A problem I have with most philosophical writing is that I often doubt the philosopher really ever thought about human thought. I will not claim to not suffer from this same problem, but I also do not often claim to understand how people think. America lacks well known philosophers in the European tradition of philosophy. Reaching back to undergraduate coursework, I think that Americans tend to be pragmatic. I do not know much about philosophy from the Americas, but I would hazard a guess that two things permeate the thinking of all those who live on North or South America, Jesus and pragmatism.
While I think it is pretty clear that Jesus is probably the most influential philosopher, tied only with other religious leaders, discussing the role of Jesus in American philosophy is certainly fun, it is a bit like talking about Plato's influence on European philosophy. It is interesting, but if everyone is influenced by it the discussion only takes you so far, and not quite to a truck named Rocinante.
When I read Thoreau, there were definitely transcendental overtures. Without society, the farmer would be content with feeding his family. It is the influence of the wealthy, not the will of ice cutters to engage in their peculiar endeavors to satisfy the desire to have cold in the summer (I am somewhat skeptical on this). Yet, is someone who fills pages with drivel about the savings of a used window and the nurturing qualities of the sublimely cheap and cultivatable legume really a transcendentalist? To me, this is the land of pragmatism. Iterations of method and reasoning until reaching the most intelligent practice.
Pragmatic or transcendental, I cannot help but feel that Thoreau never went to Walden, never built a cabin, and not once did he talk to someone. Sarah, after listening to people talk about having "been" to a place without leaving the airport, decided that you had to buy dental floss in a place before you had been there. We have argued endlessly about this. "What if they do not sell dental floss there, has anyone ever been to Antarctica," I tease her with a smug grin? I agree with her at times, but I want to "go" to Oklahoma without staying long enough to necessitate buying dental floss (just buying a toiletry every time one travels is apparently cheating). I think more importantly is going to a place as a blank slate, to allow the place to imprint upon you so you leave the place a new person. Without intending to throw stones from my glass house, I do not think Thoreau ever considered not judging beforehand a single experience in his writings.
I recall a philosopher, and I want to credit Emerson, with writing ideas along this line. He asks why one would travel if one brings a decided mind, and leaves unchanged? I agree with him. Yet, this is far easier to write than to do. When I visit Oklahoma I am bound to be unimpressed. I hope though, that I can be surprised if there are grounds to be surprised. Like a scientific experiment carried out to verify the results of a previous study, a travel destination may not be unexpected. In the mundane or expected one can still grow as a person, just as knowledge grows when a previous experiment is verified.
Thoreau, in Walden, does not grow. He begins by whinging about trains rushing people around, and ends the same way. He further proves that he is equally susceptible to the corruption of society by leaving his cabin on a pond to pursue new windows and meals priced for experience rather than sustenance. Inevitably, he walked away changed. He grew older, and solitude changes people in ways that cannot be anticipated. Yet, I do not think Walden changed him.
Steinbeck left his vacation home in conflict. He felt he had lost America, and without judging him too harshly, I would probably agree that when your concern is the sinking of your sailboat the suffering of the masses is far removed from your mind. In Travels with Charlie though, I find that Charlie is the one who is discovering America. Steinbeck ensured that he had his comfortable bubble of wealth along with him. No dog would ever turn down a warm dry bed, but Charlie was unaware that he was insulated from the reality of other dogs or people, he was open to let the smells of each new place imprint upon him an experience with no preconceived ideas.
In Walden and Travels with Charlie, I get the distinct impression that the authors have managed to write the exact same book, and could have written the book without ever leaving their arm chairs. While Walden is often dull (poor grammar destroys even the best story, it is no wonder that the comma and the novel appeared at about the same time), it is often insightful. Thoreau also records observations of nature, that are being used to help measure climate change. Such naturalism could not be recorded from an arm chair, but the ideas certainly could be. While sitting in a heated home, at a laptop, connected to the internet through a smart phone I can write a passage about how the people who live in this town have been corrupted by society. They are enslaved by a society that tells them they need a TV, a car, and all the trappings of modernity. They should be out enjoying the beauty and wonders of nature. While that statement is hypocritical, I do not need to be out in nature if I have already decided that being in nature is the more noble pursuit. Travels with Charlie is much more pleasing to read, but in the end, it is more of the same.
