Walden

Hey, it's Erin.

Well, I felt bad for ignoring Walden, so here it goes. The Romantic concept of the perfectability of man is very present in the conclusion. He says that "if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in the common hours... if you have built castles in air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." Like Romanticism itself, that statement is so idealistic. In reality, it would be extremely hard for anyone, though I suppose nothing is impossible, to achieve everything that they ever wanted to. When Thoreau brought up the anecdote about the artist in Kouroo, I expected a completely different ending. The man devoted his whole life to making the PERFECT staff. I guess that is another Romantic idea, that he pursued, and accomplished, his goal ("his material was pure, and his art was pure; how could the result be other than wonderful?"), even though his friends left him (focusing on the individual. But doesn't - I guess - stubborness like that have both its virtues as well as its faults? If we cannot make something perfect, should we abandon the rest of our lives to do so?

The Romantics seem to put a strong emphasis on honesty. Thoreau says that "no face which we can give to a matter will stead us so well at last as the truth. This alone wears well. For the most part, we are not where we are but in a false position... any truth is better than make-believe." Emerson exaults the honesty of children, in that they express what they feel. Even Whitman approves of honesty ("Listen! I will be honest with you..."). Yet at the same times it is honesty for the individual; Romanticism exaults individualism. The individual has to do what they feel is right for them. Thoreau says that "if a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer." This sort of connects to the discussion we had about protests and what if only one person protests. I think that the Romantics would say that the individual has do to what is right for them, even if they are by themselves (and lose all their friends by making a staff). When Whitman talks about the open road, he is asking others to join him. But there always has to be a first person in order to get something started, even if they never see the result themselves, just as Whitman never saw the end of the procession on the road. Maybe protesting as an individual isn't always effective, but like Emerson said, if something isn't true for you, how can it be true for everyone else? I'm not saying I agree with that, but I think that you can argue that movements are started by individuals working on their own, and then they are adopted by a group (or not). What do you think?

I thought that it was interesting that Thoreau said, "perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one." Why perhaps? It seems that he was almost skirting the issue. "Perhaps" makes it seem so ambiguous, and not like the actual truth.