November 1st Discussion

Pond Scum by Katharine Schulz and Discovery at Walden by Roland Wells Robbins

Lead by Nick Vanamee

“Walden was written about 1849 and was published in 1854, seven years after he had left Walden Pond… as a sort of literary Bible” (Robbins 17). Do we idolize the idea of a secluded cabin more so than the reality of Thoreau’s ideas? Has your own respect of Thoreau faded after learning the truth, or has it grown?

As a class, we agreed that Thoreau was not necessarily lying. What he wrote in Walden is his version of the truth. Embellishment is not always lying. We also discussed the point made by Schulz that we enjoy Walden because we read selectively. The class had mixed feelings about this statement. Some believed that we cherry pick naturally and that it might not always be a bad thing. Others questioned whether Schulz was correct. Do we only like Thoreau because we ignore its flaws? There seemed to be some consensus that things can be appreciated while also being acknowledged as flawed.

We also discussed how idolization can lead to polarized opinions. People react emotionally first before they use logic to justify their emotions. In this way, people’s ideas are built from their emotions. If Schulz does not like Thoreau, her interpretations of his writings will naturally reflect on him badly to match her negative emotions. We wondered why Schulz did not mention the Baker Fields section in her article, agreeing that it was the most offensive part. We did agree with Schulz that Thoreau should not be idolized, but not because we thought he was terrible, but because we thought that no one should be idolized.

Do we want to remember things for how they were or how we want them to be?

We discussed what influenced our memories. Our goals and intentions was agreed to be a major influence. When we tell a story, we want it to be interesting and might embellish it to be that way even if its not entirely accurate. The more we tell these stories, the harder it becomes to remember which was the original “true” version. Overall, we agreed that memories are not completely trustworthy. We also discussed the possibility of multiple truths. What is true for one person may not be true for another. But if truth is that subjective, is it important? The truth or the idea of one truth at least is still valuable. Having “the truth” on your side adds support to your arguments that would not exist if everything depended on circumstances or people.

Do we live without contradictions?

We agreed that there is value to living how you preach, but its okay to not always live up to them because we’re only human and the world is imperfect. Everybody makes mistakes, so don’t be too hard on yourself. Still, one should strive to meet the ideals they preach.

Nature versus nurture

We discussed whether our experiences determine the value of our opinions. Do our opinions count less if we do not have much experience? We talked about how not everyone is presented with the same opportunities and how testing yourself can lead to strength, but too much stress at once can break a person instead of strengthen them.