University of Virginia Library

And he walked through the door
and he positioned his head high and
he wailed — Thoreau is a realist.
And he attacked his "realism."

And proud of his stance, he
proceeded to immerse himself in a
sea of verbal diarrhea.

Because not even entering his
thoughts was the possibility of
Thoreau's being an idealist. Which
is sad. For Henry David Thoreau
was an idealist.

Now, an idealist is one who
strives for the ideal. Obviously,
what is ideal for one person may
not be the same for another. So the
best that one can do is to attack the
ideals themselves. And this can be
done in realistic terms. But a basic
recognition that the views are,
indeed, idealistic is essential for any
intelligent argument. Because
Robert Gillmore ignored the
"possibility" of Thoreau being an
idealist, his entire article becomes
absurd. Indeed, it is here where
Gillmore's ignorance of Thoreau is
so clear.

The basic theme of Gillmore's
dissertation centers itself around
the fact that Thoreau was a
non-political entity. Robert
Gillmore is apparently a staunch
believer in Aristotle's view that the
"polis" (political community) is the
ultimate community of man.
Period. Thoreau rejected this idea
for he believed that the pursuit of
Truth is of greater importance. One
can, he felt, transcend himself into
a much superior individual by
leading a much simpler and basic
type of existence; indeed, a
transformation of consciousness
can be attained in this way.

If all individuals strived (at least)
for individual perfection, then it
logically follows that the
government, being made up of
better individuals, would be a
better one. It seems Gillmore would
be content with a nation of hogs
wallowing in the mire proclaiming
"We are the best!"