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
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.