Misanthropy

[vulcanlogician]

Was Thoreau a misanthrope or not? (I think he was, and beautifully so.) But what do you think?

I have been thinking about this, and wanted to add to my previous answer:

I think Henry Thoreau would be a misanthrope in the present.  So much of his natural world has been overrun and undermined since his time that I can't help but think he would dislike human nature if he lived today.

His influence in my own life has most certainly led me to misanthropy at last, though I had to give up on his idea of transcendence to get there.

Henry David Thoreau was CERTAINLY a misanthrope.

But I'd argue that he was a loving misanthrope. Rather than a hateful one.

[Fireball]

Speaking of misanthropes, where is GenesisNemesis, these days?

[Alan V]

Henry David Thoreau was CERTAINLY a misanthrope.

But I'd argue that he was a loving misanthrope. Rather than a hateful one.

Misanthropes can be either loving or hateful, as you said. If Henry Thoreau was hateful, he likely would not have been a great writer.

Thoreau was heavily influenced by the romantics.  Per Wikipedia: "Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of the past and nature, preferring the medieval over the classical. Romanticism was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, and the prevailing ideology of the Age of Enlightenment, especially the scientific rationalization of Nature."

So Thoreau was most definitely a critic of his own times in America. However, the fact that he was a professed Transcendentalist means that he still believed in human potential. Wikipedia again: "A core belief is in the inherent goodness of people and nature, and while society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, people are at their best when truly 'self-reliant' and independent."

In the context of his own times, Thoreau looks less like a misanthrope. A misanthrope does not believe in the inherent goodness of people. As I understand it, misanthropes dislike and distrust human nature. Some try to encourage people to be better by being loving, others give up on people and are hateful.

Since Thoreau's priority was nature, I think he would have been forced to abandon his Transcendentalism as unsustainable in today's world, as I mentioned.

So I do think a case could be made either way.

[mordant]

Henry David Thoreau was CERTAINLY a misanthrope.

But I'd argue that he was a loving misanthrope. Rather than a hateful one.

However, the fact that he was a professed Transcendentalist means that he still believed in human potential.  Wikipedia again: "A core belief is in the inherent goodness of people and nature, and while society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, people are at their best when truly 'self-reliant' and independent."

I have come to a place of no longer believing in human potential, at the species level for sure, and mostly at the personal level as well. As an individual I have some ability within a relatively narrow range to transcend the human condition, and I might be best able to do that when "self-reliant and independent" from the herd ... but that's kind of personality-dependent. One can just as well argue that I will do better if I surround myself with other members of the herd with similar beliefs and goals, as we can support each other in our quest.

The very act of being on a forum like this suggests that we are seeking ideas and support, that we don't wish to be completely "independent", or if we are, we haven't yet gotten there.

All of this is independent from whether or not one "hates humanity". For me, it isn't a question of hate. I have compassion and empathy for humans and their struggles, but I don't trust them or think they are in some inexorable march toward utopia, either. In fact, I think humanity is unlikely to survive in the long run. It just keeps fucking itself over, rising from the ashes, rinse and repeat over and over but in the process destroying the environment a little more each time.

[Alan V]

I have come to a place of no longer believing in human potential, at the species level for sure, and mostly at the personal level as well. As an individual I have some ability within a relatively narrow range to transcend the human condition, and I might be best able to do that when "self-reliant and independent" from the herd ... but that's kind of personality-dependent. One can just as well argue that I will do better if I surround myself with other members of the herd with similar beliefs and goals, as we can support each other in our quest.

This is a complicated subject.  There are still a lot of believers in human potentials who appear on TV shows and write books.  According to them, people just need equal opportunities in order to excel, etc.  That is only true to a point.  When you enable people in general, by giving them all smart phones for instance, you also enable a lot of bad faith actors as well.  Our "age of information" has also turned into an "age of disinformation."

Similarly, groups can both magnify our virtues or our faults.

Humanism may be great for many people, but it isn't so good for our environments or for future people for that matter.

The very act of being on a forum like this suggests that we are seeking ideas and support, that we don't wish to be completely "independent", or if we are, we haven't yet gotten there.

AD is just about the only community I belong to, and then only marginally.  I read a lot of books.

All of this is independent from whether or not one "hates humanity". For me, it isn't a question of hate. I have compassion and empathy for humans and their struggles, but I don't trust them or think they are in some inexorable march toward utopia, either.  In fact, I think humanity is unlikely to survive in the long run. It just keeps fucking itself over, rising from the ashes, rinse and repeat over and over but in the process destroying the environment a little more each time.

We drive ourselves crazy by not realizing there are always tradeoffs that will catch up with us sooner or later.  Wealthy people just shift the negatives of what they do onto other people if they can get away with it, which they usually do.  Presently we are even shifting many of the problems we create into the future.