Instead, I think Hunter S. Thompson had it more correct. He went out searching for the American Dream. In Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, he fails to find it, but I do not think he knew what it was. He pursued the knowledge without preconceived ideas. Further, he sought the American Dream, not America. Without delving too far into Greek philosophy, are there not two things? Is there not America and the Idea of America?
This, I think, is the important question when talking about these two important American creations. Searching for America is not possible. There is no America, only the idea of it. In its ideal form, America may be many things, but to know America is to know the idea of America. You cannot find this in an RV, you can only find it in one's mind. While I cannot point to a particular passage in Travels with Charlie, I was just overcome with the feeling that Steinbeck already had his Idea of America. He tells his reader that he takes no notes, which, with no disrespect, is a fantastic way for memory to mould reality into what the mind wanted it to be. While Thoreau took a great deal of notes (though much of Walden was written after leaving the pond, despite Thoreau's claims), his Idea of Walden was so much stronger than his experience of Walden that I do not know that he was actually there.
If I recall correctly from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, at one point Duke and Dr. Gonzo ask a taxi driver to take them to the American Dream. They are driven to a roller rink in the process of being razed, previously named, "The American Dream." Obviously there is a lot of imagery at work here, Thompson's lament (or Raoul Duke's, I suppose) is that the counterculture was unable to change America in the way he wanted. To him, the American Dream was lost.
While I cannot argue that Thompson's Idea of America was my ideal America, he formed an idea of this country through travel and experience. Gonzo journalism violates the candid observer ideals of standard journalism, but to let something change you, it seems necessary to interact with it. Swimming is an easy task that most animals seem to manage without years of swimming lessons, but to stop fighting our preconceived ideas about the water, and interact with it is the very essence of swimming.
Like swimming, I think travel is the interaction of a person with a place, and philosophy is the interaction between a person and thought. The philosopher traveler must interact with people, places, and ideas with the full intention of letting that interaction unhinge their preconceived ideas. From my reading Thoreau and Steinbeck fail in this regard, and as such, Thoreau never went to Walden Pond and Steinbeck never left his vacation home in New England.
While I think it is pretty clear that Jesus is probably the most influential philosopher, tied only with other religious leaders, discussing the role of Jesus in American philosophy is certainly fun, it is a bit like talking about Plato's influence on European philosophy. It is interesting, but if everyone is influenced by it the discussion only takes you so far, and not quite to a truck named Rocinante.
When I read Thoreau, there were definitely transcendental overtures. Without society, the farmer would be content with feeding his family. It is the influence of the wealthy, not the will of ice cutters to engage in their peculiar endeavors to satisfy the desire to have cold in the summer (I am somewhat skeptical on this). Yet, is someone who fills pages with drivel about the savings of a used window and the nurturing qualities of the sublimely cheap and cultivatable legume really a transcendentalist? To me, this is the land of pragmatism. Iterations of method and reasoning until reaching the most intelligent practice.
Pragmatic or transcendental, I cannot help but feel that Thoreau never went to Walden, never built a cabin, and not once did he talk to someone. Sarah, after listening to people talk about having "been" to a place without leaving the airport, decided that you had to buy dental floss in a place before you had been there. We have argued endlessly about this. "What if they do not sell dental floss there, has anyone ever been to Antarctica," I tease her with a smug grin? I agree with her at times, but I want to "go" to Oklahoma without staying long enough to necessitate buying dental floss (just buying a toiletry every time one travels is apparently cheating). I think more importantly is going to a place as a blank slate, to allow the place to imprint upon you so you leave the place a new person. Without intending to throw stones from my glass house, I do not think Thoreau ever considered not judging beforehand a single experience in his writings.
