Assignment 3: Taking Thoreau's lead, can you imagine ways in which our technologically affected lives can be wedded with a sensual acuity for nature?

“Grass is hard and dumpy and damp, and full of dreadful black insects.”

I came across this sentence by Oscar Wilde, taken from his essay “The Decay Of Lying - An Observation”, in my English class a long time ago. I remember exactly my surprise upon reading it, and this surprise is the reason why I still remember the quote at all: The fact that someone would be so blunt, so honest as to admit that they are actually not that fond of nature astonished me. I had read so many poems that praised the beauty of nature, and felt like art in general was always in favour of nature, either imitating or praising it. “People tell us that Art makes us love Nature more than we loved her before; that it reveals her secrets to us; and that after a careful study of Corot and Constable we see things in her that had escaped our observation. My own experience is that the more we study Art, the less we care for Nature. What Art really reveals to us is Nature's lack of design, her curious crudities, her extraordinary monotony, her absolutely unfinished condition”, Oscar Wilde's essay goes on. The man-made as superior to nature? What a megalomaniac and arrogant idea! What are we, after all, compared to the great and sometimes destructive power of nature? In “Sounds”, the fourth chapter of “Walden”, Thoreau shows that the relation between nature and man with all his inventions doesn't have to be a competitive one. He lets the man-made and the natural become one in a beautiful metaphore: “Sometimes, on Sundays, I heard the bells, the Lincoln, Acton, Bedford, or Concord bell, when the wind was favorable, a faint, sweet, and, as it were, natural melody, worth importing into the wilderness. At a sufficient distance over the woods this sound acquires a certain vibratory hum, as if the pine needles in the horizon were the strings of a harp which it swept.” (Thoreau 66). But is it still possible to reconcile nature and technology so easily nowadays? What has the majority of people rather experienced—Wilde or Thoreau?

My idea of the connection between technology and nature it is instinctively a quite negative one. Looking at all our modern technologies, are there any that actually coalesce man with nature? There are certainly instances that would earn general consent: modern science constantly brings new discoveries concerning the way nature works, disclosing mysteries and discovering new wonders; nature documentaries show us more than we could ever see with our own eyes; magnificent high power telescopes admit us fascinating views of planets and galaxies. But as always, there are two sides of the coin. Do we really get a closer connection to nature because our knowledge about it has increased, because we can “optimise” our perception of the surrounding world?

Thoreau enjoys the way the sound of bells coalesces with the sounds of the woods and thus, in a way, becomes one with nature. We live in a time when technology is so omnipresent that birds have actually been reported to imitate ring tones. Would Thoreau celebrate this coalescence of technology and nature? He would probably rather be alarmed. After all, there is a huge difference between the 19^th century and today. In Thoreau's time, the impact of industrialization had still been moderate, the fatal consequences for nature not yet being apparent. Today things look differently: pollution, global warming and nuclear disasters are prove of the high price we pay to satisfy our hunger for technology. Furthermore, one relation must not be forgotten: the more technology we consume, the more energy we need, and this energy is—and I sincerely hope that is it legitimate to say “still”—to a large part produced in a way that harms nature.

Thoreau's idea of the man-made and the natural supporting one another is a desirable one and shows what should be aspired by mankind: the brotherly cooperation or at least coexistence of technology and nature. Still I can't help but think that it is also a utopian idea. The power and divinity of nature is not something the average human being in our society appreciates. Instead we worship technology: mobile phones, laptops, games consoles and television is what we spend far more time with and what we enjoy most. Yes, nature is beautiful, impressive, sublime, and should by all means be preserved. But let's admit it: most people would rather go to the cinema, surf the web or skype a friend than actively engage with nature. In the end, I think that technology rather alienates us from nature.

Works cited:

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden or Life in the Woods. USA: Popular Classics Publishing, 2012. Print.

Wilde, Oscar. The Decay of Lying. New York: Brentano, 1905 [1889]. UCLA. Web. 31 December 2013 <http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/steen/cogweb/Abstracts/Wilde_1889.htm>

Assignment 2: How would Thoreau react to today's more complex, phantasmagorical technological advancements and social media?

It is a general belief that always being available, as it is the custom nowadays, can be blessing and curse at once. Why should it be a curse, you wonder? You couldn't imagine to live without modern means of communication? The idea of doing without your phone for a longer period of time makes you uneasy, the mere thought of deleting your facebook account sends a shiver down your spine? Then it might be high time that you occupy yourself with Henry David Thoreau's “Walden; or, Life in the Woods”. The ideas and convictions expressed in this book, published in 1854, are by no means outdated. On the contrary, applying them in modern times gives us new insights into our current way of living and shows it from a new perspective. And although we can of course only guess what a deceased writer and philosopher like Thoreau would think about our modern world, it is safe to assume that he would not approve of our social media system, neither of all our other technological advancements.

In his first chapter “Economy” he clearly advocates the idea that improvement is not always for the better, and that not everything that is new automatically outranks the preceding: “As with our colleges, so with a hundred 'modern improvements'; there is an illusion about them; there is not always a positive advance.” (Thoreau 29)

There are surely some technological advancements that probably not even Thoreau would venture to criticise in earnest, for instance in medicine; yet a large part of today's comforts and advancements has to do with communication, globalization and entertainment. Thoreau's attitude towards news and gossip—which for him is more or less the same—becomes clear in his second chapter “Where I lived, and what I lived for”: “[...] I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper. […] To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip […] If one may judge who rarely looks into the newspapers, nothing new does ever happen [...]” (Thoreau 52f). To him, news is not only useless but also uninteresting. Therefore it can be taken for granted that he would consider new inventions like television, telephone, computer, internet, mobile phones, and social media, that serve to improve and accelerate communication and the exchange of information between people around the world, as needless as well. Thoreau even goes one step further and leaves no doubt of what he would think of what we consider today's advantages: “Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things.” (Thoreau 29)

              Does that mean our technological advances only serve to lead us astray and further from the truth? Although I would not want to miss certain technological advancements one cannot say that they have brought us any closer to real truths. On the whole, we are certainly not more likely to experience God, to discover the purpose of our existence or the meaning of life. Mankind does not live more happily because they can tweet “good night”; neither has television been very enriching for our conversations. With regard to the search for the truth of life one can't help but agree with Thoreau: these advancements are not only unnecessary but even a procrastinating distraction. Thoreau tried to live ascetically and minimalisticly in order “to front only the essential facts of life”, and because he “did not wish to live what was not life” (Thoreau 51). Clearly a society as dependent on technology, materialistic and superficial as ours could not be further from this ideal and must, therefore, be considered full of “shams and delusions” (Thoreau 53).

