QUOTE:
“The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to, - for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well, - is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed” (Thoreau 1872).
SUMMARY:
Another issue Thoreau has with government is that he never consented to those who are governing him. Even if he admits that the people in power can do a better job than him, he still doesn’t think they have the right to govern.
RESPONSE:
Since Thoreau’s point in this quote is that he never gave the “powers that be” permission to govern him, I want to say that I never gave the United States government permission to govern me! However, do I really want the responsibility the government has? I think that what Thoreau is asking for (as far as everyone governing themselves) would only lead to chaos. All I know is that I don’t trust a lot of people, so the only way I ever feel safe, is knowing that everyone else must follow the same set of rules or codes to live by that I do; if they don’t want to suffer the consequences.
Maybe in Thoreau’s time, the benefits of having a government weren’t easy to see. Anyone who is living sort of cut off from society, let’s say, living in a cabin at Walden Pond, wouldn’t feel like he or she is part of the society the government is holding together anyway. I don’t know if this is what Thoreau thought, or if he really didn’t like the government because of the unfortunate slavery situation, but I think his lifestyle definitely wasn’t helping the government look necessary to him.
It’s so silly, but it’s really easy for me to get worked up, even wanting to join a revolution against the present government from reading Thoreau. However, sometimes I feel pretty dumb and wonder if a lot of it is my brain injury. I used to be so relaxed and “chill,” but now I get so uptight and frustrated at every little thing. I know reading this type of author is good for me though, because I can take the time to really think about why these authors are writing what they write, and realize that the world is really a different place now.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Journal #19 Henry David Thoreau: That's Not My Government!
QUOTE:
“How does it become a man to behave toward this American government today? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government,” (Thoreau 1859).
SUMMARY:
Thoreau is speaking about not wanting to be associated with a government that isn’t doing anything about the problem of slavery. He says that he will not recognize “the slave’s government” as his government.
RESPONSE:
I know in class I started speaking about how this quote relates to the Iraq war today, and was shut down before I started going off on politics in our English class. I know that it really doesn’t make sense to talk about what’s going on right now, but I was responding to someone else’s comment. I’m just going to say my main point, which I should have said in class, because I didn’t have a chance to clarify what I really was trying to point out.
Someone in class was saying how people aren’t allowed to speak out against the government now (in the same way Thoreau is). I just wanted to say that if people ever speak out against the government (the Bush Administration) and the whole war situation, they are accused of not supporting the troops in Iraq. In Thoreau’s time, I don’t think that people thought of his stance on the Mexican war in the same way at all. I think the government in Thoreau’s time was still open to changes, whereas now the United States government isn’t about to change a thing.
So what can radicals get away with now? I think that now the government has so many ways of monitoring people who have been identified as extremists, radicals have to be much more inconspicuous. If someone published a book about civil disobedience this year, I think it is quite possible that they would be flagged as a potential terrorist.
“How does it become a man to behave toward this American government today? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government,” (Thoreau 1859).
SUMMARY:
Thoreau is speaking about not wanting to be associated with a government that isn’t doing anything about the problem of slavery. He says that he will not recognize “the slave’s government” as his government.
RESPONSE:
I know in class I started speaking about how this quote relates to the Iraq war today, and was shut down before I started going off on politics in our English class. I know that it really doesn’t make sense to talk about what’s going on right now, but I was responding to someone else’s comment. I’m just going to say my main point, which I should have said in class, because I didn’t have a chance to clarify what I really was trying to point out.
Someone in class was saying how people aren’t allowed to speak out against the government now (in the same way Thoreau is). I just wanted to say that if people ever speak out against the government (the Bush Administration) and the whole war situation, they are accused of not supporting the troops in Iraq. In Thoreau’s time, I don’t think that people thought of his stance on the Mexican war in the same way at all. I think the government in Thoreau’s time was still open to changes, whereas now the United States government isn’t about to change a thing.
So what can radicals get away with now? I think that now the government has so many ways of monitoring people who have been identified as extremists, radicals have to be much more inconspicuous. If someone published a book about civil disobedience this year, I think it is quite possible that they would be flagged as a potential terrorist.
Journal #18 Henry David Thoreau: Down With Taxes!
QUOTE:
“Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, - ‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have” (Thoreau 1857).
SUMMARY:
At the beginning of Resistance to Civil Government, Thoreau sums up his position on government. Unhappy with the Mexican war and slavery, Thoreau explains why civil disobedience is necessary.
