[Hunter “Watermelon” Atkins]

In “Conclusion”, Thoreau writes of discovering that while at Walden Pond, he learnt that as one “simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness” (Thoreau 5). Through a period of introverted self-discovery, Thoreau was able to grasp how large the universe is and learnt not to take everything at face value. Through simplifying one’s life, one “will pass an invisible boundary” (Thoreau 5) opening one up to a new vantage point where one is able to enjoy life’s simplest pleasures without the distractions of daily life in the way.

At the expense of sounding dense, Walden didn’t really resonate with me until I read “Conclusion”. As enjoyable as Thoreau’s philosophy was, I couldn’t find it applicable to myself until I read “the setting sun is reflected from the windows of the alms-house as brightly as from the rich man’s abode” (Thoreau 13) in which I realized that whilst at Walden Pond, Thoreau was able to find an appreciation for what’s straight in-front of him, leaving behind the desire for material objects. Quite befitting as Thanksgiving is fast approaching, Walden reminded me to put things into perspective in terms of how much I have and how lucky I am compared to a literal majority of people who struggle in ways I could never imagine.

With this being said, I think what I’ll take away from Walden is an increased appreciation for what I have as well as the simpler things in life. Personally, nothing sounds less appealing than “living off the land”. I enjoy being connected to the people and world around me and I don’t think isolating myself from them would be beneficial. I like getting news alerts from my plethora of news apps at the same time and I like seeing Natasha Poly’s selfies in my instagram feed. Having read Walden I think I’ll remind myself to slow down at times and take in what I have and what’s around me more often than I do now. Who knows, perhaps I’ll plant some beans as well.

[Hunter “Watermelon” Atkins]

In “Brute Neighbors”, Thoreau finds himself witness to an exciting “war between two races of ants” (Thoreau 12). Thoreau observed the ferocity of the ants in their battle of red against black. He couples the description of the warring ants with historical references in order to parallel the actions of the ants with the historical actions of humans. Should humans all live simply like Thoreau, it is possible that they could sacrifice their old ways and live in harmony, or reject the new lifestyle leading to people “fiercely contending with one another” (Thoreau 12), like ants, for no reason other than the desire to fight and establish oneself as superior to the other. Because people haven’t done what Thoreau has done on a large scale, it’s hard to say what would happen and falls on one’s belief in the inherent nature of man.

What Elise said about the battle between the ants representing a battle with one’s personal psyche is really interesting. Initially, that’s not how I perceived the situation but naturally, anyone doing what Thoreau did would have plenty of time for self-reflection and consequentially would be opening the doors for critical self evaluation.

[Hunter “Watermelon” Atkins]

In “Higher Laws”, Thoreau urges the reader to adopt a simpler diet in order to feed one’s intellect, and not one’s senses. Thoreau found that “it is not worth the while to live by rich cookery” (Thoreau 6). Thoreau found it easy to live by such a simple diet because he found most foods “not agreeable to my imagination” (Thoreau 5). Enjoying food in any sense other than maintaining one’s body “defileth a man” (Thoreau 9). Thoreau’s literal distaste for savory foods and simpler diet isn’t realistic.

Thoreau’s diet of “a little bread or a few potatoes” (Thoreau 5) isn’t realistic if one wants to properly nourish oneself. Humans require a varied diet so they can get the proper nutrients necessary for maintaining a healthful lifestyle. Such an unvaried diet like the one Thoreau calls for makes it virtually impossible for someone to get the nutrients their body requires. While it’s possible to live off the restrictive diet Thoreau promotes in “Higher Laws”, it’s also worth noting that people have survived before on nothing but McDonald’s, or (my personal favorite) Monster Munch . Both of the aforementioned diets would be criticized by any reasonable person as they aren’t nutritious or healthful. Like the diet of someone who sustains themselves on McDonald’s or beef flavored chips, Thoreau’s diet isn’t reasonable or nutritionally sound.

Like Noah said, why not enjoy the food one is eating as long as it is nutritionally sound? Food is an integral part of one’s livelihood and there’s no reason someone shouldn’t enjoy nourishing themselves.

[Hunter “Watermelon” Atkins]

The key difference between Thoreau’s experiment and the obligatory work of the farmers is that while the farmers are busy, busy, busy, with their work in the hopes of yielding a profit in the dog-eat-dog world of bean farming (an ideology he criticizes in “Economy”), Thoreau removes himself from the obligation which allows him to see the tending to his beans as an introspective process which “attached me [Thoreau] to the earth” (Thoreau 1) and with that, he “became more intimate” (Thoreau 4) with his beans; something not possible for a farmer chained by the human-constructed obligation of profit. Again, by detaching himself Thoreau is able to enjoy things others would find tedious or trifling (the beans, the pond). By cultivating beans for the sake of cultivating beans, Thoreau found that there ” was no little iteration in the labor” (Thoreau 10).

Like Alyssa and Lily said, Thoreau’s intentions for farming beans were different in the beginning which allowed him a more rewarding experience in growing the beans, something that wouldn’t be possible if he were to solely focus on growing beans for profit like most farmers did and continue to do.

[Hunter “Watermelon” Atkins]

I really like Kheldhe’s idea that the pond serves as a reminder that not all is lost in the world. Thoreau’s approach towards the pond has a lot of existentialist undertones in the sense that the pond is a fixture that has survived before and will survive after him. With the pond being a constant figure it sort of makes the shallowness of society that Thoreau doesn’t appreciate less relevant on a larger scale, like Kheldhe said the pond is “a reminder that life is much bigger than just himself”.

