In civil disobedience, Thoreau expresses anarchist ideas. He
presents a criticism of the government and well as the citizen being governed
over by showing how it doesn’t live up to the Declaration of Independence’s or
the Constitution’s understanding of freedom and how it should be should lived
out in a perfectly free society, claiming this point from the very beginning
when he excepts the statement “The government is best which governs not at all”
as his known truth. The ideas that support this are rooted in an intense trust of
society. The ideal state is one that isn’t ruled by anyone, but the people as a
collective. This is putting trust in citizens to the point where he is all but
outright saying that people are genuinely good and if given the opportunity to
govern over theirselves, they will strive and create a perfect society. Looking
back to just about every other reading, this idea directly conflicts with them,
with the possible exception of Washington Irving and Melville, who although
they had villains didn’t present every character as naturally evil, like the
puritans to Poe and Hawthorne did.
Thoreau has an odd idea that directly conflicts with other
great writers before him. Human nature certainly couldn’t have changed. It
seems his view of human nature is controlled by his hatred of government.
Meaning, Thoreau so desperately wants to experience complete freedom, that he
is willing to put faith in the decency of humanity without any hard evidence. That’s
where the major flaw in his argument lies. There is no evidence that supports
his claim that humans will be fine without government restrictions, it’s a
system that has never been implemented (apart from nomadic peoples) in the
history of civilization. Although, the ideas presented in this essay are
idealistic, it as a whole seems more like a call to arms, fueled by a despising
of the government (“if a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year
that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and
enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood”), rather than a feasible
solution. Regardless, Thoreau bases his entire claim on the decency of human
and their ability to create the ideal state.
Perfectibility is implied in Nature, through the
imperfections of society in Emerson’s essay. Society is an unarguably imperfect
place. By nature being everything society isn’t, nature creates a spiritual
connection with God in a person. Since, “the universe is
composed of Nature and the Soul.” Finding peace in nature creates peace of the
soul. “…the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or
particle of God.” With this statement Emerson found peace within his being, through
that peace finding perfection in nature. The essay focuses on the spiritual
aspects of perfection. It seems like he takes the stance that perfection is not
something that can be created (like D.L Lawrence’s ford connection) but
something that can be found, in nature though the human spirit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really like that you noted that Thoreau's ideas are anarchist in nature. "The ideal state is one that isn’t ruled by anyone, but the people as a collective." Following this line of thought, some could also argue that his thoughts are socialist in nature. This falls under the umbrella of humans being "innately" good; that if we simply did away with formal government and took EVERYONE'S point of view into consideration, all would be right with the world. I tend to agree with Mr. Koehler in saying that this is not a practical way of living.
ReplyDelete"Thoreau so desperately wants to experience complete freedom, that he is willing to put faith in the decency of humanity without any hard evidence."
While I'd never considered it your way, it seems to make more sense than my previous interpretation. I simply thought that the idea that people are good is what brought about the suggestion of freedom, not the other way around. The fact that humans and the state could reach an ideal condition was a GIVEN for Emerson and Thoreau; they never addressed what would happen if something went wrong in their societies. What about the selfish, the murderous, the psychopathic?
Your interpretation about Thoreau’s “criticism of the government” is similar to my findings and the opening sentence; “The government is best which governs not at all” summons his negative stance and controversial views about the American government. He believes that citizens need to exercise some control to fight injustice happening in the world because of government intervention. I agree with your findings about Thoreau calling for a revolution, “if a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.” Did you know that Thoreau’s vision for an ideal state is setting the tone for future Americans to adopt and become an individualistic society?
DeleteEmerson is also pursuing perfection in society through nature and uses interesting symbols of “commodity,” “beauty,” “spirit,” “idealism,” and “discipline,” to show how important nature is to our overall well-being. Great point about Emerson’s belief that, “Universe is composed of Nature and the Soul.” It appears that philosophy is looking at nature as an external entity, while Emerson is drawing our attention to the oneness of nature and soul. I liked your description about “Finding peace in nature creates peace of the soul,” it goes to show that accepting the inherent qualities found in nature does enhance the soul.