machine and return to a more manual labor lifestyle? I also wonder what Thoreau would think of social media like TikTok where influencers are paid to promote products and overconsumption instead of simplicity?
Weekly Question Kendall Wade 1/24/24
Walden “Economy”
In the reading, Thoreau states “By the words, necessary of life, I mean whatever, of all that man obtains by his own exertions, has been from the first, or from long use has become so important to human life, that few, if any, whether from savageness, or poverty, or philosophy, ever attempt to do without it.” In this small quote, I took that Thoreau does not adhere to the idea of social determinism. Stemming from Anne Elise’s question in class and the fact that in SD we talk a lot about traditional knowledge as well as the importance of culture in the ways we view/interact with our environment around us. How would he view SD classes/conversations? Is his view still applicable today? If our identities are “self-made”, how do people of color fit into this narrative of escaping social determinism?
Weekly Reflection: Taylor Apel
Throughout the chapter, I was fascinated with Thoreau writing about ideas that I often grapple with in my many Sustainable Development courses I’ve taken throughout the years. Two quotes in particular stuck out to me as relating to one another in a way I’d love to connect:
“It is never too late to give up our prejudices. No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true to-day may turn out to be falsehood to-morrow, mere smoke of opinion, which some had trusted for a cloud that would sprinkle fertilizing rain on their fields.” (pg. 8)
“The life which is praised and regarded as successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at the expense of the others?” (pg. 18)
In this context, How does “what everybody echoes passes by as true today may turn out to be falsehood tomorrow” relate to the ever-changing theory of science? I’m also interested in understanding if the concept of sustainable development instead of development is borne from this?
“No man ever stood the lower in my estimation for having a patch in this clothes; 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. – It would be easier for them to hobble to town with a broken leg than with a broken pantaloon. Often if an accident happens to a gentleman’s legs, they can be mended; but if a similar accident happens to the legs of his pantaloons, there is no help for it; for he considers, not what is truly respectable, but what is respected (20-21)”.
Thoreau critiqued how people place more importance on appearance than moral character. He notes that commonly, people have more anxiety about how they are perceived by how they are dressed, instead of their own spirit and conscience. This observation carries over to modern times; people
express themselves by their wardrobe and appearance. While it is not inherently a bad trait, it has been capitalized on by fast fashion and celebrity/influencer culture.
Is being concerned with fashion and appearance part of our human nature, or is it a consequence of capitalist culture? Why do you think it feels like such an important part of social acceptance? What are some ways we can respect our desire to be accepted based on appearance, while avoiding the devastating effects that fast fashion and over consumption have on our environment?
Discussion Question: Heather Fraser
Discussion Question 1/25: Samantha Cullen
I spent some time thinking about what we discussed last class in terms of who Thoreau intended his audience to be. We went over the quote “Perhaps these pages are more particularly addressed to poor students. As for the rest of my readers, they will accept such portions as apply to them,” and some of us believed that this meant he intended for individuals in our positions to be reading his work. I believe this could potentially be true, but for a different reason than previously discussed. Further in his book, Thoreau implies ‘poor’ to be the economically rich and civilized man, “But how it happens that he who is said to enjoy these things is so commonly a poor civilized man, while the savage, who has them not, is rich as a savage? (p.30)”. Given the fact that we have the opportunity to pursue higher education and partake in ‘civilized’ society, perhaps this would indeed be intended for us. I believe this expands into his opposition of universities when he expresses that authentic learning truly takes place when experiencing life first hand, “Even the poor student studies and is taught only political economy, while that economy of living which is synonymous with philosophy is not even sincerely professed in our colleges” (p. 50), and “How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying the experiment of living?” (p. 49).
He also advocates for the continuation of learning and education past adolescence, as well as the reading of classical pieces, “ For what are the classics but the noblest recorded thoughts of man? (p. 98)”. I feel this is slightly contradicting because in attending university, we are able to continue in our pursuit of knowledge, of which he is so passionate about; and we are also provided with access to literature written by the ‘classics’, of which earnestly wants us to explore. By disassociation with universities, as institutional as they may be, would this be following his ideology of truly embracing the human experience, or would it be in opposition to it because we would be without the knowledge of those that preceded us? He offers somewhat of a solution when he suggests the integration of education in society, “It is time that we had uncommon schools… It is time that villages were universities…Instead of noblemen, let us have noble villages of men. (p.106-107).”
