Monday, May 11, 2015
Quiet Desperation in the Lecture Hall
Hi Everyone: In light of our visit from Henry David Thoreau, and our discussions about argumentation, write a response to the lecture in which you identify what you think Thoreau's principal claim is and what you think about it. I understand that the lecture may have been hard to follow in the lecture hall, so I excerpted some crucial parts and handed them out in class. Check the bookshelf if you didn't get one. Please have your responses in by Wednesday evening. Thank you, Mr. Telles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Thoreau felt nature was beautiful and in harmony. I think a lot of people around his time thought that way too. They thought it was all God's plan. I think that nature isn't as idyllic as all that. I think nature is a competition to survive. No species is magically guaranteed survival in a harmonious system. I think what is perceived as harmony is like enlightened interest. They don't adapt to each other and coexist because of an altruistic need, but because tolerating other species can benefit them like a symbiotic relationship. I think humans have separated from nature to a degree, as we manipulate our environment beyond the materials nature has given us. However, nature does affect us, as we do get plenty of resources we need from nature. What we do to nature comes back at us. I think various things in nature can look ascetically pleasing to the human eye. Bright colored flowers can look pretty or various animals can look pretty. Geologic features can also be pleasing to the eye. That's the beauty I see in nature.
ReplyDeleteIt was hard to follow and understand Henry David Thoreau’s lecture. He is very interested in nature and the conduct of life, they played a big part in his lecture. Thoreau is a very self-conscious man who organized his life around basic truths. He wanted to include principles into daily life. Henry was also very independent and encouraged that other people should be too. He loved exploring and studying the woods. I think it’s nice how much he appreciates nature and more people should do so.
ReplyDeleteCruz Ortiz
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the short excerpt from Henry Thoreau’s argumentative speech, I would say he was trying claim that all men lead similar lives. Every man goes to work, gets home from work, longs for a better live, and then does it all over again. We see the rising sun, day in and day out, and we think that there is still hope to do the thing we want to do the most. After a few lines of Thoreau talking about the hopes and dreams of men, he shifts and begins to explore the credibility of our seniors. He explains how seniors do not necessarily know more because they are more advanced in age. I feel as if these specific lines come from personal experience as he goes on to say that,” They have told me nothing, and probably cannot tell me anything to the purpose.” Thoreau is very passionate about the particular subject. He mine as well flat out said,” seniors are good for nothing”. At the end of the excerpt, he says”, When one man has reduced a fact of the imagination to be a fact to his understanding, I foresee that all men at length establish their lives on that basis”. I think this one sentence accurately sums up his claim that all men lead similar lives. I think Thoreau has a valid point. Many people wander off in there own thoughts and they think of what could be, instead of trying to actually strive for it. As a result, they live miserable lives, constantly dreaming of false hope.
During the lecture by Henry David Thoreau, I was able to take in that his main focus was to go deeper into the idea of man vs nature, a common theme of writing. He lead the idea in such a direction that he was steering the claim of men and nature being in sync and harmony, although all men have experiences with nature that is unique to them. Thoreau spoke about his experience in the wild, and the part nature takes in his life. He talked much about the nature of men, as well, and comparing one another’s differences of behavior and attitude towards the earth. While doing that, he also mentioned the differences in what the world does for each separate type of person. I found part of the way he did this was in his comparison of “old deeds for old people, new deeds for new people”. He spoke of the routines of the woods, such as gathering wood but also of the morals and values of his experience which was found within nature. Thoreau also went further into the idea of nature, so that imagination was a connection to it, and is part of it. This also follows through with his claim of nature harmonizing everything, and the meaning of how it does so.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear to see that Henry David Thoreau strongly believes that nature is a place of peace, harmony, and understanding. His notion made it clear that everything is understood between man and nature, and it is a happy fellowship designed by God. However, what I think Henry failed to see in the environment was that everything thinks on its own and it is a world of predators. It is not as happy to think about how a lion hunts a zebra or an owl kills a mouse. They do this obviously for food and to survive. In this way nature can be seen as a ruthless competition for the survival of the fittest. It is not a fellowship because predators and prey only do what is convenient for themselves to live as long as possible. On a warm summer day in a field of grass one may feel the harmony Thoreau spoke about, but the reality is that that is short lived when you have to survive.
ReplyDeleteReading the passage from Henry David Thoreau’s lecture I was able to conclude that he talked about the comparison of man and nature. He stressed that the life of men is monotonous, working each day and coming home to repeat the cycle the next day. He believes that men did not adventure enough or try new things, which lead them to live the same for many years. Thoreau also ponders the idea of how men are wasting their time on things not vital and it is important to consider change as he says, “So thoroughly and sincerely are we compelled to live, reverencing our life, and denying the possibility of change”. After Thoreau talked about the life of men he began to talk about the older generation to the newer one. He claimed that what worked for the old might not work for the new. He believes that older does not mean wiser and the old have no important advice to give to the young. We hear this in his lecture when he says. “I have lived some thirty years on this planet, and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors”.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter observing the performance, it is obvious that Thoreau had a very deep respect for nature and believed it to be harmonious. However, Thoreau’s principal claim was that living in the woods was more fulfilling than inherited jobs like farming. He expands upon this by proving how inexpensive it was to build his shack compared to most farmers in his town who suffered from debt. He then goes on to say that though farmers lived and worked on a farm it could take a lifetime for them to actually own the farm. By living on a small plot of land and only working for a few months, Thoreau had no debt and could easily support himself. Additionally, he chose to live that way of life while his neighbors were born into their career. In my opinion, although it may be temporarily fulfilling Thoreau’s plan would never work for the basic human needs. It is a known fact that humans need to be social, and living in the middle of the forest does not cover that requirement. Thoreau’s theory really only works on an economical level instead of a realistic one. It may have been easy to live without debt, but living day in and day out with nothing but trees is enough to drive anyone mad.
