Letter to Emerson

Letter to Emerson

Peter Joelson

12/17/08

July 23, 1846

Dear Waldo,

My confinement is over, Waldo! I am happy to report that my two year experiment at Walden was an extreme success! I guess that is why I am laughing as I write to you. Just a day after my experiment finished, before I could even write to you about my marvelous revelations and new ideas, I was arrested for refusing to pay my tax, and brought to a place a person may conceive as a “prison”. You have taught me valuable lessons in life, in fact, you changed my life when I first met you and heard you preach. But highlighted in your “doctrine” (as some people would call it), is to live life for what you believe in and not subside to people who hold the power or the money. Well, I certainly have followed that lifestyle faithfully. But old friend, do not feel the slightest tinge of guilt for me and my current predicament. This prison is actually an almost luxury of a kind. I look out and see the sun set brilliantly over concord, and I realize that this feeling I have in the pit of my stomach is in no way a reaction to my own predicament, but rather it is a feeling of great pity that I feel for the rest of concord. For they are imprisoned in a way I will never be, they are imprisoned within their own minds. My experiment in Walden has taught me a good many things, one of which is that exploring one’s own mind is the key to salvation! Never have I thought so clearly then the days in which I spent at Walden. I journeyed to the corners of my brain, discovering new ideas and new places, to which I have never been! Waldo, you’d love the experience! You must explore your own mind; it will shed light into your life like never before!

I find myself quite enjoying my imprisonment, for I have the self-knowledge that I am just and that the government is wrong. In fact, “under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison” (that sounds pretty good, maybe I’ll include it in one of my essays!). As I told you before, I had refused to pay my tax. You might find that strange, but think for a second, don’t you see? I am walking down the path that you created (yes I realize I have said that man should make paths through woods, not walk down them, don’t throw my own words back at me). I have sought to refute this government for their unjustly policies, policies which I am sure you have recognize. “I do not wish to be regarded as a member of any society which I have not joined!” Their policies in treating blacks, as well as their war with Mexico, none of this should be tolerated by us. But, what do we do? We sit and do nothing, we watch as our own government destroys their own citizens, whether it is through war or through racism. Well I say that we should revolt and that we should fight our own government! Our only chance is through “peaceable revolution.” We must do no harm, yet “enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.” Do not sit around and do nothing as you have done so often in the past. Please, join me in a revolution against our own government.

Sincerely, your friend,

Henry David Thoreau

P.S. Say hello to Lydian for me

Civil Disobedience (Response 2)

Civil Disobedience 2

Peter Joelson

12/16/08

Dear Mr. Thoreau,

Once again I find myself writing to you. After reading the second half of your “Civil Disobedience” essay I once again find your ideas interesting, yet once again have clear, sensible, logic, as to why your ideas do not work. Your ideas on rebelling against your government by not paying taxes in a “peaceable revolution” would not work. Your idea is that, “if a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.” Your theory is correct, but you chose the wrong battle to fight. After your time, there have been a few people who have followed your example, such as Martin Luther King Jr. (fighting for black civil rights). He used and tried to enact other protestors to use the tool of a “peaceable revolution.” The only difference between his revolution and your theoretical revolution, is that his had heart behind it. His revolution inspired hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions), to take part in a rebellion. Your idea of people not paying taxes has a few flaws. For one, the majority of your rebels will only be poor people, who are not paying taxes, not because of principal, but because they do not have the money to do so. Such a rebellion will not go far unless there is heart behind it. It also will not work because a government can strike you down and “shed innocent blood” without any effect. To the average civilian, the government taking actions against a person who hasn’t paid a tax is only a government that is punishing a lawbreaker. However, as it was in the Civil Rights Movement (a point in history I wish you could have seen), the people saw innocent blacks being attacked by dogs or destroyed by fire hoses. Such an image will bring a revolution closer to their objective, for they have the pity of the public people. This is unlike your idea in which not many people will take pity with you, thus bringing you and your revolution nowhere.

P.S. I hope that you take my letters as “constructive criticism” and not contempt.

