[Zac “Banana” Chamberlin]

In Thoreau’s “Conclusion”, he reflects on all the things that he had learned from the woods he lived in and now why he is leaving them. Thoreau felt that he “had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one” (358). Though he had fallen in love with the place that he was in, he knew that it was now time to try something new. He had just became so used to living in the woods that it just came natural to him. In his time in the woods, he tried many experiences to display his self-values, importance of nature and, most importantly, inner-peace. From the pond he was able to take in “that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours” (358). Thoreau explains that anyone who is hard-working and dedicated can accomplish anything, and can not only surprise themselves but surprise others as well. He challenged people to believe that following his core values of life and going against societies beliefs is the best, and most easiest way for people to accomplish their goals.

After reading an intense novel like this, I can proudly say that I am more educated on the real values of life. Thoreau’s book makes readers open their eyes and see that society is teaching people the wrong ideas on the values of life, and the right ones can be found in this book. Thoreau values knowledge and nature over money and power, which should be a belief in all people. Thoreau’s idea of simplifying life also had a strong effect on me as I feel that it would be much easier to live a life of higher intellectual values if everyone put away their phones and their fancy everything. Because of Thoreau, I will start to look at things a different way. For example, when deciding what to major in in college, I will not look at the most paying job out of college for that major but rather the most interesting job and the most helpful one. Thoreau could really have an effect on every ones lives, despite the fact that some of his ideas are a little extreme.

[Zac “Banana” Chamberlin]

In Thoreau’s “Brute Neighbors” he finds the comparison between a couple of ants fighting and the human race. These two ants were battling over one of Thoreau’s necessities of life, food, which is why he fears that if all people were to follow his way of life that people would turn into ants. The war was found on “chips [that] were covered with two such combatants… a war between two races of ants, the red always pitted against the blacks” (287). In this war, Thoreau finds the similarities between the tiny ants and the regular human race. Like humans, the feeling of the war “was evident that their battle-cry was Conquer or die” (288). The ants would not stop until one had won and one had lost, like most human wars. This little ant battle also draws “a moment’s comparison with this.. for the patriotism and heroism displayed” (288). Despite the minor similarities, people would and never will turn into ants no matter the model they follow. Thoreau is humanizing the ants as other students have pointed out and making them into something they are not. The only thing little ants have to live for is food, so of course they’re going to fight over it, but that doesn’t mean humans would turn out like that if we were following Thoreau’s way of life.

[Zac “Banana” Chamberlin]

In Thoreau’s “Higher Laws,” he claims that people would better be able to focus on the higher intellectual pursuits if they ate a simple diet. A man can go to a pond “a thousand times before the sediment of fishing would sink to the bottom and leave their purpose pure” (275). One who focuses on eating richer will then live to eat well instead of pursuing the natural intellectual pursuits in the opinion of Thoreau. Along with the inability to pursue life’s natural goals, the richer, more tasty diet is “unclean… and all flesh” (276). It is those who “has ever been earnest to preserve his higher or poetic faculties in the best condition has been particularly inclined to abstain from animal food” (276). Thoreau claims that the previous, successful intellects were able to become so by eating a simple diet. While that may be true in some cases, I respectively disagree. It is important for the body to have a healthy meal, but that healthy meal can be found in both bigger and smaller proportion with our without animal flesh. Either way, as long as it’s healthy, I feel any eat habit would do just fine in the pursuit of life’s higher intellectual goals.

Thoreau’s ideas on food are well-defined in Ane’s statement as most of them are a bit extreme. Food shouldn’t be thought as too important in one’s pursuit of life’s higher challenges, but Thoreau makes a big deal out of them. Animals can provide a person a well-balanced, healthy diet that can allow the brain to perform under any circumstances, as pointed out by Ane.

[Zac “Banana” Chamberlin]

In Thoreau’s “Bean Field” he becomes one who he earlier was quick to judge, a farmer. Despite that, though, he has different reasons for farming than most other farmers. He was not farming to gain riches or wealth, but simply to gain self-discipline and become a better man. Thoreau argues that “labor of hands, even when pursued to the verge of drudgery, is perhaps never the worst form of idleness” (232). He is now going back on his opinion on farming as it is not as bad as he made it seem earlier in his book. Farming can have “a constant and imperishable moral, and to the scholar it yields a classic result” (232). One who farms with a purpose for life and character is the one who gains the most from farming. Not the one who farms to gain wealth and power. Through hard-work a man can build character, and that is why Thoreau gets into farming.

I agree with Kelcie’s response in how Thoreau in no way, shape or form is he doing this because he has to. He’s farming because he wants to. More importantly, he’s farming to gain self-discipline rather than wealth and self-value in the community.