Works cited:

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden or Life in the Woods. USA: Popular Classics Publishing, 2012. Print.

Assignment 1: Compare and contrast these two perspectives. Are they contradictory or complimentary?

Henry David Thoreau and Marilynne Robinson are certainly two writers that could, at the first glance, not be more different: Thoreau being a 19th century transcendentalist philosopher, Robinson a Calvinist essayist and novelist born in 1934. The fact that they lived and live respectively in different times and therefore under very different conditions, with different topics being important, must almost necessarily lead to different views of things—or must it? At second glance the parallels can be perceived: both think and write about a society that has, on the whole, changed less than could be expected.

Thoreaus's world-famous work “Walden” describes his experiences throughout his 2 years of living in the woods near Walden Pond, leading an austere and autonomous life in close communion with nature. True happiness, he claims, cannot be found by “spending […] the best part of one's life earning money in order to enjoy a questionable liberty during the least valuable part of it” (Thoreau 30). This could be avoided by overcoming the common practice of specializing on one certain business and the division of labour. According to him, procuring for oneself is not only the cheapest way of living but also the method by which independence, freedom and leisure are to be effectuated in the best way. Although he acknowledges the importance of the companionship of others, he refuses the idea that it is necessary. His principle of self-reliance includes not only the economical but also the social aspect.

In her essay “Night Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist” Marylinne Robinson succeeds in drawing a line from the ultimate question about the meaning of human life to the political aspects of society: the different ideologies and their success or failure, the varying roles of America, Russia and China, the atomic bomb and the best way to live together peacefully. She admits an abundance of grave mistakes in the history of mankind, but does not lose her faith in humanity. To her, Western society is characterized by the way individuals work together, and can only prosper if this togetherness is maintained: “Western society will bear its best fruit if we respect, educate, inform and trust one another” (Robinson 5).

By arguing against the division of labour Thoreau also speaks out against the dependance on others. Instead of theoretical acquisition of knowledge he recommends a practical, hands-on manner of learning: “[The students] should not play life, or study it merely, while the community supports them at this expensive game, but earnestly live it from beginning to end.” (Thoreau 29). Marylinne Robinson, in contrast, thinks that “educating and informing […] one another” (Robinson 5) is an important part of Western society. Briefly speaking: Thoreau advocates an autonomous, independent lifestyle that does not necessarily exclude others, but is not dependent on them, while Robinson emphasizes the necessity of social cohesion and cooperation. In this point, therefore, the two authors differ significantly.
The reason for this difference becomes clear when one considers the attitude towards society that these two writers have: In the first chapter of “Walden” Thoreau describes society as materialist, superficial, sometimes greedy and to a great extent unhappy—on the whole a considerably negative view of society, whereas Robinson has, on the whole, a positive image of American society and even calls herself passionately loyal (cf Robinson 7).

I think that, at the core, mankind has never changed much. Living contently and peacefully together has always been theoretically possible but practically never truly materialized. This fact leads Thoreau and Robinson to different solutions: self-sufficiency versus cooperation, independence versus reliance on others. But one thing they have in common,and that is trust—one in nature, the other in the good in man. And, in the end, is man not part of nature?

Works cited:

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden or Life in the Woods. USA: Popular Classics Publishing, 2012. Print.

Robinson, Marylinne. "Night Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist". In: The Nation, 2011. Web. 30 December 2013 <http://www.thenation.com/article/164466/night-thoughts-baffled-humanist>
 

Assignment 4 - Chap. "Higher Laws" - Can there be universal moral ideas, while, at the same time, our individual consciences are authoritative arbiter of right and wrong?

       If I was to answer the question what should be valued higher—the moral backbone of a society and their shared ethics, or the individual conscience of those being part of it—I could not give a proper answer, as both go hand in hand. Are we not incredibly easy to influence at a young age and make up our morals, as we are taught to? We might rethink of course, but can we ever really leave of ethics, that have been implanted into our brains by parents, teachers or television? At the same time, any universal moral ideas would have to made up of the understanding of ethics by the people, by us, society consist of. The question would really rather be: How does change happen, when we are constantly influenced by society, while at the same time, we are part of it and potentially could influence it to some extend? I would also like to take into consideration that any universal moral ideas would be highly influenced by those in power—namely companies or politicians, who would like to benefit in one way or another. Modern ideologies, such as the system of capitalism, have extensive influence on what we consider morally acceptable on a personal basis.

       As Thoreau talks in his chapter “Higher Laws” about the consumption of meat, I would like to use the concept of carnism as a springboard here: In Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism the author Melanie Joy describes an ideology to be “a shared set of beliefs, as well as the practices that reflect these beliefs” (Joy 30). A little illustration might clarify how personal attitudes are shaped by dominant ideologies and the moral ideas resulting from them. Imagine being a father or a mother. You have a girl at the age of seven—an age of many questions. From an early age on, you have of course taught your child to be kind to animal, not to pull the dogs tail or set bugs on fire. What you have been taught in you own childhood and what you teach your daughter is simply ''normal'' behaviour, it is what all the other parents teach their children, as you like your daughter to grow up and become a caring and generally ''good'' person. Little thought is put into this until your little girl asks you, where meat is coming from. As in most families you eat meat on a regular basis and are faced with the dilemma of explaining, that meat comes in fact from animals—animals that, by the evolved moral standards of your daughter should not be hurt. At this point the parent becomes an agent of the ideology and its questionable and quite purposeful morals.

    

        So in my opinion, yes, there can be universal moral ideas, which of course we experience presently. For example racism and sexism is considered wrong, eating animal products however is fine. A while ago sexism and racism were widely accepted, even so fought by groups not belonging to the majority. It took a while to take over, but eventually did, when even the ones that benefited from slavery came to see, that black and white are very poor categories of dividing people into groups or classes. The individual conscience is influenced by the current universal moral ideas, but as human beings we have an aptitude for logic and the universal ideas taught us in early years will influence our individual conscience more than we might realize. As I personally consider the logic behind the ethic of meat consumption, as outlined in the above example, quite poor, I will, if I might ever have a seven year old child, express different moral standards and therefore possibly change societies universal moral ideas of the future. 

