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?

Thoreau foresees the revolutionary technology and compares the sound of the locomotive to a comet in chapter 5. He was able to find a connection between nature and technology. After the locomotive passed by he describes the silence that occurred and he surely admires. This comparison is important, because without the inescapable industrial revolution - nature could not be so appreciated as it is with. Therefore, industrial improvement is always in contrast to nature. The definition of nature and its value depends on the development of the technology. For example, one would think the more technology improvement the world accesses the less nature becomes the center of interest in the world.

Technology affected lives seem not to be compatible with nature. Nevertheless, both elements seem in many ways influencing each other. According to Thoreau in the Chapter "Sounds" the noise of the locomotive reminds Thoreau of a comet, which extended his ability of imagination. In contrast it can also happen the other way around as in a person life that might be inspired by the sounds of the waves, thus is able to create an invention or simply be more productive by observing the switcher of the birds. In these cases the person is inspired by nature to develop a technological idea. Furthermore, this way would be more favorable to Thoreau since he criticizes the fact that through the invention of the locomotive the people are controlled by the locomotive, in contrast now the nature in forms like waves or sounds of birds would influence the thoughts of people. Nevertheless, the remote would still not be in the hands of the humans, in spite it would be partly managed by nature.

Nature and our contemporary lives. Our lives are affected by technology and surrounded by nature that becomes more invisible. But in few cases it seems to merge together. For example, technology accelerates the production of food on the farm and serves many people of survival. Another example is the invention of a heater or a candle that keeps people for dying in the winter. In fact, technology can prevent death and assures people to survive around the world. The number of population would have decreased without the technology since many babies died because of unhygienic circumstances. But with the assistance of technology this issue and many more could be solved.

What if Nature and technology is not to tell apart anymore. We live in a time, where technology is able to copy nature in every detail. It starts by recording the sounds of birds that are flying through the branches of a tree and goes on by creating plants that look exactly like the bushes in the forest or even clone some creatures. Nonetheless, we may be able to depict nature to a certain extent, but we will never be able to replace nature with technology. In result, we will always depend on nature no matter how much developed our technology is, but technology will never be fully wedded with nature.

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?

Imagine, Thoreau born in the 21^st century, but with the same attitude he possessed 150 years ago. His attitude was an exception back then and is still one today. He is convinced not to dedicate his life to labor - not as many others. Nevertheless, without all the work those others have done, we would not face the technology we are benefiting from today.

21^st  century, a stage where a world without technology seems worthless. Advocates of the technology praise all the advantages you observe by utilizing the new technology. For example Technology is able to connect people all around the world, in addition it makes it possible to stay easily in touch and be always up to date. Furthermore technology is unavoidable – starting in early stages of life. For instance by using baby phones, media in school, owning a phone, distracting oneself with watching TV or playing PlayStation, the list goes on. As a result we are distracted the entire day and unable to notice small changes around us.

Let´s picture Thoreau in that modern world...

Thoreau is an expert in the area of self-reliance and gives speeches at different Universities. He instructs the students to respond to following question: "What influence technology has on people?", and carries on: “As a matter of fact, all of you are victims of the system and have no control over your lives. You live your life as others require. However, it is your fault to continue this life; you are creating a mass of depressing creatures. In other words, you are not achieving the degree you are expecting, but you are on your best way to achieve unhappiness, lack of spirit and a life full of sadness.”

Thoreau realized that the students were confused; therefore he offered memorable simple facts about their current lives. First, technology is a way of producing money. Second, it´s a chain reaction that starts with a person and an idea and ends in a wealthy life, but in an unhappy life. Third, quality is only purchased and measured by money, thus as more you own as more you believe to live. He assures them that these expectations will not occur and they will never sense satisfaction, if they are exclusively after money and wealth.

Nevertheless, in the end of his speech he provides an inspiring comment, he shares his experience at Walden Pond based on a 2 years experiment to live on his own and to rely only on nature, which proved to him, and hopefully to the students, that there is no necessary of electronic devices, social media or other technology. There is also no need to own valuable things since all that ties you down and simply complicates your life. Furthermore, he is convinced that technology is the worst scenario of all, because it keeps humans distracted from the beautiful world around them. In result, it is a way of creating a world that is further away from happiness and consequently forms the inner freedom unreachable. Furthermore he argues that a world disconnected to nature solely creates an Illusion of happiness until the unavoidable day appears and lets the dream scatter in small pieces.

Thoreau realizes that he is unable to convince the students of his perspective and is convinced that they will merely understand him by experiencing it firsthand. In fact, he recognized that this is the entirely way to perceive the missing piece in their life and feel the spirit of the world.

