Rhetorical Analysis Essay On Where I Lived And What I Live For

The Prospects of Thoreau’s Philosophy
Henry David Thoreau proved to be a man of strong beliefs, which he explained in his essay “Where I Lived and What I Lived For”, asking questions that he wanted the audience to ponder, such as, “Why should we live in such a hurry and waste life?” His goal in writing the essay, which is an excerpt from a grand collection of essays, was to convey his idea of the way that man should expand his knowledge for the sake of simply bettering himself and to disassociate himself from the technology to enjoy the nature that has been gifted to us. If men in the twenty-first century were to comply with the scheme that Thoreau examined in his essay, the economy and community would be at risk due to failure to communicate, so the philosophy would damage the aspects of life that man has become dependant on. Thoreau presented the philosophy that we blindly misuse the endowments of daily life in a frantic attempt to save time, although we never savor the time we have. He
feels that the population should relish in the simplicity of feeding the hunger of knowledge we starve ourselves for when we neglect to focus on enhancing the thoughts that jar our minds. He also conceives the thought that men spend an unnecessary surplus of time on materialistic devices which he deems unworthy of working on. Thoreau further illustrates his point by saying that the newspaper and post hold no value because they illuminate the same incidents every day.

Chastain 2
If men adopted Thoreau’s philosophy, international bonds would fracture, causing agitation among the economy. Self-sufficiency would be the collective criterion, rendering businesses as useless, because men could fend for themselves enough to sever the ties built within the economy. For instance, restaurants would gradually deteriorate if men became less dependant on them and began to eat at them less; He states that we could practice a more direct life by simply eating one meal per day instead of three. Independent farming, along with other vocations, would become fundamental because markets would no longer make enough money to continue for public needs. The decline of business and trade among people would result in also having a closer impact on the organization of companionship.
If man breathed only to accumulate self-sufficiency, he would lack interaction with the people around him, evoking devolution amidst a community.
As a consequence, there would cease to be personal relationships with the people who live around you, which isolates you in occasion of disasters. Still without disasters, there would be people who are unable to support themselves in society of self-reliant standards, which would eradicate an entire group of people far beyond the means of natural selection. Given that speculation, Thoreau’s ideology would not be feasible in twenty first century communities.
Thoreau’s values of life would, however, be possible to live by for individuals who could sustain a secluded lifestyle. People who have become malcontent with the accepted standard could benefit from living based on his philosophy, because in today’s society the media pays lip service to individualism, but does not act on it. Thoreau exclaims “devote days and nights
to

Chastan 3 work, but go tinkering on our lives to improve them,” which could be done by someone who has broken the social configuration constructed by those who oppose Thoreau’s idea.
Thoreau’s ideas proposed in “Where I Lived and What I Lived For” could be pursued by individuals, but if followed by a large community, it would crumble. People in the twenty first century have become reliant on technology and businesses, but it would not be impossible to ensue a self-sufficient life for those who are interested.