"Insightful response"~I thought it was interesting that Thoreau depicts the “modern” man (for lack of a better word) as a slave of his own possessions. He asserts that the more worldly possessions one owns, the more unhappy with life one is. Perhaps Thoreau is choosing the word “slave” to strengthen his argument; he wrote ‘Walden’ when slavery was still prominent in America.
Question~Mr. Phillips mentioned that a lot of people find Thoreau’s piece almost invalid because he was living on the well-groomed property of his friend, rather than being out in the thick of things. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
Reply to other comments~No one else has posted... shame.
Insightful Response Near the beginning of the text, it was talking about how men are employed to their jobs, such as a farmer, and Thoreau strongly criticises this. He even remarks: "Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?". He says that men labor under a mistake. I would want to know how Thoreau would support himself if he was to turn down a family inheritance. I wonder how he'd make a life for himself, in the way he would want it.
Question What do you think Henry David Thoreau would say to a very rich person, if he got the chance to poke at him with everything he seemed unnecessary, or wrong? Or would he not approach him at all?
Comments: (Isabel's question) I think that it could be invalid, but if he was trying to live simply from that point on, he would have the right to say what he said in the piece. Perhaps he was starting to try to make an effort to live like this when he wrote this.
I have a feeling that Thoreau would start a long, persuasive speech to the rich man about his views towards life or Thoreau might not even bother to tell because the rich man wouldn't understand simplicity when he's filled with luxury. Rather the rich man be glared by Thoreau with disappointment and just walking away.
“Practically, the old have no very important advice to give the young, their own experience has been so partial, and their lives have been such miserable failures, for private reasons, as they must believe; and it may be that they have some faith life which belies that experience, and they are only less young than they were.” (10)
After reading this quote, my eyes sparked with a big yes. I totally agree with Thoreau’s thoughts. Rather being passed down from your ancestors, grandparents and parent’s beliefs, it should be your own decisions to value those ideas. Just because your relatives are thirty or fifty years older than you, it doesn’t mean that they are wise. They just went through many experiences than you did. By confronting your life in a fresh start, each individual would be able to open their doors to discover one’s meaning of life.
Questions
Personally, I wouldn’t say I want to disconcert every passed values, but if I had to choose the two, I would rather take Thoreau’s view so I can find the true meaning of life myself. What do you think? Do you think that the values passed down from your families find YOUR true meaning of life?
I had the exact same thought process as you when I first came upon this paragraph. I also believe that experience is something one must learn and go through themselves and I feel that it is something too personal to be generalized by the views of those who are of an older age. At the same time, I believe that instead of taking the experiences of the elderly and making them your own, one should at least take into consideration the possibilities and the experiences of others, so that one may look at life with a winder more well thought out viewpoint.
Insightful Observation: To start off I think for a man who can't care less about materialism and lives a simple life, Thoreau writes rather complicated. I do however find his way of thinking consist of some truth. The need of possesion only leads to ongoing labor and eventually, "man has no leisure for a true integrity day by day he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men. He has no time to be anything but a machine"( Thoreau ).Unnecessary do require more work economically, but I still think he is the one having a hard life rather than me who lives in a life of "unnecessary need".
Questions: If Thoreau truly understood the virtues and benefits from a simple life, why did he return on being a " sojourner in civilized life", why didn't he just continue on with experimental life. Somehow I feel that he doesn't really support what he wrote
response to Isabel's questions: I would agree, though he says all people need is food, shelter, clothes , and fuel. Shelter was already built for him , and it just turns out the location was next to a pond. Suppose he was to live in a place completely uncivilized , I doubt he would be able to economically support himself nor shelter himself. Catherine
I agree... I think that this proves the ineffectiveness of transcendentalism, and how it sort of contradicts itself. Sure, transcendentalism expresses compelling ideas, such as individualism, like how your self esteem matters more than what others think of you. But, at the same time, living a life of isolation in the midst of nature is, ironically, unnatural. We're social creatures, and we need others to succeed. Take Chris McCandless, a guy in the 90s who went into the middle of Alaska, all alone, in order to "live the life". He even had this very piece with him when he went, and he died of starvation.
