[Max “Lime” Houghton]

Thoreau’s final message in “Conclusion” is that of self-reliance, which as a key component of transcendentalism, ties together his whole philosophy. Thoreau believed that inside every individual there existed the capacity for higher thought. The universes’ inherent truths existed naturally inside every person, and how to reach them was to live a simple life. Thoreau’s time at Walden showed him how people should look less to the outside world and more to themselves; speaking of those who are very proud of their country as a whole, he states that “they love the soil which makes their graves… but [not] with [their] spirit that may animate their clay” (357). Through his experiences, Thoreau has developed his belief that as man simplifies his life, he reaches higher levels of thought to the point that societal constructs no longer mean anything to him: “in proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness” (359). What Thoreau has learned in 2.5 years of being more or less isolated is that you don’t companionship to be a thoughtful enlightened person; in fact, solitude can make a person look more within themselves and less to others, therefore discovering truths about themselves and the universe.

I found Walden to be a fascinating read, and startlingly applicable to today’s world. This applicability shows that Thoreau really wasn’t writing about the what; he was writing about the why. The questions he was discussing back then are, for the most part, still largely existent in our lives. I found Thoreau’s stand on self-reliance to be intriguing, and his views have definitely made me reconsider what I consider to be necessary in life.

Nowadays, life moves so fast. Everything and everyone flies by at such a speed and the world never stops to breathe. From the very first chapter of the book, Thoreau says “as if you could kill time without injuring eternity” (122). This has had a profound effect on the way I think about time and how I spend it. The usefulness of introspection is something that Thoreau has revealed to me through Walden. I will definitely spend more time considering my actions and pondering my existence now – because as Thoreau surely thought, nothing that happens in life is insignificant. Everything is worth thinking about, and this is something that I believe we’ve lost in today’s society.

[Max “Lime” Houghton]

The ants’ battle reflects the tenacity and will of very determined human warriors, and Thoreau finds this interesting. He finds similarities in how focused and determined the ants are to how our soldiers fight during war, stating that he found himself enthralled by their struggle “as if they had been men” and that “the more you think about it, the less the difference” (288). The ants obviously live very one-track lives and have very singular thoughts. Their thoughts involve protecting their home at all coasts – even death. They are all completely devoted to their defense, “not one hireling [being] there” (289). If humans were to live this simply, then we too would be mindlessly defending our homes and selves on primitive instincts. Yet this is not so; humans are clouded by emotions, foreign motivations, greed, and other factors. This separates us from the tiny ant warriors. As Thoreau says, the ants didn’t “[manifest] the least disposition to retreat” (288).

The historical significance is strong in “Brute Neighbors”, as seen in Thoreau’s reference to Davis and Hosmer, Revolutionary War soldiers. Isaac Davis and Abner Hosmer were among the first to be killed in the Revolutionary War, making them significant figures. Thoreau makes this reference by stating that “thousands [of the ants] shared the fate of Davis and Hosmer” (289). He also references the Battle of Bunker Hill, an influential battle of the Revolutionary War. These comparisons to real world scenarios help bring his comparison of the ants to humanity to its full philosophical weight.

Conner brings up a good point in his statement that the historical references send a message of the intrinsic violence of human nature. What he says is true – as long as there have been people, there have been people fighting. What people fight for is varied: food, water, land, pride; we fight over almost everything except what is natural. The ants as simple beings know only to fight for their home, even if this means death, and this is something that we as humans can’t comprehend.

[Max “Lime” Houghton]

In “Higher Laws” Thoreau is very introspective, acknowledging both his primitive desire for food and his more civilized side. When he sees the chipmunk, he immediately wants to devour it on a very primitive instinct. It’s his civilized side that prevents him from doing so, and he acknowledges this. His view on this primitive gluttony is that of shame; that we should not give in to such animal instincts. As he says, “I fear that we are… the creatures of appetite… and that… our very life is our disgrace” (281). In addition to this he states that our animal side is shameful to a certain extent, “essentially unclean” (276). This would tie into his philosophy – eating flesh in itself is primitive and automatic. Therefore, it’s the opposite of the core of Thoreau’s theory, which involves deep calculated thought. Savoring the flavor of food would be to indulge in our more shameful side – our animal side. Yet Thoreau acknowledges that this is part of human nature and exists even in himself, as he says “I cannot speak without betraying my impurity” (281).

Personally, I believe Thoreau’s theory here to be interesting, but not applicable today at all. As Noah has said above, today we know that you have to eat a variety of foods to remain healthy, and why not savor flavors while doing so? Modern science has narrowed the discrepancy between ‘savage’ animals and ‘civilized’ humans, which existed in a much larger realm back in Thoreau’s age.

[Max “Lime” Houghton]

“The Ponds” shows the more philosophical side of Walden’s voice as he discusses his admiration for Walden Pond near his house. One of the first things he points out is that Walden is simple, yet beautiful: “The scenery of Walden is on a humble scale… yet this pond is so remarkable for its depth and purity” (247). He uses this beauty to conjure up beautiful memories of it, recalling “memorable times” of fishing on it at midnight, surrounded by mystical scenery of bright moonlight and shining fish. He’s mesmerized by the unique nature of the water, stating that “lying between the earth and the heavens, it partakes of the color of both” (247). Thoreau believes that the pond is beautiful, clean, and pure. He describes the water as “transparent that the bottom can be discerned… at twenty-five feet”, the plants as “clean and bright like the element they grow in” and the bottom as being comprised of “pure sand” (248/9). Altogether, Walden is making a comparison that the land which surrounds him is almost religious in nature, perhaps even a form of Heaven. This could serve for him to emphasize how pure his life is.