E.J.

Works Cited

Joy, Melanie. 2010. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cowns: An Introduction to Carnism. San Francisco: Red Wheel/Weiser, LLC. Print.

Assignment 3 - Chap. "Sounds" - Can you imagine ways in which our technologically affected lives can be wedded with a sensual acuity for nature?

         Sometimes, on Sundays, I heard the bells, the Lincoln, Acton, Bedford, or Concord bell, […], a  

         faint, sweet, and, as it were, natural melody, worth importing into the wilderness. […] It is not 

         merely a repetition of what was worth repeating in the bell, but partly the voice of the wood 

         […] 

        (Thoreau 80)

        As this quote shows, Thoreau combines the nativeness of the forest with the sound generated by man-made bells. He even goes further that this, and says, that this artificial sound echoes the wilderness and becomes part of the forest. In my experience, junctions between nature and technology can be found nowadays more often that ever.

      Take photography for instance, the process of going out, and into nature, with the intended purpose to find something worth photographing and then consequently taking a picture for preservation of this moment and the beauty of, lets just say, a deer on a clearance for example. It is not intended to change nature in any way, but with the help of technology, a brief second can be preserved and recalled to one's mind. In a way, the soul, or spirit, of the moment, which of course has long gone, returns to mind—and so do all the feelings of the moment the picture was taken, maybe exhaustion felt after a long walk, the fresh air, and the sounds of the forest.

      While outdoor photography is only one example, many other modern hobbies rely on technological advances to the actually happening outdoors. Geocaching would also be a great example, relying on GPS as navigation technique for finding a pretty much senseless box, containing small items of little to non value. Wandering about outdoors with the purpose to find one of these containers, or ''caches'', has little to do with the GPS technology used. Instead a modern need of experiencing nature is satisfied through giving outdoor activities sense again, as many of us would not really need to leave the house and spend time in a forest or on a field for any other purpose than enjoyment. In a way, technology therefore helps to connect and experience nature again.

E.J.

Works Cited:

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. New York: Cosimo Classics, 2009. Print. 

Chapter 11: What is Right? What is Wrong? What is Ideal?

The question about right and wrong has troubled humanity since its existence—what is ethical or moral has changed over time. However, there are a few things everybody can agree on: What seems to be good for one, does not automatically need to be good for the other. Nevertheless, humanity needs some universal rules, for example the human rights, to guarantee every single person the right and opportunity to live a dignified life. This common denominator has to work on a paramount level, independently of an individual's opinion about right and wrong.

Before looking for an answer about universal moral ideals, one is already troubled by the complexity of the question: Why is it so hard to tell what is right and wrong? Is there a universal right and wrong standing above humanity, or are these invented categories of humankind? Just because we are conscious about what we do, does this mean that we are capable of knowing what is right and wrong?

If there is a universal right and wrong that stands above humanity, then it must come from somewhere; this somewhere many people call God. When people believe in God, they have no difficulty to confirm that there is a universal right and wrong—but the question is, even if people do not believe in (a) God, is there still (a) God and therefor a universal right and wrong?

In reality however, universal moral ideals are defined by societies; and societies are people; and people are influenced by the balance of power within the society. Because we hesitate to believe in people (history has taught us to be very careful believing in a powerful person), it is difficult to define what is right and wrong, and what is ideal. It is easier to believe in something superhuman that is uncoupled from the human head that guides us through the doubts of life.

Because people are so unreliable, humankind needs something that is always valid. This does not mean that people should turn themselves in—it does mean that there should be universal moral guidelines people can orientate themselves in order to work for the best possible mutual way of life, including any living creature on this world. However, this is an always active process of moral, ethical, and social development, evolution, and change; thus “humanity has, we may hope, a long road of moral development ahead of it” (Nagel). 

1) Thomas Nagel, “You Can't Learn About Morality From Brain Scans,” The New Republic, 1 Nov. 2013, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115279/joshua-greenes-moral-tribes-reviewed-thomas-nagel/ (accessed 29 Dez. 2013). 

Assignment 2 - Chap. “Where I Lived, and What I lived For” - How would Thoreau react to today's more complex, phantasmagorical technological advancements and social media?

       Once upon a time, long before facebook, smartphones, and the all mighty Internet itself—to be precise in the year 1854, over 150 years ago—the philosopher Henry David Thoreau criticized the lack of many people to be able “to steadily observe reality only, and not allow themselves to be deluded” (Thoreau 62) by so called ''news'', which Thoreau debunks as gossip (cf. Thoreau 61). Considering how this is in fact not a fairytale, how might Thoreau react if he had ever been confronted with the world we currently live in? Social media, technological advancements like smartphones, or television; a society based on complex networking in today's rush of information, much of which I have hardly ever seen any poof of to be true, have made the world far more surreal, than I often realize. Might this be Thoreau's worst nightmare?

        In the second chapter of his book Walden, namely “Where I Lived, and What I lived For”, Thoreau explains how he considers the main problem of the deluded people of his time is, that their “vision does not penetrate the surface of things” (Thoreau 62). But what does this mean? What is under the surface? What is it that they, and possibly also the people of today's word, are not seeing? The way I understand Thoreau, is, that what the people see lacks the implied whole of fascination and upcoming questions behind it. At the same time, there is no real truth to be found, only the right questions and thoughts are supposed to be raised in ones mind, to lift the shadow of simply consuming information, instead of questioning and thereby actually understanding it. I therefore think that, confronted with today's society, he would still criticize it in the same way. More information is possible to gather, but little experienced and little scrutinized. Growth of the mind and what Thoreau considers a ''worthy living'' might be harder than ever in contemporary society.

        Personally though, I am not sure if I would agree with Thoreau, simply because he bases his argumentation on this assumption: “In eternity there is indeed something true and sublime” (Thoreau 62). As a philosopher of course, this is something he can easily say, but as a (not yet graduated) sociologist I rather assume, that ''truth'' is created in a sociological process and never sublime in itself. In this sense, social media and such is not god nor bad in itself, but just a modern tool used for creation of reality and truth—as both is not static and needs to be constantly recreated to keep ''existing'' at all.

