Finn Clarke

The Good Life

Throughout time, many philosophers have debated the meaning and purpose of existence,
and grappled with defining what constitutes a ‘good life’. With the characteristics of, and
path to such an existence subject to personal experience and opinion, many contrasting
theories have been formulated in an attempt to provide a definitive response to this
question. Philosopher Henry David Thoreau emphasises the importance of moral agency
gained through a connection with the natural world, which he believes is integral in
achieving the good life. Contemporary philosopher Slavoj Zizek provides an alternative
perspective, highlighting the importance of society’s conception of nature due to the
repercussions this has for contemporary issues such as climate change. While both
philosophers provide starkly contrasting views, I believe they are compatible and integral in
answering the question of how to lead a happy and fulfilled life.

For Thoreau, nature is inherently valuable due to its beauty and the importance of the
ecosystem in supporting life. Nature possesses an interconnectedness and spiritual
significance greater than its purely materialist existence. Influenced by Transcendentalism
which maintains that nature is a reflection of the divine, Thoreau’s views contrast in that he
believes nature is divine in itself. Thoreau asserts that humans, as part of nature, can best
understand ourselves when immersed in it, a connection which fosters introspection and
encourages reflection on one’s shortcomings. Thoreau emphasises the importance of
awareness and an active perception of the beauty in nature, which encourages one to
appreciate and be in awe of its majesty. This mindset of conscious observation assigns moral
value and status to what one observes in the natural world. Through such a connection with
nature, one inherently knows that it is morally impermissible to kill, but perhaps permissible
to kill it if one’s survival depends on it. By training our perception to actively observe and be
in awe of nature, we gain an appreciation for its existence which informs our sense of
morality. Such a mindset allows us to make more reasoned and just decisions and enhances
our capacity as moral agents, which is synonymous with the good life for Thoreau.

Living a simple life is another important aspect of the good life for Thoreau. His philosophy
opposes the technology and consumerism of modern life, as this serves as a distraction from
actively observing nature, and therefore from being a moral agent. Thoreau emphasised the
importance of self-reliance and independence from other people. Although companionship
is necessary, Thoreau believed we shouldn’t rely on others to avoid confronting our own
deficiencies: ‘Insist on yourself; never imitate.’ This idea of self-reliance and improvement
aligns with Thoreau’s political opinions. He distrusted the ‘sheep mentality’ present in
society, and the power of the government in manipulating this to political advantage. He
believed one should rely on one’s own conceptions of morality formed through a
meaningful connection with nature, and question a government’s policies if they contradict

1
 Finn Clarke

such principles. In this way, Thoreau places the individual before the state as the determiner
of morality, and believes that following the status-quo in society and not questioning our
own beliefs undermines our responsibility as moral agents. He argues that following a
government’s immoral policies makes us implicit in that injustice, and asserts we must seek
our own moral compass informed through observing nature.

Thoreau’s beliefs regarding the role of the natural world in achieving the good life seem
appealing, due to his emphasis on critical introspection and self-reflection as a path to being
a moral agent. However, his ideas embody a faith that when fully appreciative of nature,
one will not continue harmfully exploiting it. Thoreau’s romantic conception of nature is
also reflective of his relatively privileged life. Such an interpretation of nature may be
inconsistent with that experienced in other societies, as may be the case in countries with
ongoing civil unrest or extreme poverty. Additionally, Thoreau creates a demarcation
between the beauty of nature and the environmental destruction ongoing in the world due
to intervention from human society, which is part of nature.

Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek synthesises these two realities, proposing an alternative
view of nature which includes the global catastrophes and artificial constructions of
contemporary society. He criticises Thoreau’s idealistic conception of nature, arguing that
we should acknowledge issues such as climate change to have a more honest view of
nature. He asserts that a harmonious idea of nature provides a distraction from the reality
of our contemporary world. Similarly to Thoreau, Zizek proposes active observation of the
world, but argues that this should include the horrible aspects of reality. He contends that
humans are wired to ignore horrors beyond our comprehension, so a constant awareness of
such things is necessary to honestly comprehend our world.

Zizek asserts that capitalism, as the dominant social arrangement of the world, is the biggest
issue of contemporary society, due the inherent: ‘[…]drive towards its own ever expanding
reproduction [while putting] everything, including the survival of humanity at stake…for the
sake of the reproduction of the system as an end in itself (Zizek, 2010, 335).’ Zizek contends
that capitalism is the root cause of many global issues today, including climate change. He
states that the only way to address such problems, is to oppose capitalism, and remove its
grasp from many aspects of society, including ecology. Zizek asserts that capitalism profits
from Thoreau’s romantic conception of nature, using it as branding to maintain its position
as society’s dominant economic paradigm. Consequently, Zizek opposes ‘ethical’ consumers,
as they serve to perpetuate the control of the system: ‘[ethical consumers are] fully
engaged in creating conditions for such universal devastation and pollution, [yet] buy their
way out of their own activity, living in gated communities, eating organic food, taking
holidays in wildlife preserves… (Zizek, 2009, 23).’ Zizek maintains that ethical branding
provides a distraction for society, avoiding the honest, yet brutal truth of environmental
destruction ongoing in our contemporary reality. As such, he argues for society’s view of

2
 Finn Clarke

nature to include the artificial and destructive aspects of modern life, to undermine
capitalism’s hold on the world.

Unlike Thoreau, Zizek doesn’t directly address the question of what constitutes a good life.
Yet similarly to the earlier philosopher, he emphasises the importance of awareness and an
honest perspective of reality without distractions, and holds similarly distrustful views of
society’s governing systems which he believes suppress individual and societal progress
towards the good life.

While both philosophers present starkly contrasting views of nature, I believe each is a valid
contribution to a balanced and honest appraisal of our contemporary world. Zizek’s
argument against capitalism effectively reflects the role it plays in instigating the global
catastrophes of contemporary society such as climate change. However, until a new
paradigm shift in the social and economic arrangement of the world occurs, I believe
Thoreau’s emphasis on moral agency gained through a connection with the natural world is
a convincing response to the question of how to lead a happy and fulfilled life.