Comments on: Thoreau’s Principles

By: Adam Klug

Adam Klug — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:58:59 +0000

I share the same view with Brook in the case of having just enough money to get by and do what you needed to for survival back in Thoreaus time. I’m just like she is I live paycheck to paycheck and I find it almost impossible sometimes to get by so I dont think that Thoreau would’ve made it in todays times with his lifestyle.

By: Shawn Niemann

Shawn Niemann — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:50:30 +0000

I think Thoreau is sort of reinforcing the idea of anti-Federalism. At first, he came off as anti-law and order, to me. However, as I read further his true colors show and he is more anti-establishment than anything, sort of a proto-hippie, for the lack of a better term and that Thoreau would be most happy in a communal society based on open sharing and limited private property. I believe he is also supporting the idea of subsistence living. Where all of the work of the individual is focused on the growth and support of that individual and their family.

By: Brooke Schramm

Brooke Schramm — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:30:34 +0000

I have to agree with William that money does indeed provide the axis upon which today’s society revolves. I too, like many others, live from one paycheck to the next. It may have been possible in Thoreau’s time to live strictly off of one’s own means, however I do not believe that it is possible in the modern world.

By: William Schwartz

William Schwartz — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:57:59 +0000

As the old saying goes “Money makes the world go around” I believe this. We all need to work to keep us going. We need money to survive. Even if you only work for today, what about tomorrow when you can not work? I would like to have a job that is fun and easy, but I do not have this type of job. I live from paycheck to paycheck, and if I miss a day my world could come down on me. Life is hard.

By: Josh Kasper

Josh Kasper — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:48:50 +0000

I agree what Michelle and Brian say about Thoreau and his idea of not supporting government. I also agree with Chase’s statement about Thoreau does not offer any other ideas on how to change things around. Thoreau makes the comment about working for love instead of money which I think is hard to see. For many people money is everything and they choose a profession because of the money. I think it’s hard to see Thoreau’s logic, but he also points out very interesting questions.

By: Matt Streckenbach

Matt Streckenbach — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:24:14 +0000

I believe Thoreau basically was something between a scholar and a bum. He did not exactly know how it was he was to put his plans to work but they were interesting to think about. He did not live a life like that of other American’s. Money is what makes the world go around. Thoreau although he brings up many good questions to American society and it’s problems, did not live the typical life of a American. Therefore had a somewhat scewed view upon daily life.

By: Adam Reidinger

Adam Reidinger — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:47:19 +0000

What confused me about “Life Without Principle” was Thoreau’s stance against those who did labor for money. He states that men should do their work not for money but because they love to do it. That opens up a couple different questions for me such as what was the point of working for someone for free? Even if you enjoy doing something there’s no reason to endure grueling work for mere satisfaction of getting a job done. Volunteer work can be very self satisfying, but it certainly won’t enable you to survive without receiving some sort of monetary compensation. Thoreau states “The ways by which you may get money almost without exception lead downward.” Money is needed to survive in society, there is just no way around it. I wonder, much like Chase stated earlier, what Thoreau expected people to do?

By: Thomas Matuszak

Thomas Matuszak — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:36:01 +0000

Thoreau in this essay seems to be very full of him self as Prof. Voelker mentioned. He writes about looking down out of his window at all the working men and women. Thoreau puts himself above everyone else, explaining that the only way to work is to love it, not merely to do it for money. I do see Thoreau point in we must find something we love and do it to sustain us through life, but as Brian and Chase said he give no solution to the problem. With that he puts him self even further above everyone else, showing that he can do it, why cant you.

By: Anders Thompson

Anders Thompson — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:04:14 +0000

Thoreau in “Principles” and “Disobedience” seems to maintain a dichotomy consisting of critiquing society while remaining aloof of things beyond that critique. He provides no concrete reforms like Chase argued, and his life would appear to revolve around living as he sees fit and attacking the existing social structure. Any commentary beyond his critiques are seemingly nonexistent. Many of his claims are indeed thought provoking and well reasoned, Richard does a great job condensing some of his criticisms, and it is for these reasons that his ideas should be considered legitimate commentary. What doesn’t seem so believable about his philosophy is the simple claim that letting all people to themselves will fix societal ills seems almost naive coming from a man who had such insightful complaints to level against society.

By: richard Baker

richard Baker — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:25:37 +0000

Thoreau criticizes the way we are obsessed with business and politics, that it is generally hollow and narrow, and we seem to be absorbed in it by what we print in our news and what predominates our conversations. He laments, “business! I think there is nothing, not even crime, more opposed to poetry, to philosophy, ay, to life itself, than this incessant business” and observes that society wrongly sees a person inclined to profit of thought, rather than monetary wealth, as an idler. He surely examines transcendental self worth in the phrase, “Do not hire a man who does not work for money, but him who does it for love of it” and compares himself to and prefers the the man who is not materially successful but “aims to the horizon” over the other one who is considered successful. No one that gambles at the “lottery” of digging gold can compare to the “cultivated” man that lives in peace with few wants. He states a contempt for politics and even the “intellectual” as morally weak, “we do not ourselves rest on an underpinning of our granite truth… Our sills are rotten” and is dismayed with our claim of freedom labeling Americans as “slaves of King Prejudice” as he encourages us to focus on “the private state” asking, “what is the value of any political freedom, but as a means to moral freedom?”. I think Thoreau hits the nail on the head when he notes our political freedom does not equate to true freedom and claims, “[we are] slaves of an economical and moral tyrant”. Who cannot concur with Thoreau that “devotion to trade and commerce and manufactures and agriculture … are but means, and not the end”?