E.J.

Works Cited:

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. New York: Cosimo Classics, 2009. Print. 

Assignment 1 - Chap. "Economy" - Compare and contrast the perspectives of Thoreau and Robinson.

        Taking a rather individualistic approach philosopher and essayist Henry David Thoreau pursuits in the opening chapter of his book Walden how happiness collides with an austere lifestyle—a concept he understands as the suffering of self inflicted privations he lives by throughout the two year-period described in the latter book. Thoreau describes these two years and two months he lived besides Walden Pond, outlining his opinion on various topics and concerning how to live a ''good life'' in particular. He also addresses and discusses the practical issues of providing for himself in his self chosen solitude. A ''good life'' herby becomes one of earning and hard work; interestingly enough, being a philosopher himself does not prevent Thoreau to break down the essence of existence to an equation as simple as this: “None of the brute creation requires more than Food an Shelter” (Thoreau 7). This minimalistic, yet indisputably correct, view of the world and its inhabitants leads him to the conclusion, that one can only live a ''good life'' in this sense by abdicating the system of support laid out by family and society. In Thoreau's perceptions an earnestly lived life already holds all the knowledge that may come to those, who try to study it from the outside, while not properly taking part in it—the need of providing for oneself, the actual every day work of one living by Thoreau's ideal of an earnest life, pays off with fruitful leisure, instead of futile boredom.

        In a hardly compatible sense Marilynne Robinson addresses the social safety nets, Thoreau only sees as obstructive in the philosophical sense of living an earnest live, and its considerable advantages when it comes to the perception, creation and excellence of autonomy and safety in contemporary society. Needles to say, Robinson sees great advantages and prospects in the interacting with the social safety nets surrounding us. Ideally, networking within these nets of social safety happens on a base of respect, trust, information and a constant mutual education on behalf of the involved parties and individuals (cf. Robinson).

        Based on their different approaches I consider Robinson and Thoreau of little affinity. Simply by situating them in their context of their time and the according society gives me two very different expressions of their experienced possibilities. While Thoreau has a more philosophic view facing inwards on his rather introverted idea of happiness based on an earnest living (he applies more or less easily on himself), Robinson lives in a time of globalization and networking as a huge possibility for the acquirement of the exact information possibly needed to succeed at ones enterprises—therefore exploring a very extroverted and more purposeful guide for ones life. I therefore consider their ideas of neither contradictory nor complimentary, but simply addressing two different matters from two equally differential points of view.

E.J.

Works Cited:

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. New York: Cosimo Classics, 2009. Print.

Robinson, Marilynne. “Night Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist” in The Nation. 2011. Web. 28 December 2013 <www.thenation.com/print/article/164466/night-thoughts-baffled-humanist>.

Assignment 5: Thoreau sees bravery, intelligence and spiritual depth in the instinctual behavior of animals. Can it be that some of the character traits we most admire in other persons are also matters of instinct, as with the animals in this passage? If character is a matter of insouciant instinct, can we condemn those who don't have it? Cf. Menand, “We think that sucking it up, mastering our fears is a sign of character. But do we think that people who are naturally fearless lack character? We usually think the opposite. Yet those people are just born lucky.”

The perception of character is difficult to investigate because it is something that most people do subconsciously rather than being aware of it. It takes a specific hint or request to make someone notice, how much they really analyze other people’s behaviors in their everyday lives. And it is often not in a positive way. Humans like to gossip and make fun of others, you just have to turn on the TV to realize that is what 80 % of the entertainment consists of and therefore sells. So when talking about character, there is no way around digging deep into people’s minds to reveal what is truly underneath the surface. However, this is quite difficult and even if you get people to answer your questions, you can never be sure whether they are telling the truth instead of embellishing themselves in order to appear as a good person.

                Why do we surround ourselves with certain people in our lives? Is it because we have much in common? Or maybe because we can benefit from them? Or is it because we sincerely like their character? Whether it is love or friendship, it should be the first and the latter in order to maintain a long-lasting relationship. Still, there is this one question to answer. What makes us like the other person’s character, while we think other people are just stupid and therefore do not become friends with them? Several reasons can be listed here, because obviously everybody’s priorities are different. Nevertheless, there are some traits that are generally considered desirable, like politeness, helpfulness, altruism and a few more. Apart from these, opinions differ on this question. The ones just mentioned are things we get taught within the frame of education, whether it was from our parents or at school. There is no special skill that we need in order to acquire these. A person, who has internalized all of these, may be likeable but are they also admirable? Most people would probably answer this with a “no”, because it takes something extraordinary to be admired.     “Charisma” is one of the expressions that people use frequently, when they come across such an extraordinary individual. Other admirable personality traits that not everybody has are – amongst others – persistence, sincerity, mental strength, and the discipline to pull oneself together when it is necessary. The interesting thing about this is that even though it often seems as if people who have these traits were just born lucky – which is sometimes indeed the case – it is more often accounted for by imitational learning. This “learning by watching” principle begins in early childhood and in the best case never stops. This, of course, is a highly discussed topic in psychology and child development (nature vs. nurture), which has evoked much commotion. I personally believe that it is a mixture of the two. Sometimes, people are just gifted and other times they subconsciously imitate the actions of their parents and other family members. The important thing is that due to all the reasons above, it would be audacious to judge people by their strength of character, because we can never know, how this behavior has been acquired and how much input the person had in it.

Being judgmental is commonly known as an undesirable trait.

Assignment 3: Taking Thoreau's lead, can you imagine ways in which our technologically affected lives can be wedded with a sensual acuity for nature?

In a world where technology rises up rapidly, the nature fades into the background easily.
Though the nature is not only all creatures, including animals and plants, but also humans. And we all have a relationship of dependence. Also the human being is dependent on creature as well as on lifeless nature. Human being fabricates new machinery constantly to capture the nature and consequently to reduce the life on earth.