[Hunter “Watermelon” Atkins]

In “The Ponds”, Thoreau speaks about his fondness for the pond near his house. The pond exists as an escape for him, writing “sometimes, after staying in a village parlor till the family had all retired, I have returned to the woods, and, partly with a view to the next day’s dinner, spent the hours of midnight fishing from a boat by moonlight” (Thoreau 4). Thoreau has established himself as an introverted character with a preference for nature over the business of human interaction. He acquaints himself with Walden Pond which he believes is one of the best examples of what a pond should be. He describes its beauty with fondness describing its color as “Walden 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 of the color of both” (Thoreau 5). This seems like “heaven on earth” for Thoreau – the pond is an example of Eden “perhaps on that spring morning when Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden Walden Pond was already in existence” (Thoreau 8). Having already written at great lengths of his distaste for society’s qualities, by escaping to the pond Thoreau can become one with nature and separate himself from the unfavorable qualities he observes on a daily basis when acclimated with society.

For Thoreau, Walden Pond is not just a pond. Thoreau discusses its relatively God-like properties and its control over the shore of the pond with the water levels. Thoreau describes the surrounding area at the liberty of the actions of the pond “the pond asserts its title to a shore, and thus the shore is shorn” (Thoreau 11). Already comparing it to Eden, Thoreau seems engrossed by Walden Pond’s qualities that would go observable by people. Along with describing the pond’s God-like qualities, Thoreau fixates on the glassy transparency of the lake as well. Perhaps Thoreau finds the transparency of the lake appealing because human’s aren’t exactly transparent. Having already made the pond an escape, not only can he escape people, but he can be surrounded by the qualities he doesn’t observe in people.

[Hunter “Watermelon” Atkins]

Thoreau heavily criticizes the amount of focus on material possessions. In his writings, Thoreau focuses on the busy lives that most of his peers lead. Thoreau was different in the sense that he desired to “live deliberately” (Thoreau 16) – he compares the way his peers live to the lifestyle of ants, writing “we live meanly, like ants” (Thoreau 17), observing they are always busy and working that they don’t take the time to be retrospective. His advice to them was to let their affairs be “two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand” (Thoreau 17).

Today, we are more concerned with material possessions than ever. A more competitive and selective job market makes it necessary for one to work hard to qualify for a job, and then to maintain one’s job one needs to work hard to meet the expectations because there’s always someone who’s at the ready to take one’s job.

Amanda, I really liked how you differentiated between the “Nation’s” necessities and the necessities of “Economy”. I think that even today the difference between the necessities of an individual and a nation are palpable.

[Hunter “Watermelon” Atkins]

Thoreau’s description of the house at Hollowell farm wouldn’t appeal to many. Thoreau found the property’s retirement satisfactory as it was “about two miles from the village, half a mile from the nearest neighbor, and separated from the highway by a broad field” (Thoreau 4). The isolation wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea but Thoreau wished to live there to be able to “live free and uncommitted” (Thoreau 5).

The setting of Hollowell farm was, according to Thoreau, picturesque and he enjoyed living by the water as it was a reminder that “earth is not continent but insular” (Thoreau 11).

Taylor, the idea that the isolation that the farm provides coincides with his ideology that man only needs “food, fuel, clothing, and shelter” makes a lot of sense. By being separated from the busy lives Thoreau criticizes, Thoreau can reflect internally on his philosophy.

[Hunter “Watermelon” Atkins]

In “Economy”, Thoreau establishes the “necessities of life” as “food, shelter, clothing, and fuel.” Thoreau believes that these are universally necessary to human life as they all can be traced back to providing warmth. Anything more is considered a luxury. After one acquires the aforementioned necessities, one can begin to consider luxuries; however, Thoreau disregards luxuries as things that get in the way of living. According to Thoreau, luxuries are “hindrances to the elevation of mankind”, as the desire to acquire luxuries gets in the way of living a life of simplicity which Thoreau is promoting.

Alexa, I really like your idea that luxuries are “what sets each person a part; it adds a price to their name.” I think Thoreau would agree as he wrote that we may acquire different types of clothing for “the love of novelty, and a regard for the opinions of men, in procuring it, than by a true utility.” While this quote is about clothing, Thoreau seems to imply that we are all in somewhat of a rat race to have the best of the best. For example, Russian heiress Katia Verber doesn’t need a gold Bentley – as any other less expensive car would take her from one point to the next. The motivation behind procuring arguably frivolous luxuries is because it’s what sets us apart from the rest and through luxuries we can outwardly establish our place in society in terms of financial status.

In response to the question of the necessity of clothes going on in our discussion, I think the answer is dependent on the environment one is used to, as Thoreau writes “the New Hollander goes naked with impunity, while the European shivers in his clothes.” Garment wise, what is necessary for us to have on during a winter in New England isn’t comparable to what people would be required to wear during a winter in Lapland. Thoreau references that the fur worn by Laplanders is what allows them to sleep in “a degree of cold which would extinguish the life of one exposed to it in any woollen clothing.” Though not necessary, people here buy fur coats to wear as a status symbol. Clothing seems to be the best example of how necessity can intertwine with luxury to blur the lines between the two.

[Author]

Posts