Assignment 1

Compare and contrast these [...]  two perspectives. Are they contradictory or
complimentary?

The universe is lifeless now and will be lifeless then, so insignificant is our presence in it.

The presence of humans is unquestionable, humans exist. But how did we get there, where we are at? Who created this world we identify our-self with and reside one day after the other as directed? David Thoreau desired to escape this self-created Universe. Hence, Thoreau acted and isolated himself for 2 years and 2 month at an uninhabited place – an area, far away from the civilization, named Walden Pond. His time at Walden Pond is characterized through isolation, self-reliance and independence. Moreover he lived his life as simple as possible and minimized his expenses to the bare minimum. For instance he lived on a diet based solely on fruits and vegetables, all given by nature. Marilynne Robinson still believes on the existence of people living their life as Thoreau experimented, but those people are abominated by the rest of the society.

Our life is dedicated to labor. According to Robinson, labor is the coin to purchase prestige and gives our lives value. Furthermore, she claims that the society is not aware of the fact why they perform as they implement- they create value and start to judge their surroundings. Similarly to Thoreau, who shared this side of mind and tried to observe firsthand the reason for the particular behavior in dedicating some of his life time not to labor, but to himself. He lived at the bare minimum, but at the same time consumed life to the fullest.

Humans insist to own things, politics promise to maximize happiness and develop inventions as the atomic bomb due to increase power and wealth. However, humans establish wealth through hard labor most of their lifetime - labor done by depressing wages - according to Robinson this is the life of modern society. In contrast is Thoreau’s experiment; an example and demonstration of the inner freedom not depending on tokens, but rather through live without the urge to buy and own "valuable" things; value is created by humans themselves. Although Thoreau showed that humans only demand food, shelter, clothing and fuel for living typically provided by nature itself, many members of the modern world value different ideologies higher.

Ideology is rational, a pure product of the human mind. According to Robinson humans create a world able to exploit minds and energies and are realized so many number of times. The only alternate is to acquire the same attitude as Thoreau described in Walden 150 years ago, where he proved in isolation the possibility of a life without the reach of a particular ideology. Just being one self and in result eliminating the competition between individuals and countries, as Robinson wishes it.

After all, Robinson is convinced that nothing significant occurs in isolation - humans depend on each other and unable to discover their inner freedom on their own. However, Thoreau represents a human-being that must first explore herself before she can attribute to the life of the others. One view that could not be considered by Thoreau is the development of the internet and the arising simplicity that Robinson appreciates and Thoreau perhaps, had wished for too. Another difference between both was that Robinson deems the goodwill and faith of institutions, but rejects the exploitation of these Institutions, whereas Thoreau wanted a simple life including nature and self-reliance - far away from social norms.

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.”

What is it what we like or even love on other people, especially on our friends? Is it their look or their character? Actually, what is character und where does it comes from? I character an instinct? To find out all this things, character should be defined.   

Certainly, this is not easy, because character isn't something tangible. One can't identify character of a person so quick, because one have to become acquainted with the person before judging and  people can disguise their characters. One can identify the real character of a person in exceptional circumstances like a conflict.  In addition, character is subjective, because every single person has a different conception of a good and a bad character.

Generally speaking character is the inner conditioning of a person. More precisely it's the special attributes, pattern of behavior and personal competences, which form moral behavior.
Briefly speaking  character is the disposition, the individuality and the personality.  
If the character is a summary of all human characteristics of a person, the question is, what does the character exist of actually? And how far do we form, compose and influence the character? Moreover where does a good character ends and a bad one begins?

The character is formed, composed and influenced especially in the childhood. Parents, friends, and all the surrounding field influence the character extremely. Words and acts of our surroundings have a major impact on our characters. If the persons children look up to ( best example are parents), have ethical values, it's probable that the children will have ethical values, too. When parents convey to their children, that they should act ethical, the children will try it. However character is not only education and influence, it's also development and acquisition. As mentioned above character building mainly happens in childhood and teenage. After that, it's mostly amelioration of the character.

Now, what is a positive and what is a negative character? One can say rough and briefly:
A positive character is the human ideals in relation to values in certain society like love, charity, affability, openness, helpfulness and pity.
A negative character defines the contrary mode of behavior like hate, animosity, egoism and casualness.
Which character traits one approves depends on the mediated, learned and developed values and ideals, as I mentioned before.
And that's exactly what we like on other people. We like their character either because it's alike to ours, or it's so different than ours so that it's inspiring and bonding us.
Besides, every single person has a character, no matter if one is brave or fearful, egoistic or helpful and so on. The only difference one can make, is between a good and a bad character.
If you learn to be brave, you don't have less character than a person, which is brave from a child. In my opinion the person, which learned to be brave has a strong character.

