Thoreau's without Universal Focus

1124 Words3 Pages

In “Life without Principle" Thoreau argues that work should be something we love in order to lead a life worth living, not simply a make a living.
“The aim of the laborer should be, not to get his living, to get "a good job," but to perform well a certain work; and, even in a pecuniary sense, it would be economy for a town to pay its laborers so well that they would not feel that they were working for low ends, as for a livelihood merely, but for scientific, or even moral ends. Do not hire a man who does your work for money, but him who does it for love of it.”
Thoreau is able to get his readers to agree with him because he appeals to our idealistic notions of how nice it would be to love every minute of life, including work. However, Thoreau does not take into account people living in poverty, worrying about things such as paying rent and finding money for children's clothes or school supplies. It is almost naive to conclude that in order to live a fulfilled life we must pursue our own path in finding what it is we truly love, and then work doing that. How can he forget there are people who do not have such freedom and must take a job because it comes with a paycheck?
I as a university student what can I think and believe about a world without any profit if I am paying to the university or after finish to the government if you received a loan, for sure I am studying what I want and I think I will love to do it for the rest of my life but this is me, my opinion, my situation. In my case I want to run my own engineering business, be “the man in charge” that’s what I would love to do but I am pretty sure that I will not be doing what I want or what I love since the first day after leaving the university. Life is about sacrifices and...

... middle of paper ...

... clearly it is nice to think about the possibility of live doing what we love to do but it is not an universal possibility although Thoreau talks about industrial workers, he doesn’t seem to understand them, is it hard for a wealthy person or even a normal person to imagine what impoverished people have to do and what do they sacrifice because of his conditions and that they have to work, work and work because if they don’t, they will starve. I am not wealthy but I am not poor but I have seen at close range what impoverished people suffer and how if we see people with degrees claiming for the lack of jobs let just imagine all those who doesn’t have any degree, did Thoreau forgot there are people who do not have such freedom and must take a job because it comes with a paycheck? I really think he did although is a good principle but it cannot be a universal principle.

Open Document