At that moment the closer connection between the technology and the nature begins. With the aid of technology we can get closer to the nature. For example with weather reports we can arrange our days and we can see into the future.
Certainly, the technology causes the opposite too: It veers us away from the nature.
While there are so many admirable natural phenomena in front of our doors, we are to busy and exited because of the new technical developments. That's the reason that we don't notice anything around us anymore. Mostly, we even don't have the time for the nature anymore. School, job, university and leisure activities - all these things occupies much time of our lives.
Especially it restrains us from relaxing and powering down, in the true sense of the word.

"Sometimes, in a summer morning, having taken my accustomed bath, I sat in my sunny doorway from sunrise till noon, rapt in a revery, amidst the pines and hickories and sumachs, in undisturbed solitude and stillness, while the birds sang around or flitted noiseless through the house, until by the sun falling in at my west window, or the noise of some traveller's wagon on the distant highway. I was reminded of the lapse of time." ( Thoreau 72)

Can you remember a moment, when you spent time a whole day in the nature?
I don't mean some hours in the park, while you have a conversation with you friend and you're playing with your mobile phone. I am talking about a moment, where you have nothing to do, nothing in your mind and you just enjoy the time in the nature.
To be honest, I don't remember a moment like this. More precisely I don't know if I can imagine a day without any technical influences. What would I miss during that time?
However, what do we miss from the nature while agitating day after day in our lives and while we want to be up to date regarding the technical progress all the time?

Assignment 2: How would Thoreau react to today’s more complex, phantasmagorical technological advancements and social media? Are these further-encroaching “shadows and delusions” that we esteem for soundest of truths?

I remember a moment, when I was sitting in a restaurant. There were some woman sitting next to us which didn't talk to each other and just played with their mobile phones and wrote text messages and so on.
An imagination of this situation would be a nightmare for Henry David Thoreau.
To be more precisely, even letters are unnecessary for him. He gets along without all this things in his life. Now the question is:
How would Henry David Thoreau react to today's more complex technological advancements and social media?  How would he react to a world, where letters are antiquated and people can't live without mobile phones, internet and other technical progress?
I can anticipate: It won't meet with his approval. 


"Every  morning was a cheerful invitation to make my life of equal simplicity, and I may say innocence, with Nature herself. " ( Thoreau 58)
That is the reason he retired and lived next to Walden Pond with only those items he needed to survive, how he tells in his book "Walden; or, Life in the Woods".
He just had a house, which protected him from rain, but it was cold and drafty in winter. Nevertheless he didn't complain about it but rather it was everything he needed and so he was content.
Nowadays most of us wouldn't be able to live like this because we used to live luxurious.

Thoreau thinks that the internal improvements "are all external and superficial". ( Thoreau 60)
All this luxury and the heedless expense ruined the nation and many families. There is only one cure for them: " A rigid economy, a stern and more than Spartan simplicity of life and elevation of purpose." (60)
In addition Thoreau believes that the nature gives us so much so that we can abstain from mechanical servants like an alarm clock. 

All in all  Thoreau couldn't live in the world, how it is today. His attitude would be the same and I think that's the reason he would seal himself off from the society again. 

Assignment 1: Compare and contrast these two perspectives. Are they contradictory or complimentary?

Marilynne Robinson and Henry David Thoreau are two authors which write about their society. They think about the people and why they act as they do. Marilynne Robinson points out the political way of view and Henry David Thoreau points out the economic way of view. But there are many other differences between the way of thinking of the two authors which I want to point out in the following.

The main difference is the attitude of both authors. While Thoreau is disappointed by his society and has a negative attitude, Robinson believes in the good side of people and has a positive attitude. Thoreau mentions the point of clothing and its importance. Originally, clothes were made to keep us warm and to cover parts of our bodies. However Thoreau says that the people revere clothes and fashion. They always want new designs and follow new trends although their old ones are in near mint condition. The people forgot heaven and god and don't know the real cause why they are on earth. In addition, the foolish way of living from the people animated Thoreau to live next to Walden Pond with only those items he needs to survive.
Robinson talks about the western society and its best expresses. She is a person which can see the positive side of people even if they're her enemies. She has a strong character because she can point out the positive and likeable side of a sinful society.

They also talk about education. Thoreau reviews some points of education like the way of tuition and spending money.  He calls it a expensive game. If the students and the university  would spent less money, they would win more achievement because they would be able to concentrate much better in tuition than in thinking of money. On this way they would be more dependent persons.
Robinson has a different kind of looking at the educational system. She thinks that we should respect it to have the desired society.

Summing up both authors have different ways of looking on their society and also different ways to handle it. Although they have so diverse perceptions, they are alike because they think of their society and reflect their culture. 

Assignment 4: Are Nagel and Thoreau right? Can there be universal moral ideals, while, at the same time, our individual consciences are authoritative arbiters of right and wrong?

I think domestic violence is acceptable.

Yeah. Wow. You didn’t expect that, did you? Are you shocked? Do you think I have lost my mind? And most importantly, do you think I am a bad person? You probably do. And you should. Society gives us the answers to what is right and what is wrong, at least hypothetically. Violence is bad, talking is good. But only because that is what society thinks, is it what the individual people in the society think? There is a big difference between the two. The first is something which gives us as a collective the certainty and reassurance that there is something bigger out there, binding us all together. It is something we have in common and therefore is favorable to keep up or leave untouched. Furthermore, it makes us stronger as a cultural entity and allows us to be proud of ourselves as a country. These advantages are strong. They are so strong that they hide what is underneath. What I mean by that is the duplicity that slumbers in so many of us, the latter of my comparison. What we express publicly and what we truly believe from the bottom of our hearts are too often two different things.  You may consider this a vague claim because you may ask yourselves: how is there a way for me to know this when the people really just keep it to themselves? The truth is most people are not the best liars. They “go with the flow” and tag along with society like little chicks after their mother, because they are afraid to be abandoned. What they do not notice is the fact that the truth can be detected from the way they act.

                There were several incidents, in which I was certain a person standing in front of me had racist thoughts in their heads while they were talking to me. Even though they were verbally expressing the exact opposite to that, the look in their eyes could tell me how different their actual beliefs were. I am conscious of how accusative this might sound, considering I can never be sure about a person’s thoughts and should never judge someone without knowing them. However, it is my opinion that racism is bigger than we know. At least in Germany it is a big issue (I never experienced this in the United States.), which has become more and more of a problem, considering the amount of power that the right-wing party has gained in the last few years. So the two sides I discussed earlier have actually shifted. Since there are constantly more people that express their racist beliefs publicly, it is suddenly not so clear anymore what “society thinks”. Society is split and therefore people are not afraid to be abandoned when they state their opinion anymore. Of course this is exaggerated and is not yet fully the case, but the way it looks now definitely heads into that direction.