I recall a philosopher, and I want to credit Emerson, with writing ideas along this line. He asks why one would travel if one brings a decided mind, and leaves unchanged? I agree with him. Yet, this is far easier to write than to do. When I visit Oklahoma I am bound to be unimpressed. I hope though, that I can be surprised if there are grounds to be surprised. Like a scientific experiment carried out to verify the results of a previous study, a travel destination may not be unexpected. In the mundane or expected one can still grow as a person, just as knowledge grows when a previous experiment is verified.
Thoreau, in Walden, does not grow. He begins by whinging about trains rushing people around, and ends the same way. He further proves that he is equally susceptible to the corruption of society by leaving his cabin on a pond to pursue new windows and meals priced for experience rather than sustenance. Inevitably, he walked away changed. He grew older, and solitude changes people in ways that cannot be anticipated. Yet, I do not think Walden changed him.
Steinbeck left his vacation home in conflict. He felt he had lost America, and without judging him too harshly, I would probably agree that when your concern is the sinking of your sailboat the suffering of the masses is far removed from your mind. In Travels with Charlie though, I find that Charlie is the one who is discovering America. Steinbeck ensured that he had his comfortable bubble of wealth along with him. No dog would ever turn down a warm dry bed, but Charlie was unaware that he was insulated from the reality of other dogs or people, he was open to let the smells of each new place imprint upon him an experience with no preconceived ideas.
In Walden and Travels with Charlie, I get the distinct impression that the authors have managed to write the exact same book, and could have written the book without ever leaving their arm chairs. While Walden is often dull (poor grammar destroys even the best story, it is no wonder that the comma and the novel appeared at about the same time), it is often insightful. Thoreau also records observations of nature, that are being used to help measure climate change. Such naturalism could not be recorded from an arm chair, but the ideas certainly could be. While sitting in a heated home, at a laptop, connected to the internet through a smart phone I can write a passage about how the people who live in this town have been corrupted by society. They are enslaved by a society that tells them they need a TV, a car, and all the trappings of modernity. They should be out enjoying the beauty and wonders of nature. While that statement is hypocritical, I do not need to be out in nature if I have already decided that being in nature is the more noble pursuit. Travels with Charlie is much more pleasing to read, but in the end, it is more of the same.
Instead, I think Hunter S. Thompson had it more correct. He went out searching for the American Dream. In Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, he fails to find it, but I do not think he knew what it was. He pursued the knowledge without preconceived ideas. Further, he sought the American Dream, not America. Without delving too far into Greek philosophy, are there not two things? Is there not America and the Idea of America?
This, I think, is the important question when talking about these two important American creations. Searching for America is not possible. There is no America, only the idea of it. In its ideal form, America may be many things, but to know America is to know the idea of America. You cannot find this in an RV, you can only find it in one's mind. While I cannot point to a particular passage in Travels with Charlie, I was just overcome with the feeling that Steinbeck already had his Idea of America. He tells his reader that he takes no notes, which, with no disrespect, is a fantastic way for memory to mould reality into what the mind wanted it to be. While Thoreau took a great deal of notes (though much of Walden was written after leaving the pond, despite Thoreau's claims), his Idea of Walden was so much stronger than his experience of Walden that I do not know that he was actually there.
If I recall correctly from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, at one point Duke and Dr. Gonzo ask a taxi driver to take them to the American Dream. They are driven to a roller rink in the process of being razed, previously named, "The American Dream." Obviously there is a lot of imagery at work here, Thompson's lament (or Raoul Duke's, I suppose) is that the counterculture was unable to change America in the way he wanted. To him, the American Dream was lost.
While I cannot argue that Thompson's Idea of America was my ideal America, he formed an idea of this country through travel and experience. Gonzo journalism violates the candid observer ideals of standard journalism, but to let something change you, it seems necessary to interact with it. Swimming is an easy task that most animals seem to manage without years of swimming lessons, but to stop fighting our preconceived ideas about the water, and interact with it is the very essence of swimming.