Insightful Response Thoreaus use of imagery makes it easier to interact with his writing, the flow is constant and repetition doesn't become tedious for the reader. "they had been in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf" "public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion" "our generation abandons the enterprises of another like stranded vessels"
Question what if Henry David Thoreau was president? what would change? what would stay the same?
Comments: (isabels question) I don't think it makes Thoreau's writing invalid, it only adds humor and playful irony to his character.
If Thoreau was the president, I think he would not create complicated government systems, and keep the nation simple. Some changes will be that labor and jobs will be important as it is now. Thoreau mentions that most men are machine, because they devote themselves in labor too much. I think he would rather say that people should spend more time enjoying nature and luxuries, than work. Things that would stay the same, would be how each individual’s opinions matter which changes the fate. For example, in elections, each individual’s opinion (vote) determines the fate for the new government.
It surprised me that although both Emerson and Thoreau share similar opinions about society, they both have totally different ways of approaching an audience. Emerson seems to be more of an educated expert and I personally think he is a very aggressive writer compared to Thoreau. Thoreau seems to be more laid back, and he also does not push his ideas and beliefs towards his readers as forcefully as Emerson.
Question
I personally enjoyed reading Thoreau’s writing more than I enjoyed reading Emerson’s. Although I cannot 100% agree with everything that he says, I think that Thoreau’s writing was more approachable compared to Emerson’s. What do you think? Who do you think does a better job convincing the reader?
Response
My response is towards Lisa’s question. Recently I had the opportunity to talk with my grandmother who is over eighty years old and has lived through many hardships. She wanted to tell me about her various experiences, which I found very interesting and valuable. Independent journeys to find one’s truth is important and I agree with Thoreau that we can’t depend on the past generations for everything that we know. However, I don’t think it’s right to discard the words of elderly people who have lived their own lives and have a story or a lesson to give to the younger generation. The things that my grandma said may not be my most essential and true value in life, but I think it does have some affect on what I truly think and what I truly value. (By the way, sorry this is long....)
Observation: Thoreau’s views are very transcendental as well as partially ascetic. Material, wealth, and luxury is considered “hindrances to the elevation of mankind”(19). By separating himself from society, he went through a spiritual growth where he reduced his necessity to food, shelter, clothing and fuel only, and thus went through spiritual growth to fulfill the meaning of life.
Question: Though Thoreau discusses the beauty of a simple life associated with nature and minimal necessity, he only spent 2 years and 2 months of that style of life. Is this a long enough experience for him to be making such a statement?
“A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work.” I actually agree with this statement, because this applies to high school students. This quotes talks about how people who is too engaged into work can not enjoy any luxuries and amusements. As a high school student, we study hard everyday, because we have to think about our grades and our future. But if we don’t do anything other than studying, there is no way we can enjoy our life. So to prevent this, we sometimes need to relax and make time for ourselves to devote in what we enjoy.
Intriguing question:
“But men labor under a mistake...By a seeming fate, commonly called necessity, they are employed...It is a fool’s life, as they will find when they get to the end of it, if not before.” Do you feel that work/labor is a waste of time? Would you rather live a simple and slow life without any amuesements, or work very hard to reach luxury?
I know this would go against Thoreau's belief, but I would rather be busy doing labor to gain luxury and wealth. The environment where I live/lived are very materialistic, and shopping is one of my hobbies. I believe that the time and effort I spent for that won't be a waste, since it is my life, and I don't think anyone has the right to classify that as foolish or shallow.
Insightful Response "Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate." (3)
This quote really shows the transcendentalism in this piece. He emphasizes the fact that what we think of ourselves matters more than what other people think of us. This expression of individualism expresses the transcendentalist's distaste of society.
Question On the 5th, and beginning of the 6th, page of the piece, Thoreau talks about heat as a sort of "fuel" for mankind. Does this idea of heat limit man in ability? Could a certain quantity of heat, such as too much or too little, be detrimental to mankind (other than the physical sense, of course)? How could heat be relative to mentality?
