The Abandonment of Personal Luxury and Responsibility
"Simplify, simplify, simplify." This fundamental precept of Thoreau, Emerson, and the other transcendentalists has earned itself quite a following since it was first presented. But what, exactly, does it mean to "simplify" our lives? Is eliminating excess luxuries, material goods, and responsibilities the true road to supreme happiness? I do not believe that those ideas are meant for society as a whole, rather as a personal choice that should be allowed but, in many cases, is not. To develop this idea, the false belief that stripping everyone of luxuries will lead to a utopian society must be discussed, followed by the numerous reasons why we must not abandon responsibility.
Thoreau believed that if we all lived with nature, utilizing the bare necessities of life, there would be no fighting and everyone would be content. I do not believe this to be true. It is human nature to desire the finer things in life and, for most of us, that craving must be satisfied. The decision of whether or not to invest in extraneous material goods should be a purely personal one. The rest of us should not be penalized for it, for there are many roads to bliss. Affluent people, although not always, are often able to seek satisfaction by purchasing such surplus comforts. Such is the route they choose. Conversely, many people find joy in the simpler things, like the transcendentalists. Fine also. Either path should be seen as acceptable. In our society, the latter course is often scorned. It should not be--we must learn to accept all different ways of life no matter how strange they might be.
Self-reliance and responsibility were at the core of transcendentalist ideals. While I agree wholeheartedly with relying on one's own self to see difficult times through, Thoreau carried it too far, by being responsible to absolutely no one but oneself. This could never work for society. If none of us ever looked out for anyone else, no problems would ever be solved. Nothing would ever be accomplished and we never would have been able to bask in all of the technological advancements that we now take for granted (although that would be just fine with Thoreau).
This brings up the idea of national responsibility. Must everyone be a citizen of some country? Thoreau certainly refused to be--the country that "owned" him so appalled him that he refused to pay his taxes. An intriguing concept--must we contribute to a government that we have come to not rely on at all? The "citizen militias" of today may have a justifiable point--if they could learn to express their opinions without such rash violence.
Thoreau and the other transcendentalists presented many interesting ideas. While I do not completely share in their beliefs of abandoning material goods and responsibility, that is merely my personal opinion. Anyone should be able to choose their own way of life because, as Thoreau would have said, any man can constitute "a majority of one."