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 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?
Maybe this is a separate the art from the artist argument.
Someone recently criticized me for liking an old 70s Cat Stevens song. They pointed out Cat Stevens’ comments about Salman Rushdie
I not going to stop liking songs or movies or books simply because 20 years or more after they were created the artist gets canceled for saying or doing something stupid.
I like Walden and its message and just find it odd that people get in a fevered frenzy to call others a hypocrite.
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.
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”.