Surprsingly, Thoreau's ideas didn't bore me like the others, his writing was quite intriguing to read his opinion on society and materialism. Thoreau convinces his readers through his observations and his ideas are very clear and understandable, unlike the other texts that we read. I think as a part of his "simplistic" approach towards society and materialism, he does not introduce unfamiliar ideas, instead he approaches the audience with a rather familiar and easy concept (at that time period).
Question What advice would Thoreau give to our generation and what will he want us to change about our lifestyle?
Comments (Mami's question) I actually think two years and two months is quite a short period of time, compared to a lot of other people like sadhu's who devote their life trying to achieve three aspects of life. Although sadhu's are trying to achieve something a bit different from Thoreau's ideas, I think Thoreau does not have much experience, but I don't think it would really matter whether he stayed there for 2 years or 15 years. I think what he's trying to state is pretty clear, even with minimal experience, his statements are lucid, so in this situation, it may not matter much.
Intriguing Comment: “The finest qualities of our nature, like the bloom on fruits, can be preserved only by the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another thus tenderly” (Thoreau). I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I disagree with this quote by Thoreau. He says that people working in the fields labour so much that they don’t have time to let their personal qualities grow. I think the opposite. I believe that the finest qualities in man grow much better with labour. The poor people that labour hard have a hard life, and they learn how to overcome the hardships. They also have much less to ask for, which is also a very fine quality. Perseverance, and selflessness. These traits are hard to come by, and are mostly found in hard workers.
Insightful Question: “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them” (Thoreau). This is a quote that I think could be quite controversial. Thoreau says that people who work too hard can’t have better human traits, which they could have had if they didn’t work as hard. This really depends on what the reader thinks of as the finer traits. What do you think are humanities finer fruits? Do you think what Thoreau says is true, or can hard workers also pluck them just as easily?
Reply to Mami: 2 years and 2 months is a long time to be separated from society like he was. Imagine camping, maybe 2-3 nights could be fun? Now imagine camping for 2 years and 2 months, non-stop. Also, Thoreau knows what it’s like to live in a civilized community. This is a man who has lived in both worlds. He is definitely qualified to make the statements he makes. Whether the reader agrees, that’s a different story, but I think he knows what he’s talking about.
I think in some ways this could be true; if you work too hard that are absolutely out of your own natural ability, it will only bring you up to the average level. I feel like spending these time in the things that you have more qualities in, will lead you to a more successful life. I think it's more important to be able to see what to do to get what you want instead of blindly throwing yourself to meaningless goals.
When Thoreau mentioned how the youth could not learn anything from the elderly, it really reminded me of the Catcher in the Rye which conveys a similar idea throughout the point of view of an adolescent. I do not really believe in this idea personally; Although I do understand that the prejudice from the original knowledge may get in the way of creativity, it is not possible in creating anything without the basis built by out previous generations. However, this seems natural from the part of Thoreau who does not believe in innovations nor in the development of comforts.
Question: My question relates to my former observation; Do you believe like Thoreau, that not much can be learned from adults?
Something I found to be quite interesting in this reading, is when Thoreau mentions that "One generation abandons the enterprises of another like stranded vessels" (Thoreau 4). I found to be quite insightful yet so simple at the same time. Through simple observation, one can see that along with a new generation, comes new ideas and fads that soon takes over the same from the generation before. I realized that each generation is adamant to not turn into their parents, and/or the generations before them, when in reality, whether we like it or not, we are the products of our environment. I feel like in a society like ours, we continue to strive to better improve everything around us, whether it is ourselves as a race, or aspects such as technology.
Question:
Do we, as a human race, learn from the mistakes made by the generations before by improving on the original ideas, or by creating new and innovative ideas and solution to somewhat "out-do" past attempts?
Observation: I can very much understand the argument Mr. Phillips told us about in class about how easy it is to live this way on someone else's land after the quote "By a seeming fate,commonly called necessity, they are employed". It is very hard to live when one does not have a job to support one's self and he is simply living jobless on someone's land with an argument with that.
Question: What can we tell about Thoreau by how long he spends explaining why he is going to talk about himself?
Isabel's response:
ReplyDelete"Insightful response"~I thought it was interesting that Thoreau depicts the “modern” man (for lack of a better word) as a slave of his own possessions. He asserts that the more worldly possessions one owns, the more unhappy with life one is. Perhaps Thoreau is choosing the word “slave” to strengthen his argument; he wrote ‘Walden’ when slavery was still prominent in America.
