[Elyse Sullivan]

In the chapter, “Conclusion” Thoreau tells of how he learned to follow his dreams and instincts. He says,  “that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success” (Thoreau 358). He followed his dreams, and he made them into reality. He was successful in what he did, and content with the outcome of living in solitude and being more in touch with nature. The philosophies that he had devoted his life to helped him to become a better person in so many ways. He was able to conserve, respect nature, and to live off of only what was necessary. He gave up a lot to follow his dreams, and he learned that by following your dreams, you need to make sacrifices.

I have learned a lot from Walden. I’ve never been interested in philosophical books, but Walden was a very honest, and inspiring piece of literature. I was reluctant, at first, to really read into and connect with the book, but after a while I realized how valid the points were that he was making (though some were a little extreme). I realized how he is right, that everyone wants luxury and that luxuries have become necessities. We really only need the four necessities in life that Thoreau mentions several times throughout the book. Nature provided us with our life, and can provide us the products that we need to continue living. Walden taught me a lot about what is necessary and what can be sacrificed, and how important nature is. After reading this book and the philosophies that Thoreau incorporated into it, I want to live life more sparingly, and not take so many things for granted. I have always loved nature and acknowledged it’s beauty, but I don’t pay attention to it enough to care about it in the way that Thoreau did. I would like to be more appreciative of nature and all that it provides us with, and Walden has inspired me to do so.

[Elyse Sullivan]

In “Brute Neighbors” Thoreau tells of two ants that are gnawing and thrashing at each other in what he compares to as  “a war between two races” (287) red ants versus black ants. Thoreau compares their little war to several different historical wars and says that the ants are like “red republicans” and “black imperialists” (287). He compares this ant war to other important wars in history perhaps to show how humans are not the only ones that have indifferences. By the way that he describes the battle, and the language that he uses, the war appears like any other that has occurred in previous periods. He shows that ants are just as much a part of nature as we are, and maybe even more so. Every race, human, animal, or insect, is bound to have conflict.

If everyone were to live simply, as Thoreau does, there would not be any conflict. If everyone had the same views, the same lives, or the same beliefs, there wouldn’t be anything to argue or fight about. Every war that has happened so far was because of a conflict of interest; because people did not agree on something, or they felt threatened by another group. Everyone living in the same conditions and living a simple life would make everyone equal. There wouldn’t be anything to fight about. Maybe if everyone were to live simply, peace would be more easily obtained.

I agree with Emma when she says that Thoreau is directly correlating human lives to the ants’, and when she says that the black ants had an unfair advantage. This is usually true in most wars; one side has a greater advantage than the other. Maybe Thoreau made the comparison between humans and the ants to show how, though we are completely different species, we are not so different in our actions.

 

[Elyse Sullivan]

In Thoreau’s “Higher Laws” he expresses his belief that “rich cookery” (277) is unnecessary and unimportant. Although he sees that people should have food (fuel) he does not think that it is necessary to have rich and savory  foods. Thoreau also makes a point that diets should be “simple and clean” (277) and “he who distinguished the true savor of his food can never be a glutton” (279). Thoreau is very focused on living off of the bare minimum, and not consuming any more than he needs to, or consuming anything that will not benefit him in some way. What Thoreau seems to be intent on is having a healthy diet, and he does make a good point here. Eating healthy can only have a positive effect on one’s body and mind.

Many Americans today are focused on eating healthy because it stimulates brain activity and helps one’s body to remain in what is seen as a healthy condition. Others, however, do not stick to this idea and as a result are very unhealthy. As Thoreau says, “the fruits eaten temperately need not make us ashamed of our appetites, nor interrupt the worthiest pursuits. But put an extra condiment into your dish and it will poison you” (277). Eating healthy and in a reasonable quantity will be beneficial, but putting anything extra and unnecessary or unhealthy on that food will negatively affect one’s health, especially over time if (it is used often). Unhealthy foods tend to taste better than healthy foods, but they are only “poisoning” the bodies of those that consume them. Healthy food is proven to provide the elements that keep our minds working effectively and properly, but unhealthy food does not. In this way, Thoreau is right when he says that the deliciousness of food is a distraction from higher intellectual pursuits, but sometimes healthy foods are delicious, too, and they do not distract from intellectual pursuits. Thoreau is only partially right in his reasoning.

I agree with Noah when he says that Thoreau is right considering his time period, but in modern views he is not as correct. Healthy food can taste good and still be beneficial to brain power. I also like that he used a link to provide evidence and backed up his statements.