 

[Zac “Banana” Chamberlin]

Thoreau likes to talk about the simple beauty of the pond by his house and how it can purify one’s soul in “The Ponds.” The sheer beauty of the pond is scene from “The water [that] is so transparent that the bottom can easily be discerned at the depth of twenty-five of thirty feet” (248). The water is so pure and clear that the bottom of the pond can be seen from the top of it. The pure beauty of the pond also displays how “this pond is so remarkable for its depth and purity as to merit a particular description” (247). The water of the pond is a symbol for the purifying of one’s soul. It is a way to rid one of their sins and release their soul to the pure beauty of the pond. The pond also symbolizes the rise and fall of people, and how it can happen so very quickly. The pond’s water can rise in fall in a little amount of time, and the same can be said for people in Thoreau’s eyes. In a time where the water was at it’s highest, Thoreau observes “one rise and a part of two falls, and I expect that a dozen or fifteen years hence the water will again be as low as I ever known it” (251). Just like people, the pond can fall just as easily as it has risen, it just takes one wrong summer. Thoreau doesn’t just see the pond as a normal pond near his house, he sees it more at a metaphor for life.

Noah makes an interesting point when he explains how the pond is used as inspiration which leads to his idea of purification through isolation. Thoreau hints many times throughout this novel that one can achieve more when their alone and Noah did a good job connecting that back to this section.

[Zac “Banana” Chamberlin]

Thoreau in his “Where I Lived and What I Lived For” keens in on how Americans take too much for granted and how we really haven’t done much with our lives. He claims that if we went down to the bare minimum that is needed to survive, then Americans would have accomplished a lot more in their lives. Americans need to “Simplify, simplify… and reduce other things in proportion” (182) because us Americans, “As for work, we haven’t any of any consequence” (183). Thoreau is claiming that Americans need to start buying in to the belief that we should only live on the bare necessities because we haven’t accomplished anything of great importance living with luxury. In Thoreau’s eyes, everything that Americans have done up to this point is unimportant and meaningless. Americans, Thoreau believes, that if we started to live on the necessities rather than the luxuries, we would start to become important again. Today, in the most advanced day and age of history, this theory is still alive as if someone is very successful they would much rather live in luxury rather than on the necessities just because they’re able to live in luxury. People don’t care much for human advancement, and definitely not more than they do about being luxurious.

I enjoyed Max’s quote as I feel that truly displays the beliefs of Thoreau and the injustices of Americans. All people are the same no matter where they live because they all have the same false beliefs. His quote and explanation shined a light on whether one’s rich or poor or successful or in jail, all people are the same in the want and desire for the luxuries of life. It’s just the results of the attempts for the luxuries that differentiate the people from one another.

Zac Chamberlin

[Zac “Banana” Chamberlin]

In the beginning of Thoreau’s “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For”, Thoreau on numerous occasions explains his liking of the Hollowell Farm. The thing that he loved most about it was that the farm was secluded and private. Thoreau liked how the farm was “about two miles from the village, half a mile from the nearest neighbor, and separated from the highway by a broad field” (175-6). Thoreau, unlike most people, liked the idea of the privacy and quietness of the farm. Thoreau was also fond of “the gray color and ruinous state of the house and barn, and the dilapidated fences” (175). Thoreau liked the idea of putting his personal touches on things. He didn’t want to move into a house that was already perfectly done, but rather a place where he can create it himself. A place where he can do whatever he wants with it without being judged because of the distance between his farm and anyone else even relatively close to the farm. While others would hate the loneliness and terribly condition farm, Thoreau would love it because he knows that he just needs to survive, and not live a life of luxury.

I like how T-Dog Corey points out that Thoreau focuses on the necessities of life rather than life’s luxury. Tom points out that the purchase of the farm is a perfect example of this as it’s not luxurious or fantastic, but rather enough to get by. It’s also interesting how Tom points out that most people couldn’t live without interacting with others while Thoreau is capable of this because he focuses on his necessities of living.

Zac Chamberlin

[Zac “Banana” Chamberlin]

As many others have already pointed out, Thoreau states that the necessities of life include “Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel” (120). Now of course, these are very basic principles of life, but obviously ones we couldn’t live without. These four necessities are so important that Thoreau believes would “ever attempt to do it (life) without them” (120). Once all of the necessities of life are combined together “The grand necessity, then, for our bodies, is to keep warm, to keep with the vital heat in us” (121) can be attained through each principle creating it’s own heat. All the necessities are based on creating heat for the body, both internally and externally, to allow one to achieve the “luxuries.”

It is not until “we have secured these [necessities] are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success” (120). After these basic necessities is then when humans can begin to focus on lives luxuries. Thoreau, though, argues that the most intelligent philosophers to live have managed to live with their necessities of life and not with the luxuries that life offers. He notes that “the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor” (122). This is interesting as Thoreau points out that once one can achieve their basic necessities then they should look to spread their knowledge rather than live for the luxuries.

I really like Max’s view on how civilized people are more focused on the luxuries without paying attention to the necessities of life as it relates to my previous paragraph. This is a direct correlation to how the one who owns the least shall know the most as those who don’t focus on lives riches and it’s necessities instead will know more than the wealthier person. Max’s view on civilization today is dead on. As humans used to focus on knowledge over riches, time has passed and so has human perception on the importance of luxuries rather than knowledge.

-Zac Chamberlin

[Author]

Posts