                Shifts like these happen frequently, whether it is in a negative way, like in this case, or in a positive way, like when slavery and segregation were abolished in the United States or the growing acceptance of homosexuality. This illustrates that there might be a problem with “moral ideas”. There is no way to deny their existence but what are they worth, when people think differently in their individual consciences? It appears as if they are merely a façade that covers up the true rawness of humankind.

(If it didn't become clear, I want the reader of this essay to know that I most certainly do not and will never think that domestic violence is acceptable. The use of this phrase was intended to demonstrate to the reader - in a rather provocative way - the set of "moral ideas" that is existent in all of us, as members of a society -consciously or subconsciously.

Assignment 3: Taking Thoreau's lead, can you imagine ways in which our technologically affected lives can be wedded with a sensual acuity for nature?

When I was little, my parents used to take me to the park almost every weekend. I am an only child, which is why I really enjoyed being outside and playing with the children of my parents’ friends. The adults would always have barbecues, play cards and talk for hours while us kids would run around on the grass, take baths in little ponds or play “witches” in the woods. I used to invent many games in general and I believe this is something that can be found in nearly everyone’s childhood. Not only is it much fun, it also trains your sense for fantasy, your social and organizational skills and an affinity for creating something in a practical, “hands-on” way.

                Since I didn’t have a computer at home until the age of 11 and got my first phone on my 14^th birthday, I spent most of my childhood days getting home from school, doing some homework and then knocking at my neighbor’s door to ask them to come outside and play. I would only come home when it was dark and it was time for dinner. Before I went to bed, my mother used to read for me and later, I read myself.

                I believe that for children nowadays it is much more difficult to dodge technology like that. A friend of mine told me about something that happened at one of his family’s events, which left me speechless. He was playing with his 2-year-old niece for quite some time so when he was tired, he gave her a really old nokia phone to play with – one where the screen is still black and white. The little girl took the phone and tried to “slide to unlock”. She had seen this action so many times at the age of two that she had internalized it and now tried it herself. I find this story remarkable, as it demonstrates how early the integration into the “technologized world” can take place.

                Neglecting the question, whether this is favorable or not, there are indeed some ways to maintain a healthy relationship to nature and natural things. It starts with the knowledge and the conscience about the importance of this matter. If our brains are stuck to screens all day, we are soon going to be fulfilling Thoreau’s prophecy and lose track of what is reality and what is illusion. It is not only interesting to look up a flower’s appearance on an iPad, but it is far more exiting to go outside and explore the beauty of that flower by finding it on a meadow. And how about establishing a screen-free day of the week? No phones, no tablets and no TVs. Instead, take a walk by the lake, talk about life and top the day off with a round of monopoly.

                Time is another essential factor that must be taken into consideration. It always seems as if these days, the day doesn’t have enough hours to do everything you need to do. But we forget that this is a matter of perceiving things. Of course, the velocity of the world requires us to keep up to some extent but it is still in our hands how we handle it. Even though it may take much tranquility and patience, that some people will probably never acquire, it is definitely possible. If you feel like you have too much to do, try to ask yourself, if you really need to do all of these things. We work and work until we drop to facilitate our luxurious lifestyle - and yes, it is more luxurious than we like to believe – and at the end of the day what do we actually get out of it? 

Assignment 2: How would Thoreau react to today’s more complex, phantasmagorical technological advancements and social media? Are these further-encroaching “shadows and delusions” that we esteem for soundest of truths?

Life nowadays is fast. It is so fast that sometimes we forget to take a deep breath and just enjoy its beauty. With the abundance of all the materialistic things surrounding us it is difficult to focus on what is really happening in our lives. A great example for this is the behavior of people at concerts. While not too long ago it was normal to go to a concert, fully surrender to the music, dance, and have fun, all you see these days is a huge number of smartphones in the air. Where there used to be the desire to enjoy the artist and his music, there is now the desire to record videos, then upload them on instagram or facebook and get as many “likes” as possible. I am not saying people never used cameras to capture moments 30 years ago or that nobody truly enjoys the music at concerts anymore; however, a big change has taken place and it is constantly moving forward. We do not know where it might take us and we have to ask ourselves: What does it mean to be ‘us’? To be ‘human’? Is it our fate to take part in this change? Do we want to? And if we don’t, are we strong enough to go against the grain?

                Answers to these types of questions can be found in “Walden”, written by Henry David Thoreau. In this book, which was first published in 1854, Thoreau tells the reader about the two years and two months, in which he lived in a cabin in the woods, trying to find the deeper meaning of life. In the second chapter “Where I lived, and what I lived for”, he fiercely criticizes the superficiality of most people and their lack of sensitivity to the real and natural world they live in. Thoreau emphasizes that the main problem is that these people are blind to reality and falsely consider artificial things as their own reality. According to the author, it is of big importance that they learn to look at reality with a clear mind, not distracted by any external influences. They are supposed to acquire the ability of living to the fullest extent possible.

                To understand Thoreau’s remarks, the year of publication needs to be taken into consideration. In 1854, there were no televisions and no telephones. So what kind of external influences does the author mean? The answer to this is not easy to find but what he means remotely, are nearly all the things that do not help to enhance our mindset. He propagates self-reliance and the education of the mind.

                These implementations make us wonder how Henry David Thoreau would like the recent technological advancements and the novelty of social media on the internet. In “Walden”, he opines that to acquire full consciousness of reality and wisdom about life, it is essential to cut down all unnecessary things around you and focus on yourself, by yourself. In our everyday lives, right now in 2013, we hardly ever focus on just one thing.