Furthermore, is there really any instruction to pursue any of this when “..the old have no very important advice to give the young.. (p.9)”, which he expresses very early on? This is further elaborated on when Thoreau states“…I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or event earnest advice from my seniors…If I have any experience which I think valuable, I am sure to reflect that my mentors said nothing about (p.9)”, which is quite the statement given how frequently he references and quotes great philosophers. What do we make of this? **disclaimer: none of this is critical, just asking questions to allow for further interpretation and implementation into our lives**
Week 1 Discussion Question
Shea Adair
Thoreau spends a good deal of time discussing trains and all of the things they symbolize to him. I would like to discuss this topic in greater detail. In my opinion, trains are a very fitting symbol for industrialization, globalization, and many other themes of traditional development. On page 109, Thoreau describes the extractive processes that trains facilitate and the dependence that they cultivate, writing, ‘As they come under one horizon, they shout their warning to get off the track to the other, heard sometimes through the circles of two towns. Here comes your groceries, country; your rations, countrymen! Nor is there any man so independent on his farm that he can say them nay. And here’s your pay for them! screams the countryman’s whistle; timber like long battering-rams going twenty miles an hour against the city’s walls, and chairs enough to seat all the weary and heavy-laden that dwell within them. With such huge and lumbering civility the country hands a chair to the city. All the Indian huckleberry hills are stripped, all the cranberry meadows are raked into the city.” Thoreau also describes the seemingly unstoppable momentum of trains and the laborers they “crush” underneath. On page 111, “There is no stopping to read the riot act, no firing over the heads of the mob, in this case. We have constructed a fate, an Atropos, that never turns aside.” From page 87-88, “We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us. Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man, an Irishman, or a Yankee man. The rails are laid on them, and they are covered with sand, and the cars run smoothly over them.” despite his criticisms, however, Thoreau also seems to have a certain level of admiration for the trains, calling them “demigods” and “a race now worthy to inhabit (the earth)” (p. 110). He also says of commerce that it is “unexpectantly confident and secure, alert, 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” (pp. 112-113). Do you think that Thoreau was purposefully using his discussion of trains to talk about larger themes of industrialization and development? What do you think he meant through his description of the trains? What do you think he thought about industrialization and commercialization?
“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. Their fingers, from excessive toil, are too clumsy and tremble too much for that. Actually, 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.” (pg. 6)
Very early on in his book, Thoreau expressed his personal critique on the lives of modern humans. He takes intentional mentions of aspects such as the true “freedom” of America, materialism, the agonizing labor forced upon people, and how all of this twists and reshapes the average person into a manufacturing machine, forced to live under this false guise of freedom, safety, happiness, and wealth. This type of social analysis was an enlightened revelation for the time and raises questions regarding how this lifestyle has changed over the years since its publication. What I propose for our class session today is less of a question and more of a discussion topic, in that I would like to bring forth the ways in which capitalism, technology, socioeconomic factors, etc. have developed the modern human tradition and behaviors. This includes but is not limited to the relationships we have with fellow humans, animals, and the environment as a whole, materialism and its wide-range of effects, the veil of false promises under capitalism, and anything else of the sort!
Week One Discussion Question
Carlos Carmona
“It must be shown that it has produced better dwellings without making them more costly; and the cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.” Walden Ch 1. Economy Henry David Thoreau.
One of Thoreau’s ideas that really resonated with me was how he compared the costs of living not making up for the increased quality of life from modern commodities. The analogy he uses with the Native American home and the European American home was really easy to understand and seems to particularly ring true in today’s time because of the difficulty to become a homeowner in America. The way it exposes the arbitrariness of the American dream with its ideal house is something I can see more visiting non-western countries and experiencing beautiful living spaces that aren’t the American norm. The American home is full of standards of comfort that society applies but the standard of our success and happiness can’t be measured by a society that values property and capital as the end all be all. Concepts like inherited properties could tie families to one direct way of life and through taxation of something potentially considered a burden degrades the concept of the American home, specifically the socially enforced commodities.