Question~Mr. Phillips mentioned that a lot of people find Thoreau’s piece almost invalid because he was living on the well-groomed property of his friend, rather than being out in the thick of things. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
Reply to other comments~No one else has posted... shame.
Insightful Response
ReplyDeleteNear the beginning of the text, it was talking about how men are employed to their jobs, such as a farmer, and Thoreau strongly criticises this. He even remarks: "Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?". He says that men labor under a mistake. I would want to know how Thoreau would support himself if he was to turn down a family inheritance. I wonder how he'd make a life for himself, in the way he would want it.
Question
What do you think Henry David Thoreau would say to a very rich person, if he got the chance to poke at him with everything he seemed unnecessary, or wrong? Or would he not approach him at all?
Comments:
(Isabel's question) I think that it could be invalid, but if he was trying to live simply from that point on, he would have the right to say what he said in the piece. Perhaps he was starting to try to make an effort to live like this when he wrote this.
I have a feeling that Thoreau would start a long, persuasive speech to the rich man about his views towards life or Thoreau might not even bother to tell because the rich man wouldn't understand simplicity when he's filled with luxury. Rather the rich man be glared by Thoreau with disappointment and just walking away.
DeleteLisa's response:
ReplyDeleteInsightful response
“Practically, the old have no very important advice to give the young, their own experience has been so partial, and their lives have been such miserable failures, for private reasons, as they must believe; and it may be that they have some faith life which belies that experience, and they are only less young than they were.” (10)
After reading this quote, my eyes sparked with a big yes. I totally agree with Thoreau’s thoughts. Rather being passed down from your ancestors, grandparents and parent’s beliefs, it should be your own decisions to value those ideas. Just because your relatives are thirty or fifty years older than you, it doesn’t mean that they are wise. They just went through many experiences than you did. By confronting your life in a fresh start, each individual would be able to open their doors to discover one’s meaning of life.
Questions
Personally, I wouldn’t say I want to disconcert every passed values, but if I had to choose the two, I would rather take Thoreau’s view so I can find the true meaning of life myself. What do you think? Do you think that the values passed down from your families find YOUR true meaning of life?
I had the exact same thought process as you when I first came upon this paragraph. I also believe that experience is something one must learn and go through themselves and I feel that it is something too personal to be generalized by the views of those who are of an older age. At the same time, I believe that instead of taking the experiences of the elderly and making them your own, one should at least take into consideration the possibilities and the experiences of others, so that one may look at life with a winder more well thought out viewpoint.
DeleteInsightful Observation: To start off I think for a man who can't care less about materialism and lives a simple life, Thoreau writes rather complicated. I do however find his way of thinking consist of some truth. The need of possesion only leads to ongoing labor and eventually, "man has no leisure for a true integrity day by day he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men. He has no time to be anything but a machine"( Thoreau ).Unnecessary do require more work economically, but I still think he is the one having a hard life rather than me who lives in a life of "unnecessary need".
ReplyDeleteQuestions: If Thoreau truly understood the virtues and benefits from a simple life, why did he return on being a " sojourner in civilized life", why didn't he just continue on with experimental life. Somehow I feel that he doesn't really support what he wrote
response to Isabel's questions: I would agree, though he says all people need is food, shelter, clothes , and fuel. Shelter was already built for him , and it just turns out the location was next to a pond. Suppose he was to live in a place completely uncivilized , I doubt he would be able to economically support himself nor shelter himself.
Catherine
I agree... I think that this proves the ineffectiveness of transcendentalism, and how it sort of contradicts itself. Sure, transcendentalism expresses compelling ideas, such as individualism, like how your self esteem matters more than what others think of you. But, at the same time, living a life of isolation in the midst of nature is, ironically, unnatural. We're social creatures, and we need others to succeed. Take Chris McCandless, a guy in the 90s who went into the middle of Alaska, all alone, in order to "live the life". He even had this very piece with him when he went, and he died of starvation.
DeleteInsightful Response
ReplyDeleteThoreaus use of imagery makes it easier to interact with his writing, the flow is constant and repetition doesn't become tedious for the reader.
