THOREAU’S CONCEPT OF MAN
Dr. K. V.
Raghupathi
Thoreau’s concept of man is both materialistic and spiritual. To say that he was completely idealistic and mystical is to misunderstand and place him wrongly with Emerson. Emerson’s concept of man is essentially idealistic and mystical: that every man according to him is a “divinity in disguise” clearly tells us that he is plunging us deep into ourselves. What he had done was that he had recorded those flashes of thoughts that came from his intuitive mind which revealed to him the most unsolved engima of human existence. On the other, Thoreau possessed an original genius which combined, integrated and converted those thoughts into reality by living actually and proving the worth of it in a meaningful way.
His practical concept of man is clearly sated in his famous classic, Walden. His subsequent recordings in his journals are primarily illustrations or elaborations of those ideas. He found those ideas confirmed in his practical living at the pond. Though initially, he was influenced by Hindu philosophy, especially by the Geeta, gradually he experimented with those ideas, lived through his own experience and confirmed the truth. So, the experiences were his own though the ideas were borrowed.
In Walden he relates man to nature, which is a perennial source of inspiration, knowledge and wisdom. He does not relate man to things and objects in the material world. That is one aspect of human life. Indeed, for Thoreau, man derives the full significance, meaning and value from the spirit which is often neglected and ignored. He writes, “life is everything” which includes both material and spiritual; the ideal, and the real; the abstract and the concrete, the individual and the universal; the representative and the social; the particular and the general. He looked at life critically, both inwards and outwards to unravel the enigma of existence. He went to the Walden pond not to escape from the real empirical world but to demonstrate and prove the real facts of life and show the humanity that life was worth living. He tells us, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see I could learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” He believed that only through concrete living without idealising and concrete reports that one could project the inner life, which was often neglected by the mundane man. In the woods he reduced life to its simplest elements, food, shelter and few books. He writes, “I.....wanted to drive life into a corner and reduce it to its lowest terms.” Beyond these minimal basic requirements he never craved, and every extra addition, he considered, was an unnecessary luxury and comfort. These extra luxuries and comforts, he thought are positive hindrances to the elevation of man. His life was in complete accord with his profession and the surroundings. Thus a complete and a perfect balance not only with himself but also with nature had been achieved.
Walden is not just a narrative account of life in the woods. The inner man, the evolving man is ever present throughout the book. This ‘I’ is the experienced and the experienced, the observer and the observed constantly running through the encounters, narrating, commenting, examining critically and discussing man in relation to man, the spirit, society and nature. In a complete sense, Thoreau represents man as an evolving creature in true Aurobindonian sense. And Walden clearly symbolises this gradual evolution of soul in Thoreau both in vertical and horizontal sense. It is a sort of voyage from the inward to the outward and the outward to the inward. Thus a balance is struck between the two worlds. No doubt, it is a dramatic projection of the author’s personality, but at the same time it speaks volumes of what and how man can be in the world. According to Thoreau, when once the correspondence is established between man and society and man and nature, he grows from lower level to higher.
In Nature Emerson locates and defines man’s position through the triangular relationship of man, nature and God while Thoreau does not talk too much of God, but simply explains the position of man through nature. Although he had bouts of visionary experiences, he never philosophised or mystified like Emerson. For him, the simple facts of life were the chief concerns. But, certainly, he did not deny the fact that through the perception of the exterior beauty of Nature, man becomes conscious of the spiritual beauty of the universe. This happens when our senses are properly sharpened and harmonised with our inner self. Then alone can we see beyond the real outward beauty. This is the moment at which we are awakened to our essential being. Thoreau does not talk of the aftermath of this deep alchemy. On the other, he simply expects us to be in communion with nature which also is an essential fact of life besides the material element.
Thus Thoreau wants us to confront the facts of life without escaping from them, not merely by dealing materialistically with too much emphasis on it, but in all aspects, both materially and spiritually. Life must be lived through. He does not put man on any extreme position, instead he juxtaposes man between the two extremes. In the woods, he had lived through by doing manual labour and also participating in nature to awaken the inner spirit. Thus, in Thoreau’s sense, man is defined, explained and ascertained both materially and spiritually. Both elements are essential for harmonious living.
Further, Emerson’s high idealism of the oneness of things completely erases the importance of the individual. He does not believe in a rugged type of individualism. Indeed in his philosophy, the element of ‘individual’ gets totally eliminated when he realizes the universal soul. The self reliance of Emerson is the reliance upon soul or God. On the contrary the individual, in Thoreau’s philosophy remains and is not completely extinct. He says man must exist in order to live, taste, feel, touch and experience every bit of life. It is only through intermingling with the facts of life, can man undergo, evolve and develop as a complete human being. In this way, his concept of man sounds very Indian, truly Vedantic, which aims at harmonious development of body, mind and soul.
Thoreau, like his fellow transcendentalist Emerson, does not define man in parts. For him, the completeness is important, and not the segments. In completeness lies integrity, and it is the essential being which gives beauty to the individual’s personality. To have this kind of personality. Thoreau does not favour any encroachment by systems, institutions, theories and philosophies. The tendency of man is to look at himself and define in parts. It was against this tendency both Emerson and Thoreau raised their voice. So, both emphasise the integrity in man. From here springs the originality. Both exhort man to be non-conformist. Let men act according to their inner drive and be themselves. Emerson says. “Insist on yourself; never imitate…..Do that which is assigned to you and you can never hope too much nor dare too much.” In this way, man will remain man and live in complete harmony with the external and will save himself from complete ruination.
Thoreau’s concept of man is man-critic (It is my coinage) like that of Emerson’s Man-Thinking. He expected us to be critical of our own life, constantly evaluate and streamline in accordance with the laws of nature. Each man should become a critic unto himself first. Like Emerson he taught us that we must follow our intuition. He conceived that man’s first duty was to his conscience. He affirmed the supremacy of conscience. He must obey the dictates of his conscience, and act according to it. The conscience here is the pure inner spirit. What every nation needs, according to Thoreau, “ is not of policy, but of probity”, men who will obey the spirit rather than the letter of the law. If the State infringes this, he must resist this breach of compact with all the force of uncompromising principle. Thoreau did not conceive of the State in the abstract. The State derives its power from its citizens, hence, it must uphold their rights, their fundamental freedom and not ride rough shod over their rights. Not that Thoreau was opposed to the State as such. What he objected to was the abrogation of power by the State to the detriment of its citizens. From this standpoint, “that Government is best which governs not at all.” In this sense, Thoreau was a great American Rosseau.
In Thoreau’s philosophy man is the center, and supreme and everything else is subservient and secondary. To flourish as an individual freedom is essential, and an extremist as he was, Thoreau upheld his freedom of an individual to its core. It is in freedom according to him, man grows not only intellectually but spiritually, and learns everything. This becomes true knowledge. Such a man becomes the wisest, and the wisest man. Thoreau says “preaches no doctrine.” As he lives for himself, he indirectly contributes to the welfare of humanity.
Henry David Thoreau is best remembered the world over for his eloquent noble principles, his firm upholding of the superiority of conscience, and the nobility and dignity of the individual; and not for his eccentricities as viewed by others.