Is character an instinct?
On the one hand character is the personality which is formed and influenced by the surrounding and on the other hand character is a instinctive behavior, which is in us by birth and comes out in special situation. It's only the inner feeling, which tells us what to do.
Actually, it don't matter if it's an instinct or character, because the important thing is that everyone is happy and there is a successful living together.

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

Imagine this situation:

Child: "Mum, can you tell me where the steak comes from?"
Mother: "Oh..Euh...Steak is meat from animals. However it's okay because they don't live anymore. "
Child: " What?! But mum, this is not okay! You told me I should treat everyone, including animals, well! So, how can I eat an animals?!"

Well, what is right and what is wrong now? Why is it sometimes so  difficult to decide what is right and what wrong?
Society gives us universal moral ideals,  which shows us the right way in most cases: While violence, lying, foul play and racism are bad,  good behavior and telling the truth are good. If someone trespasses against the moral ideals, the society would convict him of that. That is because of the universal moral ideals, which let us judge about wrong and right, automatically.
Though, it's not easy to define universal moral ideals and rights and wrongs. One intensely discussed topic is the dispatch of animals for eating them:
Who decides that it's okay to kill animals, so that we can eat them? Indeed, society gives us moral ideals but why isn't the society able to give us a clear answer to the question, if it's okay to eat animals?
That has to do with the fact that people have a different view of everything. Every single person is different and inimitable. Well, the society is cleaved on this topic. Everyone decide for themselves, if it's okay to eat animals and especially with what intention one eat them.
Actually, is it more justifiable to kill and eat animals because of hunger and don't have anything else to eat, than killing and eating animals because of consumption while having different things to eat in abundance?
"Not the food which entereth into the mouth defileth a man, but the appetite with which it is eaten. It is neither the quality nor the quantity, but the devotion to sensual savors..." ( Thoreau 141).

As mentioned above, every single person is different and can also strive against the stream. So there are different opinions to this topic. There is no rule that forbids to kill and eat animals, anyway everyone can have his own moral ideal which forbids him to eat them.
That has to do with the fact that we instinctively know, what is wrong and what is right.
Also Thoreau had an instinct:
"Like many of my contemporaries, I had rarely for many years used animal food, or tea, or coffee, &c,; not so much because of any ill effects which I had traced to them, as because they were not agreeable to my imagination. The repugnance to animal food is not the effect of experience, but is an instinct...I believe that every man who has ever been earnest to preserve his higher or poetic faculties in the best conditions has been particularly inclined to abstain from animal food, and from much food of any kind." ( Thoreau 139)
Though people don't want to see the truth, because it can be painful or they have to assume personal responsibility and stop eating meat.
Many a time children have such an instinct but they were influenced by the education of their parents teachers and the media.
Also the emotion play an important part. If someone doesn't like to eat meat, it's because of his emotions are active in his thinking process. He can't square it with his conscience.

All in all it's not easy to define moral ideals, because every single person is guided by his emotions and answers for himself, what's wrong and what right. In addition the time plays an important part too, because moral ideals changes in time. Maybe there is a rule in the future, which forbids us to eat animals?
Nevertheless every person can decides for himself which decision he makes, but he himself has to live with the consequence.    

Assignment Five: "Brute Neighbors"

Is Character an Instinct?

Having a good character and being a good person has been the aim of humankind since its existence (nevertheless, bad character is also character). What is actually meant by this and what elements are important to define character, I will try to find out in the following passages.

What does “character” actually mean? The Oxford Dictionary says, character is “all the qualities and features that make a person, groups of people, and places different from others”, but also “the opinion that people have of you, particularly of whether you can be trusted or relied on” (242). This means not only what makes a person different from others defines the character, but also how other people perceive the person—important to state is that people may notice character traits which are unconscious to the person itself; from this follows there are obvious and hidden character traits. Giving examples of 'trust' and 'reliability' also lets us deduce that speaking of character does not simply mean the behavior of a person, but in fact the behavior, decisions, and reactions on a moral level measured on social values depending on the cultural background.