"they had been in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf"
"public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion"
"our generation abandons the enterprises of another like stranded vessels"
Question
what if Henry David Thoreau was president? what would change? what would stay the same?
Comments: (isabels question) I don't think it makes Thoreau's writing invalid, it only adds humor and playful irony to his character.
If Thoreau was the president, I think he would not create complicated government systems, and keep the nation simple. Some changes will be that labor and jobs will be important as it is now. Thoreau mentions that most men are machine, because they devote themselves in labor too much. I think he would rather say that people should spend more time enjoying nature and luxuries, than work. Things that would stay the same, would be how each individual’s opinions matter which changes the fate. For example, in elections, each individual’s opinion (vote) determines the fate for the new government.
DeleteInsightful observation
ReplyDeleteIt surprised me that although both Emerson and Thoreau share similar opinions about society, they both have totally different ways of approaching an audience. Emerson seems to be more of an educated expert and I personally think he is a very aggressive writer compared to Thoreau. Thoreau seems to be more laid back, and he also does not push his ideas and beliefs towards his readers as forcefully as Emerson.
Question
I personally enjoyed reading Thoreau’s writing more than I enjoyed reading Emerson’s. Although I cannot 100% agree with everything that he says, I think that Thoreau’s writing was more approachable compared to Emerson’s. What do you think? Who do you think does a better job convincing the reader?
Response
My response is towards Lisa’s question. Recently I had the opportunity to talk with my grandmother who is over eighty years old and has lived through many hardships. She wanted to tell me about her various experiences, which I found very interesting and valuable. Independent journeys to find one’s truth is important and I agree with Thoreau that we can’t depend on the past generations for everything that we know. However, I don’t think it’s right to discard the words of elderly people who have lived their own lives and have a story or a lesson to give to the younger generation. The things that my grandma said may not be my most essential and true value in life, but I think it does have some affect on what I truly think and what I truly value. (By the way, sorry this is long....)
Observation: Thoreau’s views are very transcendental as well as partially ascetic. Material, wealth, and luxury is considered “hindrances to the elevation of mankind”(19). By separating himself from society, he went through a spiritual growth where he reduced his necessity to food, shelter, clothing and fuel only, and thus went through spiritual growth to fulfill the meaning of life.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Though Thoreau discusses the beauty of a simple life associated with nature and minimal necessity, he only spent 2 years and 2 months of that style of life. Is this a long enough experience for him to be making such a statement?
Insightful observation:
ReplyDelete“A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work.”
I actually agree with this statement, because this applies to high school students. This quotes talks about how people who is too engaged into work can not enjoy any luxuries and amusements. As a high school student, we study hard everyday, because we have to think about our grades and our future. But if we don’t do anything other than studying, there is no way we can enjoy our life. So to prevent this, we sometimes need to relax and make time for ourselves to devote in what we enjoy.
Intriguing question:
“But men labor under a mistake...By a seeming fate, commonly called necessity, they are employed...It is a fool’s life, as they will find when they get to the end of it, if not before.” Do you feel that work/labor is a waste of time? Would you rather live a simple and slow life without any amuesements, or work very hard to reach luxury?
I know this would go against Thoreau's belief, but I would rather be busy doing labor to gain luxury and wealth. The environment where I live/lived are very materialistic, and shopping is one of my hobbies. I believe that the time and effort I spent for that won't be a waste, since it is my life, and I don't think anyone has the right to classify that as foolish or shallow.
DeleteInsightful Response
ReplyDelete"Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate." (3)
This quote really shows the transcendentalism in this piece. He emphasizes the fact that what we think of ourselves matters more than what other people think of us. This expression of individualism expresses the transcendentalist's distaste of society.
Question
On the 5th, and beginning of the 6th, page of the piece, Thoreau talks about heat as a sort of "fuel" for mankind. Does this idea of heat limit man in ability? Could a certain quantity of heat, such as too much or too little, be detrimental to mankind (other than the physical sense, of course)? How could heat be relative to mentality?
