There must be some internal urge in humans like hunger or horniness that takes over their rational mind and compels them to assign the shameful label of “hypocrite” upon others.
When your insecurity and jealousy is too uncomfortable to deal with you can knock a successful person down below your level by finding a flaw (real or imagined) and call them a hypocrite. This of course negates all of that person’s wisdom and accomplishments because being a hypocrite is the worst thing you can be in this world apparently.
Walden is about simple living and never claimed to be about one man against the world rugged self-sufficiency.
If you don’t know what this post is about go to Google and type in:
“thoreau mom laundry reddit” and read all the posts
typed up with zeal about Thoreau and Walden.
A Sketchy History Of Pencil Lead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)#Influence
IMO the laundry thing is an easy example of the larger issue of extreme privilege. Being able to live on a rich friend’s property in the woods by a pond sounds awesome. I’m sure I would love that and it would do amazing things for my well-being. But that’s just not a relatable thing for most people and it can really sour the message.
I understand your point. However, if someone who has smoked for 30 years and is dying of lung cancer advises you not to smoke do you dismiss them, call them a hypocrite, and then start smoking?
I actually think your hypothetical smoker is a great example of the opposite. Someone who lived it, understands the struggle, and ultimately regrets their choices is exactly who you want to hear from. It’s why the really cheesy don’t smoke PSAs don’t ring a chord with most people, they don’t feel genuine.
I don’t think Thoreau is some enormous hypocrite, but I do absolutely understand why some people might feel bitter about it when they learn the greater context.
The opposite of what? That was their point.
It’s because cigarettes are addicting and so when someone harming themselves says not to do it, it makes sense. They’re suffering from a bad habit / addiction and they’re saying others shouldn’t do it too.
Someone proclaiming the virtues of simple living yet the way they got there being unobtainable for anyone hearing the advice makes no sense.
They’re both hypocrites on the surface but only one survives scrutiny.
How is living on a little patch of land in a shack and growing beans unobtainable? It was the 1800s. Way too many people are hung up on the idea that he lived on a lot of land belonging to a friend. He could have gone off into the remote woods very easily. I don’t see the big advantages or unobtainable nature in your argument.
It’s not like he was a YouTuber living in a mansion that his dad bought and was trying to sell you his book on real estate investing.
There’s nothing unobtainable about what he did or what he wrote about. Chris McCandless (though definitely controversial) went out and had his adventure in the 1990s and did so without money.
Thoreau living on Emerson’s land was convenient but he didn’t win the lottery and it’s not unobtainable. There’s a homeless guy living in a cave in Baker, CA right now. He walks to town about once a week. I suppose his life is easy and unobtainable because he’s got a “free cave” on BLM land, right?
People are way too hung up on Thoreau’s supposed advantages and they are exaggerating them as well.
It’s unfortunate, but if you did that you’d pretty much have to write off a good chunk of classic rock. Too many of those bands had underage girls as groupies, some to pretty extreme degrees. Here’s one article about Zeppelin that covers more ground than just them.
Lately I’ve been having a tough time with the fact that a lot of musicians and actors I’ve really enjoyed have either proven themselves to be truly sketchy people, or have some serious (but not yet proven) allegations against them. I’m not even talking about the classic rockers, but a lot of stuff has come out about current acts over the last few years - Ryan Adams, the dude from Arcade Fire, Marilyn Manson, etc.
Yeah, anytime I hear people wanting to give up the art because of the artist I think you’d have to give up a lot of media and live a life without a lot of books, music, movies. Also, that’s just the stuff we know about. And there’s probably some evil person who had a hand in assembling my car but I’m not going to stop driving it because of that. I’m still going to rock to Led Zeppelin.
Very good point about the car! Art is obviously more personal, but yeah, the fact is that anything that makes up our personal world has statistically benefited in some way by the acts of bad people.
Only the person who assembles your car doesn’t have massive fame and fortune, which you contribute to by not only paying for their work, but not speaking out against whatever abhorrent thing they did you’re choosing to overlook (while an assembly person isn’t the one profiting from the sale of the car they built, nor do they have any power or reputation that lets them get away with whatever they want) to facilitate them continuing to abuse others.
There are a number of logical inconsistencies in your comment.
First, “someone who had a hand in assembling my car” necessarily includes the corporation employing the people involved in assembly, not just the laborers themselves.
You’ve probably heard the phrase “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” It’s relevant here. To make a profit, the companies involved in the R&D, production, marketing, distribution, and sale of any product, like a car, must pay the workers less than their labor is worth; this is inherently exploitative. If an “ethical” company tried to enter into this space and avoided doing that, it would be outcompeted by unethical companies that exploited their workers. Strategies to avoid this, like injecting capital from elsewhere, simply move where the exploitation occurs.
Any art funded, produced, marketed, or distributed by a corporation cannot be ethically consumed. Art created by an independent artist can be ethically consumed, but only if all of their supplies were ethically sourced.
As such, the point - that abandoning art because of something one artist involved did requires the use of a line of reasoning that would necessarily result in refusing to make almost all other purchases - holds.
It’s especially relevant given that the original post regarded someone who has no fortune because he is dead. A dead person’s fame is irrelevant. Unless there is an estate or some other institute that is profiting from increased visibility into his work, their art can be consumed or criticized on its own merits. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for criticism or analysis of it with the additional context from the artist’s life, but if such criticism takes the form I’ve described above - if it boils down to “You shouldn’t consume X because of Y thing related to its creation” - it’s reasonable to dismiss it due to it relying upon the same fallacy.
Listening to a CD you already purchased has no further impact on the band’s livelihood.
Streaming their song on Spotify has a negligible impact, but it doesn’t “facilitate their abuse” any more than buying a loaf of bread does. In either case, the companies involved are enriched more than the laborer, and since the companies themselves are themselves a larger problem than just the few members of a band could possibly be, you have to choose between:
Saying that someone should not consume Led Zeppelin but that buying a car is okay would fall firmly into the “refusing to consume a product arbitrarily” category.
Except smoking for 30 and getting cancer is in no way comparable to exploiting and completely depending on others’ labour to amass wealth and power, only to claim yourself “independent” once you made it.
I would also argue that the one who created the post in his defence is the one in the so called “frenzy”, not the people responding to your prompt with a reality check lol
I think you have a reading comprehension problem. The smoking/cancer analogy was not a comparison. It was used to state that you should not dismiss good advice simply because you think someone is a hypocrite.
| exploiting and completely depending on others’ labour
Ralph Waldo Emerson was Thoreau’s friend and he allowed him to stay on his land. How exactly is that exploitation? When your friend does you a favor or lends you something that in your mind is exploitation?
My guess is that you have never read “Walden” or “Civil Disobedience” or “Life Without Principle”.