Walden Conclusion Response

Conclusion Response

Peter Joelson

12/12/08

After reading your book (or rather excerpts from it), it seems that while you give mixed messages, one of your biggest ideals, which you highlight in “Conclusion” is that a man should “direct your eye sight inward, and you’ll find a thousand regions in your mind yet undiscovered.” You believe that discovering oneself is all one needs, and that traveling abroad is thus pointless when you have yourself to travel, “What was the meaning of that South-Sea Exploring Expedition, with all its parade and expense, but an indirect recognition of the fact, that there are continents and seas in the moral world…” I have continued to admire your mind Mr. Thoreau, but I do not envy your mind. While some scholars might think otherwise, I find you to be a very close-minded person. This inner exploring is a concept most will not be able to grasp. The idea is at their fingertips, they understand what they can do, but they cannot hold onto your idea into their hand. Most people do not have the mental ability to achieve your suggestions. Exploring oneself will require a kind of meditation and few people possess the inner strength to achieve it. People explore the world to drink in new surroundings and new ideas. This exploration is odd to you, but just because it is odd, does not mean it is wrong. You must be willing to accept ideas that are different or contrast to your beliefs, just as you hope your readers will be able to accept your ideas. The road to your head is a two lane road, and you do not possess the power to create a road block, no matter how much arrogance you possess.

Response on Higher Laws

Response on Higher Laws

Peter Joelson

12/10/08

Mr. Thoreau, previously I have condescended and I have asked questions that were somewhat sarcastic. But upon reading your “Higher Laws” chapter, I would like to give you some advice. You stated that when you fish, you feel a little bit of “self-respect,” yet afterwards, you feel “that it would have been better if I had not fished.” You feel ashamed for your actions, and believe that it is going against your beliefs. But I feel that you are not at fault, nor should you destroy yourself over your inner conflict. Your urge that when you “live in a wilderness I should again be tempted to become a fisher and hunter in earnest,” is natural. Your belief that “this instinct in me which belongs to the lower orders of creation,” is a false pretense. Everyone has these urges to fish or to hunt. Do you consider yourself a higher order of creation? You said yourself that hunting was “one of the best parts of my education,” and if a boy asked permission to hunt, you would respond “yes.” Your lure to fishing (no pun intended) or hunting is, if not human nature, your childhood calling. Do not destroy your inner self over a childhood memory. But at the same time, you must not forget your childhood memories. The best way to achieve this is by accepting your nature.

Where I lived, What I live for

Where I lived, What I Lived for

Peter Joelson

12/9/08

As a man of nature, you live a life among trees, water, and animals. With your lifestyle, what do you do with your daily life? Obviously self-reflection is one of the inevitable outcomes, which you chose to express by writing books. But apart from that, what is it that you actually do? Living on the outskirts of town, you have no immediate access to any luxuries. Thus your only option of work would be to self-provide. Something that is not made clear in your writings is what happens when you are satisfied with your work? Do you sit back and admire your achievement for days, until you must go back to diligent work? Or, do feel that there is never anything that can be fully completed, and working is your life? Apart from that, you mention that the closest you came to having a “possession” was when you almost bought that house in Hollowell. If this is true, then mentioning the fact that you only have 10 cents is moot; what is the point in possessing money when you don’t buy any possession with that money? If that farm was the closest thing to a possession, did you never buy anything in town? Or do you define possession a different way then I do?

Thoreau's Economy

Response to Thoreau's Economy
Peter Joelson
12/8/08
English 400
Hans Richter



Mr. Thoreau your ideas that you right in your book are quite interesting. However there is a kind of hypocrisy within your words. You say that there are poor men in the world who have inherited farms, cattle and other such items. You then move on and proclaim that men "are so occupied with factitious cares superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them." As a transcendentalists (which I know you refuse to call yourself), to be in touch with nature is one of the most important aspects of life. How can men, who have inherited farms and livestock, live their lives without the slightest grasp or "plucking finer fruits" of nature. Their life is abiding by the rules of nature. They grow crops, for trade or for themselves, but either way they are working with the earth around them. How dare you judge that those people are obsolete to you. You constantly are talking down to them, yet they have grasped the meaning of life more that you ever will. Those peoples or those commoners have families. They are entangled with nature far more than your narrow mindlessness will ever be able to grasp. Having a family is part of nature, possibly the most important part of nature. They have joined the cycle of nature by having kids. An experience you have yet to experience. Mating is the purest form of nature. How dare you suggest that these people are living a life of impurity.

I admire your lifestyle Mr. Thoreau, such simplicity must have a bliss many cannot understand, but I admire your criticism of people. Their life will never be like yours, yet just because their lifestyle is different does not give you the right to condescend them.