Multi-tasking has become the normal thing to do. The other day I saw a woman pushing a stroller in a crowded area; in front of her on the stroller there was an iPad, on which she probably had been reading. In addition to that, she was talking on the phone. Even though she didn’t seem stressed out, it was clear that she was not paying attention to her surroundings whatsoever, which led to people having to dodge her. While this example might seem extreme, it illustrates how society has altered. Most people are always in a rush, nothing can ever be fast enough for them and the only time they truly rest with themselves is when they go to sleep at night. This is probably the worst case scenario for Thoreau. If he could see, how our minds are distracted 24/7, he would probably think the entire world population has lost track of reality.  

Assignment 1: Compare and contrast these two perspectives. Are they contradictory or complimentary?

Take a newly-wed couple in search of furniture and household items for their new home. Brian is diligently looking for a set of nice cups for their daily morning coffee. He contemplates a burgundy square style, because that is his favorite color. James, who thinks one step ahead, states that the two of them need to decide on the color-matching of the whole kitchen and not only look at the cups. James knows, how important the cups are for a kitchen, he already presupposes that they need to be well-chosen, but he requires Brian to look at the situation in a broader sense and to see the cups in relation to the whole of the kitchen.

               What might seem like a rather random story is intended to be understood as an interactive way of illustration.  Comparing the two perspectives of Marilynne Robinson and Henry David Thoreau is not an easy task to undertake, considering their mindsets seem quite similar at the first glance.

                In “Walden” Henry David Thoreau writes about his experience of living on his own and providing for himself for two years and two months. While discussing rather practical issues on one side, he mostly establishes a broad opinion on multiple subjects in life. In the first chapter “Economy” Thoreau propagates a humble lifestyle in order to maintain contentment.

                In “Night Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist” Robinson wonders about life; its purpose, its character, and our role in it. She speaks for the significance of individual freedom but posits that this freedom only flourishes in the midst of something bigger. In order to obtain prosperity, it is indispensable to “respect, educate, inform and trust one another”.

                The initial little scenario with Brian and James is supposed to portray the contrast between Thoreau and Robinson in an exaggerated, interactive way. As James’ way of thinking enhances Brian’s thought, Robinson’s reflections can be seen as an addition to Thoreau’s rather simplistic direction. It can be assumed that Robinson would agree with Thoreau, but would not find his remarks sufficient, which is an explanation for why she insists on the interaction between individuals. It is an additional factor in the same equation. On the other hand, it is difficult to guess, if Thoreau would agree with Robinson. At least in “Walden”, he does not mention remotely close thoughts, besides having guests over at his house. He mostly focuses on himself and on thoughts about what an ideal human being consists of; what type of traits that human being is supposed to have and how life can work when you free yourself from materialistic thoughts and old habits.

                The two perspectives of Marilynne Robinson and Henry David Thoreau are not completely contradictory and at the same time they are not complimentary. It seems as if the big difference is the focus they put on different parts of the same entity, just like Brian focused on the cups, when James looked at the whole kitchen. Even though this image implies inferiority on Brian’s side this aspect should not be projected onto Thoreau. Both “Walden” and “Night Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist” are highly valuable and need to be examined separately in order to appreciate their full impact.

Text on 3rd Chapter: Taking Thoreau's lead, can you imagine ways in which our technologically affected lives can be wedded with a sensual acuity for nature?

Technology, nature, and humans

My iPhone rings. I turn around: six-thirty in the morning; time to get up. I take a shower, brush my teeth, get dressed. I take the milk out of the refrigerator and turn on the coffee machine. I listen to the radio on my iPhone. I check the weather for the day—on my iPhone. Getting out of the house, I listen to music—from my iPhone. For me it is only three stations by train and two by bus to get to University. The elevator takes me into the 12^th story. In class we switch the lights on—it is the end of the year; thus still dark outside. I take notes on my laptop. In University I stay until six o'clock in the evening. Whenever I go home, it is already dark again. I take the train back home. How much time have I spent outside? Maybe 20 minutes maximum. My feet have not even touched any grass. My skin has not seen any sun. Am I close to nature? No.

“Sometimes […] I sat in my sunny doorway from sunrise till noon, rapt in a revery, amidst the pines and hickories and sumachs, in undisturbed solitude and stillness, while the birds sing around or flitted noiseless through the house [...]” (Thoreau 69). When I sit at my desk at home, I hear the cars on the road, people talking, our neighbors fighting, and the train passing by. In his hut on Walden Pond, Thoreau lived without the days of the week, and the hours of the day (69). To us every hour, every minute, every second is a structured component of our days. Let out the day of the week; the expected weekend. Thoreau had time to listen to the sounds of the forest and the lake. Nowadays we do not even have the time to listen to our fellow men; even less to our environment. As a matter of fact, we do not listen to any surroundings anymore, but we stopper our ears with a technological advice.

Of course there are many technological advices that let us understand nature better, for example measuring instruments for the weather, oxygen cylinders to breathe under water, or satellites allowing us to look into space. However, this does not mean that we are close to nature. Talking for the western world, I would even claim we are not close to nature at all—if we would be, we would not treat nature the way we do.

Who looks for a relationship between man and nature, soon discovers the predominant mistreatment. Because Thoreau talks about the different sounds owls and other birds produce around him, here is a short introduction to the way we treat “our” birds:

“If you aren't a farmer, what I've just written probably confuses you. You probably thought that chickens were chickens. But for the past half century, there have actually been two kinds of chickens — broilers and layers — each with distinct genetics. We call them both chickens, but they have starkly different bodies and metabolisms, engineered for different "functions." Layers make eggs. (Their egg output has more than doubled since the 1930s.) Broilers make flesh. (In the same period, they have been engineered to grow more than twice as large in less than half the time. Chickens once had a life expectancy of fifteen to twenty years, but the modern broiler is typically killed at around six weeks. Their daily growth rate has increased roughly 400 percent.)

This raises all kinds of bizarre questions — questions that before I learned about our two types of chickens, I'd never had reason to ask — like, What happens to all of the male offspring of layers? If man hasn't designed them for meat, and nature clearly hasn't designed them to lay eggs, what function do they serve?

They serve no function. Which is why all male layers — half of all the layer chickens born in the United States, more than 250 million chicks a year — are destroyed.

Destroyed? That seems like a word worth knowing more about.