RESPONSE:
I can see how different political parties and people with different statuses in the social strata love Thoreau because of this statement alone. I see at least two different ways to view it, but I’m going to discuss this quote from the viewpoint of the wealthy. I think in a capitalist society, the people who are well off don’t want to see a powerful system of government that can control what they do. I also think that the issue of taxes is one of the main ways the government has some control.
When it comes to taxes, of course the people with more money don’t want to have to pay them; and I think that may be because the attitude of the wealthy is more selfish, in a way? If richer people feel like they never use the public services their tax dollars pay for (possibly excluding police and fire fighters), maybe they think that their money isn’t really helping them personally. They may not agree with their tax dollars helping anyone who is an illegal alien either. I’m not saying that all rich people think like this, but I’m sure there are many who do.
There are, of course, philanthropists who generously circulate their money back out into the world, hoping to put it to good use. However, those are usually people who feel like they should do something with their money to help less fortunate people, instead of (in a cartoon-like description) keeping their money locked up in a huge vault with cobwebs collecting dust. These are the people who may also realize that they barely pay any taxes; who feel some sort of conscience when they see the less fortunate struggling to live a somewhat happy life. However, in Thoreau’s opinion, even the people deemed “philanthropists” are only giving partially to their cause.
“Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, - ‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have” (Thoreau 1857).
SUMMARY:
At the beginning of Resistance to Civil Government, Thoreau sums up his position on government. Unhappy with the Mexican war and slavery, Thoreau explains why civil disobedience is necessary.
RESPONSE:
I can see how different political parties and people with different statuses in the social strata love Thoreau because of this statement alone. I see at least two different ways to view it, but I’m going to discuss this quote from the viewpoint of the wealthy. I think in a capitalist society, the people who are well off don’t want to see a powerful system of government that can control what they do. I also think that the issue of taxes is one of the main ways the government has some control.
When it comes to taxes, of course the people with more money don’t want to have to pay them; and I think that may be because the attitude of the wealthy is more selfish, in a way? If richer people feel like they never use the public services their tax dollars pay for (possibly excluding police and fire fighters), maybe they think that their money isn’t really helping them personally. They may not agree with their tax dollars helping anyone who is an illegal alien either. I’m not saying that all rich people think like this, but I’m sure there are many who do.
There are, of course, philanthropists who generously circulate their money back out into the world, hoping to put it to good use. However, those are usually people who feel like they should do something with their money to help less fortunate people, instead of (in a cartoon-like description) keeping their money locked up in a huge vault with cobwebs collecting dust. These are the people who may also realize that they barely pay any taxes; who feel some sort of conscience when they see the less fortunate struggling to live a somewhat happy life. However, in Thoreau’s opinion, even the people deemed “philanthropists” are only giving partially to their cause.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Journal #17 Ralph Waldo Emerson: Breaking It Down
QUOTE:
“There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion” (Emerson 1164).
SUMMARY:
Emerson is explaining that when men start to learn more, they realize that they need to be true to themselves. This is another point to back up his reasons for being self-reliant.
RESPONSE:
When I first read this quote, the main idea I take away from it is that men (but I tend to read it as people and not just men) need to be themselves and not worry about anyone else. Emerson breaks this down into basically a three-part thesis statement, with each part equally insightful, and each part definitely persuasive. It may seem obvious to say, “be yourself,” or, “don’t just follow the crowd,” but Emerson’s words are actually much more powerful.
Emerson writes, “envy is ignorance,” and I especially think this statement is a whole “can-o-worms” in itself. Everyone may think that certain wealthy, famous, or “beautiful” people have completely happy and lucky lives, but everyone may not know about other factors that make those lives unhappy. I think Emerson means that a person who envies someone else is a person who doesn’t know the full details, or is ignorant of certain aspects. When he writes, “imitation is suicide,” I think Emerson means that people lose themselves (or “kill” who they really are) when they try to become a copy of anyone else.
The last part of Emerson’s quote then explains how a person must accept himself (I’ll add in: or herself), “as his portion,” or her portion. In other words, Emerson is saying that the person anyone will become or already is, is unavoidable. If I tried to be someone else, I would basically be “killing” the real me, or metaphorically committing suicide. Emerson seems to be saying metaphorical suicide is technically just as serious as the real thing.
“There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion” (Emerson 1164).