“Abraham Lincoln said, 'Reputation is the shadow. Character is the tree.' Our character is much more than just what we try to display for others to see, it is who we are even when no one is watching [...]”². The result of which is that a character is not only what makes a person different from another, what others think of the person, what the person presents to others, but also how the person behaves when nobody is around. This is the very matter of fact, which troubles reliability and trust in a person. Can we ever be sure about fully knowing a person and his character? Is the person his character, or is the a person disconnected from his character? And how much is the person influenced by his surroundings? How much of his behavior is character, and how much is the reaction to his or her environment? Just like the loon Thoreau tries to catch: “His white breast, the stillness of the air, and the smoothness of the water were all against him” (145). For Thoreau it was very easy to spot the bird, whereas the loon probably would have behaved differently if his white breast would not betray him.

This leads us to the question of how much of a person's character is natural and how much was acquired through society and family. “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 [...] animals [...]?”. To reveal the underlying components of a character at first one must define what instinct actually is: Instinct is “a natural tendency for people and animals to behave in a particular way using the knowledge and abilities that they were born with rather than thought or training” (Oxford Dictionary 807).

If bravery, intelligence and spiritual depth are considered to be instincts, where is the line between instinct and character? Going even further, bravery is a feature that can very much be acquired: One can overcome one's fears through training. However, fear seems to be an instinct which was made by nature to protect the living organism (like running away from fire in order to not get killed; whereas putting out the fire with a bucket of water is a conscious thought-out reaction). What would be the difference between a person who is “naturally” brave and a person who trained to become fearless? Going even further, if intelligence is considered to be an instinct, stupidity would be one, too—which means that “less intelligent” people are unable to improve, because they are “born that way”, which is the most discriminating claim to make.

However, it is probably impossible to draw a clear line between character and instinct. In conclusion, what we consider to be a person's character is probably a mixture of instinctual behavior implied by nature and character traits evolved by society and family. Thoreau finds himself interacting with the animals at Walden on an equal level: “I was myself excited somewhat even as if they had been men. The more you think of it, the less difference” (142), which could stand for the sameness of living creatures on earth, their behavior, and character. In the end, what does it matter if we call something instinct or character, if it contributes to a better living together: “[...] unless they love its[Walden Pond] water for the same reason that I do” (146).

1) "The Meaning of Character”, Home Page, http://www.character-training.com/blog/ (accessed 29 Dez. 2013).

2) “character.” “instinct.” Def. la. Oxford Dictionary. 2010. Print.

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

Assignment 5 – Chap. “Brute Neighbors” - … If character is a matter of insouciant instinct, can we condemn those who don't have it? ...

        My sister and I are very much alike. We look quite similar, we are like-minded on various topics, and even our hobbies are very much the same. For anyone, who might get to know both of us on a personal level—a level of believes, opinions, an favourable characteristics—our characters would seem to be very similar. Most people though, would rather get to know us on a facile level and might therefore consider us to be extremely different in terms of character, only because I seem to be more extroverted in comparison to my sister. While for her, it went as far as throwing up out of nervousness, when she was forced to speak in front of people, I have always enjoyed public speaking as such from an early age on. I remember one of my teachers, who had only known my sister at that time, telling me after my first class with him “So you are the lively one of the both of you then” and at first I simply did not understand what he meant. At home no one would ever consider one of us to be more lively than the other; judging from the outside, however, people might easily consider my sister to lack character of a certain kind, simply because she does not favour attention as much as I do (—which to me does not have anything to do with ''character''. Maybe I am the one with less ''character'', because I enjoy giving speeches and being on a stage and therefore seem to be shallow enough to enjoy this kind of attention...?) In this scenario I would be one who is naturally fearless in terms of publicity, a feature I do not consider to give, or take, the attribute of ''character'' to, or from, me. What this example should illustrate, and how society often considers things differently, is outlined in this quote by 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.

            (Menand)

       Except this kind of natural affinity to certain behaviour, which is considered to show ''character'' by most people, a general lack of fear or high willingness to take risks might as well just show plain stupidity or lack of thoughtfulness. What at the age of 14 or 15 years I considered fearless and therefor ''cool'' behaviour could, looking back on it today, also be described as fairly stupid. It is interesting how those I looked up to, because of their rebellious behaviour, in my early teens, have mostly become those who have made least out of their lives. Might their ''rebellious'' behaviour not have been rebellious at all and instead just a result of not enough deliberate consideration of consequences?

        I think character can be found in anyone, because to me ''character'' is, what happens, when you deal with yourself and the people around you. Even the shallowest person must have consciously or unconsciously chosen this path of displaying characteristics I consider as shallow, because of the way s/he sees the world and gets along with it.

E.J.

Works Cited: 

Menand, Louis. 2010. "Head Case" in The New Yorker. Online resource. Web. 1 January 2014. <http://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/www/news/imported/pdf/April10/NewYorkerPsychiatry.pdf>