Like swimming, I think travel is the interaction of a person with a place, and philosophy is the interaction between a person and thought. The philosopher traveler must interact with people, places, and ideas with the full intention of letting that interaction unhinge their preconceived ideas. From my reading Thoreau and Steinbeck fail in this regard, and as such, Thoreau never went to Walden Pond and Steinbeck never left his vacation home in New England.
While I don't disagree with your analysis of the two texts your post predominately focused upon, it left me thinking how many philosophical works truly changed the overall positions of the philosopher. For example take "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". If I recall correctly, Thompson went on that trip to cover a motor-cross race, of course in the process he searched for the idea of the American Dream. While I accept your point that he didn't know what the American Dream was when he began his search, I find it interesting he would conduct his search in Las Vegas, a place he selected, perhaps, because he knew he wouldn't find it there. For example, why couldn't he have searched for it in Los Angeles, where arguably the idea of the original American Dream was formed? After all, bringing this back to Steinbeck, were the Joads, although characters of fiction, not in a fruitless search of the American Dream as well?
ReplyDeleteThis post began to go much more deeply into the idea of America, including the suicides of both Thompson and Abbie Hoffman. Their deaths are intensely interesting to me because, while they were both suffering from medical conditions (Thompson was dealing with chronic pain from multiple conditions, and Hoffman had been diagnosed as bipolar, and had switched medications at the time of his death), they were both also suffering from the loss of their American Dreams. Thompson vehemently hated Nixon, but said that he would have voted for him over the Bush-Cheney crowd. He also wrote, in _Fear and Loathing_ "the wave speech;" "so now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back." The wave that broke was the drug and freedom counterculture that he embodied in life and writing. Hoffman was surrounded by hundreds of pages of hand written notes at the time of his death, and I have been told that some of these expressed regret over his political loss, a theme that seems reasonably common in his later years. While these themes may make an appearance in a later post, it became evident that including "the losing left" would have made this post ungainly (or more so).
DeleteAs for Thompson's choice of Las Vegas as a certain loser in the search for the American Dream I think you definitely are on to something. Vegas represents the avarice and opulence of the dream of American wealth. The true "Idea of America" is not going to be found there. Yet it is also where repressed Americans go to experience "freedom." While the high-water mark may be visible from Vegas, it is the last place where the illusion persists of choice without consequence.
In this post, Thompson only makes a relatively brief appearance to contrast his gonzo journalism to Steinbeck's and Thoreau's predestined journalism. Thompson may have gotten himself beaten to death confronting the bigots of New Orleans, but Steinbeck went only to confirm his preconceived (and justified) hatred. The most interesting part of _Fear and Loathing_ is that Thompson took copious notes, but in the end produced a novel, not journalism at all. This is actually hard to remember when reading it, as we want Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo to be Thompson and Oscar Zeta Acosta, respectively. We want it to have been Thompson swatting those hallucinated bats, and maybe it was, or maybe it was just really fun to read/watch.
DeleteThe key to _Fear and Loathing_ and _Grapes of Wrath_ is that they are novels. Well, _Grapes of Wrath_ is anyway. In a novel, the meaning of the story comes from the change in the characters. Each of the Joads change slowly (saving the grandparents who choose death over change), Tom becomes (more) angry, Rose of Sharon changes from innocence and dreams to breast feeding a starving man. The Joads, while certainly seeking the American Dream, are being changed by their inability to find it.
I think when reading something, we want to learn by watching the characters learn. Even in short fiction we look for meaning in the character's epiphany. This brings me back to _Walden_ and _Travels with Charlie_ I do not think there was any change. As you point out, is change something the philosopher does? I suppose not. Most philosophical writing I have read is a presentation of the world and thought as described at one set time in the life of the philosopher, it is static, and often stagnant. Thoreau set out to see if he could live his philosophy, and he couldn't, not really, so I suppose _Walden_ was always destined to be a boring, rambling collection of pretentious thoughts. Steinbeck sets out to discover something, to be changed by it. How sad that he spent months of his life chronicling his failure. It would be more instructive and interesting had he written another novel about vagabonds discovering America, because maybe fiction could have been more true.