Most male layers are destroyed by being sucked through a series of pipes onto an electrified plate. Other layer chicks are destroyed in other ways, and it's impossible to call those animals more or less fortunate. Some are tossed into large plastic containers. The weak are trampled to the bottom, where they suffocate slowly. The strong suffocate slowly at the top. Others are sent fully conscious through macerators (picture a wood chipper filled with chicks)” (48-9).

This excerpt gives a small impression about livestock farming. Considering all the animals we eat and treat, nobody who participates in this system and at the same time says he likes the forrest, can claim to be close to nature. Technological advices might have brought us closer to the analyzes of nature, but at the same time furthest away from its essence than we ever have been. “[...] a new sense of the variety and capacity of that nature which is our common dwelling” (77) Thoreau talks about has long been forgotten in the world of today. 

1) Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. USA: Reada.Classic, 2010. Print.

2) Foer, Jonathan Safran. Eating Animals. London: Hamish Hamilton, 2009. Print.

Text on 2nd Chapter: How would Thoreau react to today's more complex, phantasmagorical technological advancements and social media? Are these further-encroaching “shadows and delusions” that we esteem for soundest of truths?

„Why should we live with such hurry and waste of life?“ (Thoreau 58) asks Thoreau in the second chapter of Walden “Where I Lived, and What I Lived For” talking about the acceleration of life through media like news papers or the post. In his point of view the goal in life is “to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, […] to live deep and [to] suck out all the marrow of life, […] to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms [...]” (57); thus superfluous “affairs”, “meals”, or “news” are unnecessary and would deviate one from true life.

Thoreau criticizes the unnecessary affluence—which he considers to not even be real—overflowing our daily life. Considering the decade he was troubling his mind on this aspect of sociability, a reader of the 21^st century can only laugh. Television and telephone were still in the very initial phase of creation, not even mentioning the computer or even the internet. Nonetheless his fears were the same than the fears of many people of the 21^st century: the media takes away our time! One might be tended to ask “What time? Time for what?”.

The interview of Paul Miller on CNN from 2012, an editor of “The Verge” who decided to live without the internet for one year¹, is just one example among many showing the great trouble of being depended on the internet and social media. Paul Miller lived without the internet, because it took away his time; thus without he claimed to be more productive. He actually felt relieved living without it. So what scares us? And why is it so hard to get away from it?

Thoreau responses to this fear: being committed to something brings you into a relationship from which it is hard to escape. It creates a dependency to which you relate to, which becomes your truth. However, the danger is to base your life on something which is not true. “As long as possible live free and uncommitted. It makes but little difference whether you are committed to a farm or the country jail” (53). The philosopher in the woods actually refers to “simplicity” (55-7) enabling the finding of the truth, where on the contrary news, media, and todays internet actually lead away from it.

However, Thoreau was as much feared by the media of his time than a person of the 21^st century is. Both are overtaxed with the mass of information and are scared to feel lost in the eternity of overwhelming absent-mindedness created by it. Only a few people are able to withdraw themselves from this strudel of meaningless information. Thoreau would have escaped today's media the same way he escaped 1845's media—maybe in another forrest, on a different lake.

1 CNN. “Going Offline”. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oASA1RBGjp8.

2 Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. USA: Reada.Classic, 2010. Print.

Text on First Chapter: Compare and contrast these two perspectives. Are they contradictory or complimentary?

Henry David Thoreau and Marilynne Robinson could be considered as “baffled humanists”, because both find themselves in separated rooms—Thoreau in his hut next to Walden Pond in 1845, Massachusetts and Robinson in her bed at home in 2011, maybe Idaho—to think about humanity, society, and the sense of life. Considering their dissimilar standpoints like century and time as well as place and gender, they seem to ask the same questions: “What are we? Why do we act as we do? And what has and will become of our society?”.

Thoreau takes the educational system under a closer look and explains how students would achieve more education if less money would be spent, for example for student housing. Further more he claims if both sides—the students as well as the heads of University—would organize themselves better, there would be a greater achievement: an improvement of education and a reduction of costs. In other words, following Thoreau's train of thought, if students would shoulder more responsibility, they would value their education more and would develop into better persons: “[...] they should not play life, or study it merely, while the community supports them at this expensive game, but earnestly live it from beginning to end. How could youth better learn to live than by at once trying the experiment of living?” (Thoreau 32).

Not how to become better persons, but how we can live together in its best means, Marylinne Robinson introduces four characteristics to achieve this state: “[...] [to] respect, educate, inform and trust one another” (Robinson 5). However, Robinson describes that society is in the process of “losing the ethos that has sustained what is most to be valued” (Thoreau 5), whereas Thoreau practically claims that society has already lost all its ethics: “We now no longer camp as for a night, but have settled down on earth and forgotten heaven. We have adopted Christianity merely as an improved method of agriculture. We have built for this world a family mansion, and for the next a family tomb” (Thoreau 24).

Nevertheless, there is another major difference in the points of view of Robinson and Thoreau; Robinson seems to have rather positive associations with her society and culture than Thoreau. She describes that “Western society at its best expresses the serene sort of courage that allows us to grant one another real safety, real autonomy, the means to think and act as judgment and conscience dictate” (Robinson 5). On the contrary, Thoreau as a rather negative view on his society and criticizes various aspects, for example his parents who cannot give him any valuable advice (Thoreau 7), the worship for fashion (Thoreau 17), or the unnecessary luxurious shelter we mean to have to build ourselves (Thoreau 22).

However much Robinson and Thoreau criticize society generally and specifically, they are not willing to give up on it. Both claim that if the people are only willing enough to care for one another and live a self-conscious life humanity can achieve its best characteristics. Thoreau says: “In short, I am convinced, both by faith and experience, that to maintain one's self on this earth is not a hardship but a pastime, if we will live simply and wisely [...]” (Thoreau 44), where Robinson argues “[...] to let ourselves be the reflective, productive creatures we are, unconstrained and uncoerced. Eliminate the overwhelming cost of phantom wars and fool's errands, and humankind might begin to balance its books” (Robinson 11). Where Thoreau might be arguing on the economic level, Robinson stays on the political level. However, both deduce to concentrate more on ourselves to contribute to a better civilization. Furthermore, it is interesting to realize that both authors are actually talking about the same society.

1) Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. USA: Reada.Classic, 2010. Print.

2) Robinson, Marilynne. “Night Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist”. The Nation 8 Nov. 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.