My question for this week would have to be as Thoreau struggles with his journey to return to nature would this return to nature and use of its ecosystems resources really be possible in a world so globally affected for humans, specifically could every human have access to an experience like this and also use natural resources that Thoreau considered “borrowed” sustainably and ethically.
Week 1 discussion question
Erik Olson
I don’t fully agree with Thoreau’s insistence on self sufficiency. It’s on some level contradictory. As an example, he professes the virtues of building one’s own house but had a team of people hired with money to help him raise it. Humans are social beings and it’s through his own education that he developed the literary and philosophical background and frameworks to understand the world in the way he did.
Of course he’s writing with nuance and on broader terms than the specifics of self-sufficiency and his main point is that one should strive to question the basic assumptions of society – especially regarding debt and work. Thoreau argues that the point of life is to be alive and fully experience the basic necessities at their core – not to get caught up in the pursuit of money and the ever-changing whims of society. He laments people’s tendency to do any extraordinary amount of work to accumulate even modest amounts of wealth. To spend their whole lives working to barely pay off a mortgage. He also mentions fashion and superficial appearances – how many people would rather be seen in public with a broken leg than a ripped pair of pants.
In the example of Thoreau’s house – other people helped with the step that he couldn’t achieve on his own – raising the walls. How can community action today empower people to practice more intentional living? How can we build a world less concerned with capital and more concerned with people and community?
Keagan Northcott
During Thoreau’s writings he is constantly critiquing the ideas of being simplistic and staying in one place even when you are absolutely miserable, when you are able to change it. Thoreau’s experiment has him experiencing voluntary poverty. While he was from a wealthy family and just a few miles from the town, it is still a very interesting look into what others think from sides that one is not from. He found that a lot of the ‘necessities’ that people believed were so, actually could be survived without, and can live with mostly just things from the land. Going back to the beginning of this paragraph, people who are miserable in these places that maybe able to change it, keep getting caught up in the ideas of having everything that they think is that thing of necessity but really just continues to hold them back in that situation and place.
What do you think the people of these upper society thought of these ideas at that time?
Madeline Ryan
“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” (Thoreau 9). Does he mean that we are ignorant to the unfolding of our modern society, one that can only be evaluated through art and the scrutiny of both pain and pleasure? How does one transform the machine society operates within, for even Thoreau said complete isolation from society oftentimes is a recipe for insanity? In order to achieve self-actualization within the parameters of the abundance given inherently to society and the self, must we remain on this wheel of humanity, but live within it with truth, courage and love?
Audrey Mase
In “Solitude”, Thoreau muses on his experience with isolation. Finding himself a mile away from his nearest neighbor, he relishes in long rainy afternoons alone, and days of work in the fields. Thoreau is very critical of the established norms of social interaction.
“Society is commonly too cheap. We meet at very short intervals, not having had time to acquire any new value for each other. We meet at meals three times a day, and give each other a new taste of that old musty cheese that we are. We have had to agree on a certain set of rules, called etiquette and politeness, to make this
frequent meeting tolerable and that we need not come to open war.”
I find his experiences and interpretations of isolation extremely interesting. In the quote, Thoreau describes the way in which social interactions are normalized as brief, insubstantial, and surface level. I think this is a complaint that many might have today. Thoreau seems to reject this unattractive social dynamic by recusing himself from it, and engaging in conversation with the self and with nature. I agree that introspection creates a more established sense of self, and that coming to a new understanding of one’s role in larger systems might create a more enriching feeling of connection than you might find in neighborly small talk. However, I don’t agree with an outright dismissal of social custom. Thoreau knows as well as any of us that a life of complete self sufficiency and independence is far from realistic- his experiment is not a perpetual one. Humans are meant to be social. Brief interactions like the ones he describes can be incredibly meaningful if approached with intention, and learning to manage small interactions with people you find unpleasant or boring is a necessary part of community building and strengthens the social fabric. I understand that Thoreau is likely more critical of the structures that leave us with little time to engage beyond these short-lived niceties, which I agree with, but I don’t think that means they are invaluable or degrading. My questions for the week would be- How can we find ways to create more enriching relationships, even with people we might not be close with? What are the limiting factors to social interaction in the modern day? Do you think developing these small scale interactions is important, or do you agree more with Thoreau?