[Elyse Sullivan]

In “The Ponds” Thoreau is constantly stating how beautiful, remarkable, and pure that Walden Pond is. He says that is is “so remarkable for its depth and purity” and that it is “blue at one time and green at another, even from the same point of view. Lying between the earth and the heavens, it partakes the color of both” (247). Thoreau uses to much imagery in this chapter, and thoroughly describes the different colors and the solitude and security and peace that it brings. He regards this pond so highly, and speaks as if it is holy to him. Walden Pond is like an escape to Thoreau; a place that he spent many hours at. It is possible that this pond is a symbol of Thoreau’s own beliefs. He sees that materialistic items are unnecessary, and that nature and the items that it provides for society are all that man needs. His belief that nature is beautiful, remarkable, and pure is reflected in his description of the pond. When he talks of the pond, it is evident that he is a man of nature and that he understands its true beauty and importance. The pond could also symbolize peace because he goes there for solitude and escape.

I agree with Kheldhe. Walden Pond can also be seen as a symbol of hope. He sees society a broken down wreck, but the pond and nature are beautiful and pure. Maybe this gives him hope that one day, other people will understand the importance of nature in one’s life.

[Elyse Sullivan]

In “The Bean Field” Thoreau cultivates beans to become more intimate with nature. He experiments with them and says, “they attached me to the earth” (230) and gave him strength. Although Thoreau referred to farming and cultivating crops as a horrid obligation in “Economy” he now does these things himself but for his own reasons. He is not so much focused on earning a profit from the beans, but on being one with nature. The difference between Thoreau and other farmers is that the other farmers want to earn money and Thoreau wants to farm for the experience and the wisdom that he will gain. He is not focused on the destination, but on the journey and hardships that he will endure to get there. He chose to take on the responsibility of caring for crops, while most farmers would love to sell their farms because they are so hard to maintain. Unlike most farmers, he did not rely on the profits that he made to support himself; he already had all of the necessities that he needed. Farming was not his obligation, or his job, but he chose to experience it anyways.

I agree with Alyssa; Thoreau only wished to better himself in this experience. He was teaching himself self-discipline, and that was all that he needed to gain from his bean field to be satisfied.

[Elyse Sullivan]

In, “Sounds”, Thoreau makes the birds that he is surrounded with seem like they are humans. He mostly compares them to humans when he talks about their singing. He says that, “the whippoorwills chanted their vespers for half an hour, sitting on a stump by my door” (Thoreau 207) and that he was, “also serenaded by a hooting owl” (Thoreau 208). In his books, he speaks as if these birds are his companions, though sometimes he does not speak very highly of them. He says that they are, “low spirits” and that they are, “melancholy” (Thoreau, 208). By the way that he goes into such detail about these birds shows that they are an important part of his life.

Because he thoroughly describes all of these birds and several different encounters with them, and how he listens to them everyday, shows that they are a part of his everyday life. He wakes up to them in the morning, and is woken up by them screeching at night. He seems to enjoy their company sometimes, and maybe this is because he is so far from society. He is by himself, away from any villages or towns because he has such different views on life than everyone else. He feels distant from society, but not from nature. Nature is his closest friend, because it provides him with everything that he needs. Maybe the birds are his only form of entertainment, as he does not have any neighbors, and he refuses to buy anything that is not a necessity to him, like a radio. The only thing that Thoreau understands is nature and it’s true effect on people, and that is why he is so close with it.

I agree with April when she says that Thoreau is probably just lonely. He is giving these personifications to animals because they are the closest thing he has to neighbors. Maybe he likes them so much because they aren’t like humans and don’t focus on materialistic things. They are the closest thing he has to his own philosophies.

 

[Elyse Sullivan]

In, “Where I Lived and What I Lived For”, Thoreau tells of how people have a, “superfluous and evitable wretchedness” (Thoreau, 182) and that man is so intent on improving his life with these unnecessary materials. Rather than focusing on the necessities in life, people want the extra comforts so that they have something to brag about. Thoreau pushes so much for spiritual reality over materials, but most men are not like him. Especially not today’s Americans.

Americans want their country to have, “commerce…and talk through a telegraph, and ride thirty miles an hour” (Thoreau 183). Man is so focused on the unnecessary things in life, and Thoreau makes a good point when he says, “If we do not…devote our days and nights to the work, but go to tinkering upon our lives to improve them, who will built railroads?” (Thoreau 183).  Without putting the work in, how will life improve? People are going about life in all of the wrong ways, and people still are to this day. Today, Americans are just like the people that Thoreau describes in his book, but worse. People have strayed even farther from Thoreau’s philosophies than those of his time. People are not focused on just living with the four necessities of life, but on living an extravagant, rich life with all the luxuries that they can afford.