SUMMARY:
Emerson is explaining that when men start to learn more, they realize that they need to be true to themselves. This is another point to back up his reasons for being self-reliant.
RESPONSE:
When I first read this quote, the main idea I take away from it is that men (but I tend to read it as people and not just men) need to be themselves and not worry about anyone else. Emerson breaks this down into basically a three-part thesis statement, with each part equally insightful, and each part definitely persuasive. It may seem obvious to say, “be yourself,” or, “don’t just follow the crowd,” but Emerson’s words are actually much more powerful.
Emerson writes, “envy is ignorance,” and I especially think this statement is a whole “can-o-worms” in itself. Everyone may think that certain wealthy, famous, or “beautiful” people have completely happy and lucky lives, but everyone may not know about other factors that make those lives unhappy. I think Emerson means that a person who envies someone else is a person who doesn’t know the full details, or is ignorant of certain aspects. When he writes, “imitation is suicide,” I think Emerson means that people lose themselves (or “kill” who they really are) when they try to become a copy of anyone else.
The last part of Emerson’s quote then explains how a person must accept himself (I’ll add in: or herself), “as his portion,” or her portion. In other words, Emerson is saying that the person anyone will become or already is, is unavoidable. If I tried to be someone else, I would basically be “killing” the real me, or metaphorically committing suicide. Emerson seems to be saying metaphorical suicide is technically just as serious as the real thing.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Journal #16 Ralph Waldo Emerson: Truly Revolutionary
QUOTE:
“Act singly, and what you have already done singly, will justify you now” (Emerson 1169).
SUMMARY:
From Self-Reliance, this quote exemplifies Emerson’s main point. He believes people need to act on what they believe is right for themselves.
RESPONSE:
Someone asked me to summarize Emerson’s Self-Reliance, so I said, “Don’t be a sheep.” I definitely agree that following the crowd and doing anything just to fit in is not the best way to live, but I’m not sure if Emerson is also justifying himself for doing whatever he wants. Taking rules, laws, heaven and hell out of the picture so he can feel better about every decision he makes, seems like the beliefs of an anarchist. But in the dictionary, a synonym for an “anarchist” is a “revolutionary.”
It seems like many of the authors we have read so far have been strongly attached to the Puritan religion, struggling with religion but still Christian, or completely Christianized after believing in pagan religions. Emerson, however, becomes “so skeptical of the validity of the Lord’s Supper that he [can] no longer administer the sacrament” (1107). In Self-Reliance Emerson seems like he is explaining how religion is not needed to be “a good person,” but people use religion as the only reason to “do what is called a good action” (Emerson 1166). I think he disagrees with people doing charitable acts as an apology to God.
I sort of discussed this in another journal, referring to how I disagree with the original sin that all people have to apologize to God for, and I think my point basically coincides with what Emerson has written. If I was alive when Emerson was alive, I think I would have loved his journals and would have been a fan of his. I’m turning into a fan now as I read about him and read his work.
“Act singly, and what you have already done singly, will justify you now” (Emerson 1169).
SUMMARY:
From Self-Reliance, this quote exemplifies Emerson’s main point. He believes people need to act on what they believe is right for themselves.
RESPONSE:
Someone asked me to summarize Emerson’s Self-Reliance, so I said, “Don’t be a sheep.” I definitely agree that following the crowd and doing anything just to fit in is not the best way to live, but I’m not sure if Emerson is also justifying himself for doing whatever he wants. Taking rules, laws, heaven and hell out of the picture so he can feel better about every decision he makes, seems like the beliefs of an anarchist. But in the dictionary, a synonym for an “anarchist” is a “revolutionary.”
It seems like many of the authors we have read so far have been strongly attached to the Puritan religion, struggling with religion but still Christian, or completely Christianized after believing in pagan religions. Emerson, however, becomes “so skeptical of the validity of the Lord’s Supper that he [can] no longer administer the sacrament” (1107). In Self-Reliance Emerson seems like he is explaining how religion is not needed to be “a good person,” but people use religion as the only reason to “do what is called a good action” (Emerson 1166). I think he disagrees with people doing charitable acts as an apology to God.
I sort of discussed this in another journal, referring to how I disagree with the original sin that all people have to apologize to God for, and I think my point basically coincides with what Emerson has written. If I was alive when Emerson was alive, I think I would have loved his journals and would have been a fan of his. I’m turning into a fan now as I read about him and read his work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
