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.