Hunter makes an interesting connection in viewing the pond as an escape. I hadn’t quite considered this, but I do understand how Thoreau does to a certain extent want to escape society’s influences. The meditative state the pond puts him in places him in just the right situation to be as philosophical as he can be, which really is his ultimate goal.

[Max “Lime” Houghton]

“The Bean Field” mostly serves to emphasize Thoreau’s philosophy about work; he’s previously stated that he believes those who farm the ground may as well be contained in a jail. Why, then, is he undertaking the farming of the beans? What Thoreau believes is that in his cultivating of the beans, he’s cultivating himself as the farmer – not the beans as the crop. He’s undertaking farming the beans not for sustenance or wealth, but for self-discipline. As he says, “labor of the hands, even when pursued to the verge of drudgery, is perhaps never the worst form of idleness” and that working produces an “imperishable moral” (232).

What Noah points out about Thoreau’s “elevation” is something that I also found to be quite true. Most tasks we undertake are all about mindset. There is a marked difference between gardening with intent of making money and gardening for pleasure. In Thoreau’s case, his interest is entirely different and unique for the time period, and it shows his shunning of society. Society would dictate that if you’re not farming for economic gain, then why farm at all; why not put your time towards something else that would produce profit? Thoreau casts off this notion by taking great pleasure in farming his beans and the moral discipline he gains from it.

[Max “Lime” Houghton]

What struck me the most about “Where I Lived” was the immense disgust Thoreau displayed for regular civilization. As we saw in “Economy”, he emphasizes the ability we have to live on simple “necessaries”, imbalanced by our desire to obtain luxuries. We see this again here as he says “it makes little difference whether you are committed to a farm or the country jail” (176). Here Thoreau would be emphasizing that we put too much priority on obtaining luxuries before taking care of our own needs.

This imbalance of priority is still present in today’s society. As Thoreau said during his time spent at Walden Pond, “We are determined to be starved before we are hungry” (183). We often overreach our basic needs and grab, like little children, the shiny toys that our capitalist society presents us like low-hanging fruit. The frenzy of people obsessed with buying goods is something that Thoreau would detest were he alive today.

Amanda, I agree with you about how people aren’t very concerned with “spiritual reality”. Most people live in a consumerist bubble, and even though we feign wonder about the world, we rarely actually do.

[Max “Lime” Houghton]

Throughout Solitude, Thoreau is making the point that solitude – and silence – is pure compared to the clutter of everyday society. He points out that loneliness is all about perspective by making note of the Earth as “but a point in space” and saying “what sort of space is that which separates a man from his fellows and makes him solitary?” This serves to emphasize Thoreau’s point that we overemphasize the need for companionship; on the tiny speck we call Earth, can we really even be considered “separate” (214).

Another argument Thoreau passively makes is that although we we’re often physically close to one another, rarely are we close in any other meaningful way. As he puts it, “I have found that no exertion of the legs can bring two minds much nearer to one another”. This is Thoreau’s way of laughing at those who are horrified at his lack of “companionship” – in his view, he thinks that even were he to live closer to his peers, there would exist no meaningful connection between them (214). Being free from the everyday gossip and chatter of society is something that Thoreau finds meditative and constructive – “can we not do without the society of our gossips… [and] have our own thoughts to cheer us?” Perhaps here Thoreau is doing a little ‘tsk tsk’ of society and making a friendly suggestion for us to look more inside ourselves, and less to each other (215).

Elise “Lemon”, I really think that although Thoreau states living alone is hard sometimes, he doesn’t think it’s impossible. He highlights this lapse in his philosophy you point out as just that – a lapse in time. I agree that he thinks more to provide insight into how he came to the conclusion that human companionship is often trifling.

[Max “Lime” Houghton]

After reading some of our responses, I’ve gained a bit of a better understanding about what Thoreau may have been commenting on.

As Cassie said, when we have shelter and fuel, clothing becomes more of a “want” than a necessity, especially in regards to keeping warm. Maybe in this way Thoreau is expressing his frustration/disgust with our society – but what else are we to do? Even he’s admitted that once our basic necessities are secured, the next step is to branch out. Perhaps fashion is just one manifestation of this.

[Max “Lime” Houghton]

As Noah has said above, what Thoreau is saying about the “necessaries” of life is that they are extremely basic. As he puts it, food, shelter, clothing, and fuel are what we need to stay alive in the most basic form. Once these have been attained, we can attack the “true problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success” (14). What this means is that once humans have survived, we can thrive – Make art, expand our beliefs, philosophize, et cetera.

One interesting thing Thoreau says to note about “necessaries”, however, is that their value lies in the eye of the beholder. A question Thoreau wonders at is why “civilized” people hold these necessities in such a lower esteem than “savage” people do. A civil person can have what they need to survive but still be considered poor; yet a savage person who has secured all these things is considered wealthy. Civilized people are always working towards luxuries, not necessities. He comments on our society in this way – “Shall we always study to obtain more of these things, and not sometimes to be content with less?” (139).

-Max Houghton

[Author]

Posts