I agree with Taylor when she says that people see materials now as necessities. It seems that people do not realize how much they rely on the four necessities that Thoreau points out, and that they now view small, material objects with the utmost importance. These materials now seem essential, when they are truly just luxuries.

[Elyse Sullivan]

In, “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For” Thoreau speaks of Hollowell farm, a secluded farm that is, “two miles from the village, half a mile from the nearest neighbor, and separated from the highway by a broad field” (Thoreau, 176) . This separation from everything and everyone seemed to appeal to him, though it would not do the same to most. Also, the actual state of the farm was horrendous. “The ruinous state of the house and barn, and the dilapidated fences…the hollow and the lichen-covered apple trees, gnawed by rabbits” (Thoreau, 176). These conditions on the farm would have sent most running, but not Thoreau. He was focusing on the good parts of the farm, the parts that he would benefit from.

Although Thoreau would be faced with an unstable and unsightly farm, he was focused only on the advantages that he would have if he bought it. Thoreau states that, “I was ready to carry it on; like Atlas, to take the world on my shoulders” (Thoreau 176). He wanted to be able to do all of the things that the proprietor did, and make, “improvements” (Thoreau 176) before the proprietor did himself. Instead of seeing the disadvantages that he would have if he owned the farm, he only saw the advantages. He seemed to have taken account his, “recollection [he] had of it from his earliest voyages up the river” (Thoreau 176) and maybe the memory of it had endeared him to this farm. Thoreau, as he stated before in, “Economy”, there are only four necessities in life, and having a nice home is not one of them. The house would shelter him, and he needed nothing more. On the farm, he also had a source of water as there was a river nearby, and food, because he had crops to cultivate. On this farm he would have a steady source of the four necessities of life; it did not matter the state or conditions of it.

I agree with Noah when he says that Thoreau is repulsed by a life of unnecessary luxury. He is so intent on having only the necessities, and nothing extra, because nothing else is important or vital to one’s existence. He was not one to be jealous or to want to make other’s jealous, just surviving in whatever conditions was enough for him.

 

[Elyse Sullivan]

In Economy, Thoreau states that the necessaries of life are, “Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel,” and that it is not until, “We have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life” (120). All four of these necessaries contribute to one another as Thoreau shows in his novel, but he does point out that clothing and shelter are only half necessary. Although these all began as luxuries, they soon developed into necessities, and from there, new necessities arose. For example, people no longer wanted clothes just to keep themselves warm; they wanted the newest fashion of clothes and couldn’t walk around in worn out, patched clothing for fear of being looked at twice, believing that fashionable, clean clothes were a necessity. Also, instead of having a simple home to shelter them from cold and other weather conditions, society began wanting, “Domestic comforts” (132) like furniture, even though in, “modern civilized society not more than one half of the families own a shelter” (134). According to Thoreau’s philosophies, it appears that  once people become accustomed to these luxuries, they become oblivious to how important they are and how they would be lost without them.

As previously stated, once one secures the necessaries of life, they can, “Entertain the true problems of life” (120). After obtaining food, clothing, shelter, and fuel, and establishing a foundation, one can think about expanding their belongings to those desirable luxuries, or figure out a profession to indulge in. Thoreau admits that after building his house, or his shelter, that, “I intend to build me a house which will surpass any on the main street in Concord in grandeur and luxury” (149) showing that he, too, was focused on improving his lifestyle and impressing others. When the four necessities became easily accessible, people took advantage of them and did not realize how much they relied on them. This eventually led to greed, and jealousy, and this is shown when Thoreau wants to build a house that others can be jealous of. It was only those who stuck to the bare necessities in life that truly appreciated what they had, and therefore, were content with their lives. In summary, when one has possession of the four necessaries of life, they can then improve the other aspects of their life and on the necessaries themselves, and then improve upon them again. Mankind has a tendency to continue to improve and advance their own lives and to get ahead for the sole purpose of impressing others.

In response to Muriel, I agree that the extra things in life that people are faced with restrain them from the wisdom that is gained when focusing on the basic needs, or the bare necessities. This is a very good point as it is true that people are so intent on being richer or having more luxurious belongings than others, and they live a life trying to impress those that surround them. Were they not so focused on being better than others, maybe they could see and truly appreciate how lucky they are that they have the four necessaries, which is all that they need to survive. Maybe then they could be content with their lives, rather than living a life feeling that there is someone better than them, and worrying about what other people think of them.

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts