.
.
.
.
.
Hi.
Long time, no post.
And now I finally present my first blog post for the second semester in this blessed, blessed school year!
Cue the lame fireworks.
Anyway, this post is a reply to the following assignment:
How does Thoreau explain the moral need for civil disobedience? What principles does he use to justify his claims?
And here I miserably go...
********************************************************************************
According to Thoreau, a man with a conscience would resort to civil disobedience when faced by the cruel injustice of the ignorant government that is run by the majority.The morality behind this need is backed up by Thoreau's claims of the necessity of standing up to what an honest man's conscience deems wrong, stressing this point by stating that his only "obligation" is to do what seems right by his standards. He emphasizes the significance of holding onto one's beliefs however adverse the consequences of doing so might be. Moreover, he supports his claims by relating his experience of getting locked up as a result of his act of opposition against the government, to which he lost all remaining respect when he realized during that night in jail that the rather "foolish" government can actually do nothing to punish his thoughts, the real culprit of the crime of opposition. He also highlights the importance of the influence of the contributions of those with a conscience against injustice, however small their number is in comparison to that of the majority. Based on all these principles, Thoreau provides an effective essay that would urge people with real morals and consciences to act in its favor.
********************************************************************************
Now this was a tough one, especially that I don't particularly enjoy Thoreau's writing. I've already read an excerpt of his well-known Walden and had almost lost my mind when I reached the last paragraph--the one about John and Jonathan (I think). Frankly though, I wish I would be able to write at least less than half as good as this man, whose somehow mind-blowing deepness in writing had me fascinated by all the wisdom with which his words were coated, even though I did not exactly get what the point of his essay was. And that's exactly why I'd love to write less than half as good as him--so that I'd seem all deep and mysterious and stuff.
Yup, some high ambitions I got.