ReplyDeleteBy listening to Henry David Thoreau, I interpreted his thoughts about nature, and the world as alluring, graceful and harmonious. Henry David Thoreau really appeared to show that he valued nature and the facts of nature during his speech. In my perspective, what drew to my attention was Thoreau’s view of nature is that everything good, pleasant or satisfying in this world is nature, and anything from the wild. Nature is a place where someone can relax, clear their mind of what’s bothering them or stressing them out and using it to create a new world where nothing else matters besides how you feel. Nature is a beautiful and a free gift to anyone who wants it, it’s always there. However, it is not appreciated as much it should be, and some people need to change that.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to the speech, I knew that Henry David Thoreau’s personal opinion on nature is clearly that of a harmonious effect. He seems to feel a strong connection between man and his surrounding environment. He speaks of nature as though he is in a relationship with it, softly and peacefully. He mentions how, “Nature is as well adapted to our weakness as to our strength”, through this he personifies nature by saying how it adapts and that there is always places in nature in which you can feel at home. He allows his thoughts to flow through his words and proves to be very passionate about nature. The emotional connection he feels is clear throughout his speech. I truly agree with his opinion, however this is to some extent. I understand there is danger in nature as there is everywhere. There are predators in the wild just like there are bullies in a highschool hallway. Perspective is key in nature, you have to look at it from all of the angles. Personally, I think nature is a beautiful place where you can find new things and experience different adventures wherever you go. I’m a firm believer that if you open your mind to nature and are able to just take it all in, then it is a really enjoyable place. Nature to me is peaceful and I think humans fit into it very well, you just have to keep an open mind and allow yourself to fully indulge yourself in the experience of the environment.
ReplyDeleteDanielle Crear
ReplyDeleteThe lecture by Henry David Thoreau that the class had an absolute pleasure to see performed by Dr. DiPrima was a lecture that told of a simple life. Thoreau’s lecture was composed of this argument for a simple life in harmony with nature. Thoreau was arguing for this life with the connection to nature. I believe that this argument was titled “Economy” because it is, in addition of using emotional appeal to tell of a happy life with nature, using logical appeal to tell of the economic value of it. Thoreau argues that the average price of rent for one month was the price of his entire home that he never has to pay a dime for again. I think the basis of his argument came from his experiences. He described the economical situation of his argument from experience. He described the leisurely life in harmony with nature from experience. And, most importantly, he describes the love for nature and connection that he shares with nature from experience. I believe that the reason that this argument is so important and well known is because of the love for nature that Thoreau has, which is also probably why the lecture was so important to Thoreau and his life.
Henry Thoreau’s speech was about saving money by building your own house in nature. Also, doing this, what peoples’ place is in nature. He was rather long winded. I think his ideas were good, but not very useful on the economic side, by today’s standards. For example, it would cost more to buy enough land to do that than just to buy a small condo and live with the entire modern convinces. I did like his views on nature, though. He seemed very in touch with the world around him—both politically and naturally.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter witnessing Henry David Thoreau’s lecture I can conclude that Thoreau had a deeper understanding of the intertwining lives of man and nature. It was apparent that Thoreau not only saw nature in a divine light, but also that in order to become one with nature, man should live a simple, self-sufficient life. He thought that in order to truly live and be alive, it is necessary to be submersed in nature. In addition, Thoreau believed that nature had certain lessons to teach on a moral level, and living an uncomplicated life is a lesson not all men know how to do. That living the simplest live you can is the best way to be morally sound. He documents all of his possessions and money in order to show that it is possible to live a simple life. Having excess possessions requires more money, more work and therefore more stress. He argues that “ The incessant anxiety and strain of some is a well-nigh incurable form of a disease.” that can greatly hinder man's spirituality. I think that Thoreau generally thinks that nature is the best example that society can follow. Throughout the lecture he repeatedly says that the four main necessaries of life are food, shelter,clothing and fuel. Once people start requiring more things to live, they have to work more, to pay for those things and ultimately lose their freedom. As the more possessions you have the more shackled you become, and less freedom you have. The less freedom you have, the more desperate you become and “... it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.”.I think that Thoreau’s philosophies are sound in their reasoning but not necessarily practical for society as a whole. Not everyone is going to be satisfied with living a simple life, immersed in nature. I think nature is beautiful and wonderful but there is a very fine line that, when crossed, can become dangerous. We are humans, on the fringe of nature, but not completely one with nature. I respect Thoreau’s simplistic view on the world, but disagree that in order to be a morally sound person, one must be fully connect with nature in a spiritualistic way.
ReplyDelete