Walden

[The squirrel tribe tried the same and succeeded. ]

I think this is such a funny way of saying humans have become overcivilized. By pointing out the fact squirrels survive off of unprocessed food, Throeau is saying humans are greatly underestimating their natural abilities relying too much on industrial convivences. We have overcomplicated what it means to survive.

You raise an important question, here, @toriwebster! You might find it interesting to look at a comment from @annaenright on the previous paragraph. Anna notes the similarity between what Thoreau seems to think a good college education should include—hands-on learning in real-world situations—and the educational reforms that have created just such opportunities in our own time.

I’m grateful for the college education I received myself, but I can also think of a lot of things to criticize about it. (Some of the professors I had … oy …) I hope that doesn’t make me a hypocrite. 🙂

As for living off the grid, Thoreau doesn’t actually say that others should do it. See paragraph 106: “One young man of my acquaintance, who has inherited some acres, told me that he thought he should live as I did, if he had the means. I would not have any one adopt my mode of living on any account; for, beside that before he has fairly learned it I may have found out another for myself, I desire that there may be as many different persons in the world as possible; but I would have each one be very careful to find out and pursue his own way, and not his father’s or his mother’s or his neighbor’s instead.”

I do think he’s aware of his privilege, and that this is one reason he goes out of his way to underscore that Walden isn’t an argument for living in the woods; it’s an argument for self-examination and independence. Living in the woods was Thoreau’s way of creating space for self-examination and seeking independence. It needn’t be anyone else’s, whether they have the privilege to do it or not.

But privilege or not, would you agree that it’s a good thing to ask yourself what’s of true value to you and then seek that, whether or not conventional opinion approves?

Love these questions, @alexcampitiello. They’re great ones for everyone to keep in mind as they’re making their way through Walden. Are there other passages, earlier in the book, that might hold some clues to answers?

I’m glad you singled out this passage, @daphnepl! There’s a lot going on in this paragraph and the next, and the thoughts Thoreau expresses here have generated much interpretive commentary from readers. Thoreau does seem like the sort of person who would feel too proud to accept help from others, and he’s definitely skeptical of those who self-identify as philanthropists. But I don’t know that this means he would disagree that “good deeds, volunteer work or philanthropy” are helpful to society. Paragraph 106 suggests to me that what really bugs him is people who are philanthropic just to quiet their own consciences or to feel good about themselves. (He’s also deeply allergic to people who come knocking on his door in an effort to make him a better person.) One of the most striking sentences in paragraph 106 is the one that begins, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root . . .” What do you make of it?

@skyriedell In Genesis 3:19 the Lord tells Adam and Eve that because they disobeyed and ate the forbidden fruit, they will henceforth have to earn their bread “by the sweat of thy brow” (“face” in the King James Version.) That is, the work of simply keeping themselves alive will be a hardship. Thoreau is joking here that if you go about it the right way it’s not such a hardship after all—it’s really “no sweat.”

You make a great point about enjoying the “little parts of life.” What are some examples of this enjoyment in Walden?

These are really smart questions, @marleapetroziello. I do think one of his aims in going to live at Walden Pond is to test the limits of what a person truly needs in life. He starts with the absolute minimum—food, shelter, clothing—and wants to know what life requires beyond that.  I don’t think he ever gives us an answer, or even answers the question for himself definitively. But for the purpose of his experiment, perhaps he doesn’t need to. What he’s ultimately convinced of is that his neighbors stress themselves out in the pursuit of enough wealth to have what they believe they need, and that this is much less than they actually do need to live well. I think you’ve nailed it in saying he wants to “challenge readers’ assumptions about what they truly need.”

But in doing this, perhaps he’s trying to more as well. His readers’ assumptions are tied to their values. Does he want, more than anything else, just to get them to ask themselves what is of true value to them—rather than to go through life without ever thinking about values or, just as bad, simply accepting what’s conventionally valued?

As for the humor and song—especially the humor—stay on the lookout for other examples. Comment where you find them. I suspect he believes that humor lightens the mood of his writing and that an audience (either readers or listeners) would appreciate that.

I agree with you, @averyw, that there’s a lot in this paragraph to chew on! I like your point that Thoreau may be trying to walk a line between raising questions and criticizing harshly (although he doesn’t seem to hold back too much on the criticism!). I agree, too, that there are some differences in motivation behind the building of the pyramids and the building of the US Bank. Is there nevertheless a common thread that connects them? What do you see as the general contrast in this paragraph between architecture/monuments on the one hand, and culture (“manners,” “free speech,” etc.) on the other?

The passage makes me want to know why Thoreau pushes his ideas to such extremes, like giving up salt or making sweeteners from pumpkins. Is he being fully serious, or is he exaggerating to challenge readers’ assumptions about what they truly need? I’m also curious why he mixes practical detail with humor and song, which makes his argument feel more engaging and less like a lecture.

This sentence makes me curious to know more about Thoreau’s way of thinking. Mainly because I am not completely sure what he means by “unless he sweats easier than I do,” but also because this paragraph itself and its meaning are very intriguing to me. His point of living simply so that you can truly enjoy the little parts of life more is really interesting to me and definitely gives me a new perspective to think about.

[A man is not a good man to me because he will feed me if I should be starving, or warm me if I should be freezing, or pull me out of a ditch if I should ever fall into one. ]

I am fascinated about Thoreau’s opinion that philanthropy and the act of doing a good deed does not necessarily make you a good person. In this paragraph, Thoreau has a very critical, sharp tone describing the idea that he would rather “suffer evil the natural way” than receive help from an ill-intentioned person who does have true respect or good intentions for the help. I am just curious about his take, because the majority of society in todays day views good deeds, volunteer work or philanthropy as giving back and being a helpful member of society. Thoreau challenges this idea and is willing to withstand the hardships of life by himself versus receiving help from someone who might not truly care about him. This paragraph emphasizes another lesson Thoreau learned about the true meaning of life and makes me curious to know why he is so critical of this aspect of society.