Insightful Observation
ReplyDeleteSurprsingly, Thoreau's ideas didn't bore me like the others, his writing was quite intriguing to read his opinion on society and materialism. Thoreau convinces his readers through his observations and his ideas are very clear and understandable, unlike the other texts that we read. I think as a part of his "simplistic" approach towards society and materialism, he does not introduce unfamiliar ideas, instead he approaches the audience with a rather familiar and easy concept (at that time period).
Question
What advice would Thoreau give to our generation and what will he want us to change about our lifestyle?
Comments (Mami's question)
I actually think two years and two months is quite a short period of time, compared to a lot of other people like sadhu's who devote their life trying to achieve three aspects of life. Although sadhu's are trying to achieve something a bit different from Thoreau's ideas, I think Thoreau does not have much experience, but I don't think it would really matter whether he stayed there for 2 years or 15 years. I think what he's trying to state is pretty clear, even with minimal experience, his statements are lucid, so in this situation, it may not matter much.
Intriguing Comment: “The finest qualities of our nature, like the bloom on fruits, can be preserved only by the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another thus tenderly” (Thoreau). I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I disagree with this quote by Thoreau. He says that people working in the fields labour so much that they don’t have time to let their personal qualities grow. I think the opposite. I believe that the finest qualities in man grow much better with labour. The poor people that labour hard have a hard life, and they learn how to overcome the hardships. They also have much less to ask for, which is also a very fine quality. Perseverance, and selflessness. These traits are hard to come by, and are mostly found in hard workers.
ReplyDeleteInsightful Question: “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them” (Thoreau). This is a quote that I think could be quite controversial. Thoreau says that people who work too hard can’t have better human traits, which they could have had if they didn’t work as hard. This really depends on what the reader thinks of as the finer traits. What do you think are humanities finer fruits? Do you think what Thoreau says is true, or can hard workers also pluck them just as easily?
Reply to Mami: 2 years and 2 months is a long time to be separated from society like he was. Imagine camping, maybe 2-3 nights could be fun? Now imagine camping for 2 years and 2 months, non-stop. Also, Thoreau knows what it’s like to live in a civilized community. This is a man who has lived in both worlds. He is definitely qualified to make the statements he makes. Whether the reader agrees, that’s a different story, but I think he knows what he’s talking about.
I think in some ways this could be true; if you work too hard that are absolutely out of your own natural ability, it will only bring you up to the average level. I feel like spending these time in the things that you have more qualities in, will lead you to a more successful life. I think it's more important to be able to see what to do to get what you want instead of blindly throwing yourself to meaningless goals.
DeleteObservation:
ReplyDeleteWhen Thoreau mentioned how the youth could not learn anything from the elderly, it really reminded me of the Catcher in the Rye which conveys a similar idea throughout the point of view of an adolescent. I do not really believe in this idea personally; Although I do understand that the prejudice from the original knowledge may get in the way of creativity, it is not possible in creating anything without the basis built by out previous generations. However, this seems natural from the part of Thoreau who does not believe in innovations nor in the development of comforts.
Question:
My question relates to my former observation; Do you believe like Thoreau, that not much can be learned from adults?
Insightful observation:
ReplyDeleteSomething I found to be quite interesting in this reading, is when Thoreau mentions that "One generation abandons the enterprises of another like stranded vessels" (Thoreau 4). I found to be quite insightful yet so simple at the same time. Through simple observation, one can see that along with a new generation, comes new ideas and fads that soon takes over the same from the generation before. I realized that each generation is adamant to not turn into their parents, and/or the generations before them, when in reality, whether we like it or not, we are the products of our environment. I feel like in a society like ours, we continue to strive to better improve everything around us, whether it is ourselves as a race, or aspects such as technology.
Question:
Do we, as a human race, learn from the mistakes made by the generations before by improving on the original ideas, or by creating new and innovative ideas and solution to somewhat "out-do" past attempts?
Observation:
ReplyDeleteI can very much understand the argument Mr. Phillips told us about in class about how easy it is to live this way on someone else's land after the quote "By a seeming fate,commonly called necessity, they are employed". It is very hard to live when one does not have a job to support one's self and he is simply living jobless on someone's land with an argument with that.
Question:
What can we tell about Thoreau by how long he spends explaining why he is going to talk about himself?